Help Me Come To Agree With The Church On Immigration

[emarkp]

Motivated by this thread, and this FAIR post... This is an issue which has caused me a lot of personal pain in the last few years. I hope someone can help me on this (critics of the church will be ignored).

Note: In the FAIR post, I was the commenter posting as "dangerdad" (it's a tag I've used more recently, being more pronounceable than 'emarkp' -- but then I found I already had registered here with 'emarkp').

The church's response to the issue of immigration started causing me serious discomfort back in 2011 (this press release in particular). Theses passages made me see red:

Most Americans agree that the federal government of the United States should secure its borders and sharply reduce or eliminate the flow of undocumented immigrants.

...

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is concerned that any state legislation that only contains enforcement provisions is likely to fall short of the high moral standard of treating each other as children of God.

The Church supports an approach where undocumented immigrants are allowed to square themselves with the law and continue to work without this necessarily leading to citizenship.

...

The history of mass expulsion or mistreatment of individuals or families is cause for concern especially where race, culture, or religion are involved. This should give pause to any policy that contemplates targeting any one group, particularly if that group comes mostly from one heritage.

It read to me as both insulting and childlike in understanding. Especially since some of this seemed to be a reaction to Arizona's SB1070, which was about enforcing existing law.

Some of my concerns included:

1. The statements appear to contradict church doctrine, including following the law (D&C 58:21, AoF 12)
   
2. The language used is not legal, but is rather a modern politically-correct term invented on at whim of a judge and popularized. The legal term is “illegal alien”. The phrase “undocumented immigrant” is contradictory because all immigrants pass through a legal process, including appropriate documents. This neologism is the same kind of push that softened “abortion” to “choice” and more recently “reproductive choice/health”.
   
3. Illegal aliens are not allowed to work in the United States. Thus, in order to have an income they must be violating tax law and likely committing identity fraud. Furthermore, any alien who re-enters the country after being ejected is committing a felony.
   
4. The bit about mass expulsion seemed to be a total disconnect from reality -- no one is proposing it except the occasional random voice on the street. Additionally, the church posted the statement in Spanish. So I guess we know they're not aiming it the many illegal aliens from Asia, Africa, etc.?
   

I presented my Bishop with my concerns and asked a few questions including:

1. Is it in fact church policy that local leaders are not to report illegal aliens to immigration authorities?
   
2. If this indeed is church policy, how can I teach my children D&C 58:21 and AoF 12?
   
3. What other crimes (including felonies) may I commit and still receive a temple recommend?
   

Then I found out from my EQ president that when he was on his mission in TX (about 10 years ago) he recalled that temple recommends were denied to illegal aliens. I guess that policy changed shortly after that, since "The First Presidency has for many years taught that undocumented status should not by itself prevent an otherwise worthy Church member from entering the temple or being ordained to the priesthood."

I never got any reply of consequence. My Bishop confirmed the policy but didn't have any answers to my other questions.

I have never seen anyone seriously address the legal and logical concerns I and others of the "enforce the existing laws" mindset have presented. I've seen continued comments (like the recent ones by Pres. Uchtdorf) about being merciful -- but we put convicted criminals in jail (which separates them from their families) and we deport illegal aliens.

In the FAIR post I again felt that Lance Starr (who apparently doesn't agree with me on this issue) wasn't being honest. He dismissed tax and identity fraud by saying:

most immigrants who use forged documents use their own name and simply invent a number at random to be their social security number. A much lower number actually steal the numbers and identities of others, however it is an issue

When I confronted him with the point that the I-9 form requires a physical card, he admitted

With regards to your question about SSNs, I mean they literally make up a 9 digit number when the buy the fake SS card. Unless a company is using E-verify, they won’t know that the number is not legitimate. Since most forgeries these days are pretty good quality, you average HR employee doesn’t recognize it as a fake.

Which means they're not just making up an SSN number to give to an employer. They make up a number and then get a forgery to show the employer.

I repeatedly see advocates soften the reality of the law breaking (and crime, and harm) that takes place with illegal immigration and belittle the concerns of people on my side of the issue. This doesn't convince me they're right, it just shows them to be intellectual frauds to me.

I see the continued effort for amnesty as the new slave trade in the United States. It is an intentional effort to import an underclass for purposes of exploitation. The church seems to excuse that and encourage illegal behavior. Pushing amnesty instead of the rule of law legitimizes the entire slave trade IMO.

But it seems I'm on the losing side of this issue, especially given Pres. Uchtdorf's comments.

I had a recent deeply spiritual experience which took away much of the pain I've felt about this whole thing. It's allowed me to have some measure of joy again at church for the first time in months. President Uchtdorf's interview was like a kick to the stomach.

So how do I resolve this? How can I change my view to be more in line with where the church is going? I've reached out to my local leaders and gotten nothing.

[Freedom]

This is not a doctrinal matter. The church is not suggesting we break the law but rather that the government work to be more reasonable in its approach. Immigration is not related to mormonism and Uchtdorfs comments were to lend support to the current policies of federal government. I don't understand your concerns. .

[BlueDreams]

1. The statements appear to contradict church doctrine, including following the law (D&C 58:21, AoF 12)

......

I have never seen anyone seriously address the legal and logical concerns I and others of the "enforce the existing laws" mindset have presented. I've seen continued comments (like the recent ones by Pres. Uchtdorf) about being merciful -- but we put convicted criminals in jail (which separates them from their families) and we deport illegal alien

........

This is solely my opinion that I'm trying to put together at an hour I'm usually not awake....so forgive me if it's not that lucid, let alone comprehensive

First off I feel the explanation can come to this scriptural clause:

22 But the afruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

For a unrelated example, on my mission I worked to be very very obedient. We had an investigator about to be baptized who took a real spiritual nosedive. We did not hesitate in breaking a rule because we knew what needed to be done by the spirit and we followed it. Some rules are far higher than a current policy. The things of the spirit are always greater.

Now for a more political example. The civil rights movement entailed a ton of law breaking. Every time someone sat in a white-only restaurant, they were breaking not only social moors but the laws in those regions. The law of the land can be wrong. U.S. law has often rubbed against the truth and laws of God. For civil rights there were greater sins than the immediate breaking of the law occurring. Human dignity, the understanding of brother and sister, and the truth of equity in worth were being grossly violated.

Now I'm not saying that immigration policies are all wrong and awful and the U.S. shouldn't have any regulation on who enters the country. But it should do so in regards to the higher values of human decency and life. Knowing and hearing personal stories of various avenues of immigration and the struggles they bring....well it begins to lend an ear of compassion, which overwhelms just about every other concern. These people are not fairly comparable to criminals. My family lives in TX: undocumented workers built my house, my neighborhood, and probably most of the town I spent my HS years in. Criminals generally degrade the value of an area; not raise it. We use them all the time and yet paint them as a drain. Most work to care for their families; most are just average people; many are exceptional and bolster communities. Their lives do not parallel the lives of those that commit crimes.

I see the continued effort for amnesty as the new slave trade in the United States. It is an intentional effort to import an underclass for purposes of exploitation. The church seems to excuse that and encourage illegal behavior. Pushing amnesty instead of the rule of law legitimizes the entire slave trade IMO.

Or it's a means to care for those already here who are trapped between a rock and a hard place.

So how do I resolve this? How can I change my view to be more in line with where the church is going? I've reached out to my local leaders and gotten nothing.

Get to better know the people it'll directly effects. Pray for understanding of your own to see and appreciate another perspective. Your opinion may not change but it may soften your heart so that things do not rub you so wrong.

With luv,

BD

[Rivers]

The church hasn't always followed the 12th article of faith. Remember the whole polygamy thing?

What I find interesting is that the church takes a more liberal positoin on the immigration issue even though most American Latter-day Saints likely have more conservative views about immigration.

Its the same with the issue of abortion. The church takes a relatively liberal position on that one as well.

[jwhitlock]

Now I'm not saying that immigration policies are all wrong and awful and the U.S. shouldn't have any regulation on who enters the country. But it should do so in regards to the higher values of human decency and life. Knowing and hearing personal stories of various avenues of immigration and the struggles they bring....well it begins to lend an ear of compassion, which overwhelms just about every other concern. These people are not fairly comparable to criminals. My family lives in TX: undocumented workers built my house, my neighborhood, and probably most of the town I spent my HS years in. Criminals generally degrade the value of an area; not raise it. We use them all the time and yet paint them as a drain. Most work to care for their families; most are just average people; many are exceptional and bolster communities. Their lives do not parallel the lives of those that commit crimes.

Very well said.

[rpn]

The church is faced with a number of really hard facts. Families who are otherwise law abiding members with jobs, and none the less illegal in the US. They reside and have callings in most wards (though not in scouting because they don't have SSN's and can't pass background checks). Their kids grow up and submit papers to go on missions. And when something happens to one of them that becomes public, the church gets a black eye.

Unrelated to membership, there is this moral issue of americans eating food that is largely picked by people who are illegal, and whose houses are cleaned and babies taken care of by people who are illegal. And the economic issue that the reasons illegals are doing them is that legals don't have the stomach to work in the slaughterhouses and do the itinerant harvesting thing; or that people paying for service are too greedy to pay living wages for the service work. And the humanity issue of punishing children whose parents brought them here without the child's consent, and who knows no country but the US as their country.

(I'm not sure what the Land of Promise teaching has to do with this. I do know that for some years, the doctrine of gathering has not been to the US, but to the stakes of zion wherever they are in the world.)

My greatest concern is to stop a new flood of immigrants who believe because amnesty has been given twice, the most important thing is to come here illegally still. For that reason, I favor a prohibition on anyone who came to the US illegally having any citizen right to sponsor anyone else for citizenship, if they get citizenship themselves. That should take care of much of the incentive to set down roots in the US.

But I do favor a guest worker capability that allows migrant farm workers to come freely to the US for the harvests.

So how is the church to deal with this?

[Duncan]

I recall baptizing an illegal immigrant and the Bishop didn't care, I didn't care and can't speak to US immigration laws. I know that in LA and I presume other areas in California as well members would buy day labourers, every day as part of ther businesses-I don't know if that is illegal or unethical or what but it most certaintly happened

[teddyaware]

This is not a doctrinal matter. The church is not suggesting we break the law but rather that the government work to be more reasonable in its approach. Immigration is not related to mormonism and Uchtdorfs comments were to lend support to the current policies of federal government. I don't understand your concerns. .

After all the painful, specific, heartfelt points of concern emarkp pointed to in his opening post, you don't understand his concerns? LOL!!!! Very, very funny! Thanks to you, my day has started off with a good chuckle. You've taken the word "dismissive" to 'new heights' of glory!

Edited March 9, 2013 by teddyaware

[ERayR]

The simple fact is the Churches concern is preaching the gospel to all God's children. The Church is not nor should it be an enforcement agency for the immigration policy of the US or any other country.

As for D&C 58:21, AoF 12 there are times when saving souls is going to be at odds with the laws of governments. Were the church to become a law enforcement arm of governments every one of us would have to turn in our temple recommend when we drove in excess of the speed limit or ran a stop light/sign. It seems that we can become quite incensed about some transgressions but very forgiving of our personal favorites. Something about beams and motes comes to mind.

This topic has had extensive discussion on this board, the last time about a year ago, I think.

[ERayR]

After all the painful, specific, heartfelt points of concern emarkp pointed to in his opening post, you don't understand his concerns? LOL!!!! Very, very funny! Thanks to you, my day has started off with a good chuckle. You've taken the word "dismissive" to 'new heights' of glory!

Freedom will have to speak for himself but perhaps he is not being dismissive bur really doesn't see a problem. Isn't there something about separation of church and stat? Often those who make the biggest fuss about this turn around and complain the most when the church is not used as an immigration enforcement agency.

[halconero]

I'll be honest...I see the Americas as belonging to the Lehites and any who are descended from (or adopted into) father Lehi anyways.

If I was in Central America at this time I'd be thinking of leaving too...and my hope would be that I would be treated like the Nephites treated the Ammonites when they had to leave due to the threat of death from the Lamanites.

[pmccombs1]

If this indeed is church policy, how can I teach my children D&C 58:21 and AoF 12?

What other crimes (including felonies) may I commit and still receive a temple recommend?

This sort of thing reminds me of that story in the New Testament where the prodigal son comes home after squandering his inheritance and breaking the commandments. His father receives him with open arms and throws him a banquet. On that occasion, it sounds like the "good" son probably went to his bishop too (in a manner of speaking) and asked him what the point of teaching commandments is. He started to resent his brother for having taken the easy road--and having been apparently blessed for it.

Look, charity isn't justice. When we get what we deserve, that's justice. When we get more or better than we are entitled to, that's charity. When we understand that, we can become Christians, because charity is our highest ideal. We are meant to render to our brother more than he could rightfully expect from us. If he steals our coat, we are to give him our cloak also. If he asks a mile, we are to give him two.

On my judgment day, God isn't going to pile my good and bad deeds onto some scale and see where the balance lies. Nobody is keeping score. God will look into my heart and ask, what sort of fellow is that guy after all this time? Why did he keep the commandments, if he did? Or why did he break them? The point of teaching commandments and obedience is because those things are just and true. And they resonate with the Just and the True, who live them in spite of any future potential for personal gain or reward. Those who obey for the sake of some heavenly treasure shall have it. Those who are good for the sake of goodness--God will treasure them.

So, have some charity for the lawbreakers if you can manage it. I think the Church is trying to do so.

Edited March 9, 2013 by pmccombs1

[Tacenda]

I don't know if this will help change your mind, but here goes. My daughter met her husband 10 yrs. ago who was an illegal immigrant, she was a senior in high school. They have two children now and are happily married. He came over with his brother, sister and father when he was barely 18. Therefore he missed the age that he'd be able to get a visa. We are trying to help him get legal. We started to several years ago, but backed off when it appeared that he might end up staying in Mexico for several years in order to get a visa, we got cold feet. We are trying to again this past year. I wouldn't wish this on anyone. He hasn't been with his mom since he was 18 and it's heartbreaking. His dad went back but they aren't together anymore. I wish it was like it use to be where they would come to our country and work, if it's what they want, and go back. I think they'd all like to do that. Of course that situation wouldn't help my daughter. So you see how this was a bright light in my day yesterday, gave us hope. Of course who's to say my daughter would have met the love of her life who's illegal if we would have had better restraints from them crossing the border. It's happening all the time. For a long time I'd have nightmares that he would go back there and take my daughter and now two of my grandchildren. He didn't come from a good area, so scary.

[Deborah]

My work brings me into contact with a lot of Mexicans, most here legally, but not all. These people work 10 hour days in the dank, dark mushroom houses of Pennsylvania. I doubt many high school graduates would do this type of work, which is why they have to import workers.

I have said for a long time they need to make it easier and faster for people who want to work to get here legally. Once here they need to streamline getting Visa renewals and begin the process of citizenship for those who want it. Many don't. They in fact send their money back to Mexico for their families. For those families here, especially those with children who have grown up here they do need compassion in dealing with them, but at the same time require penalties for the parents who disobeyed the laws. I guess in other words I support the church's stand on immigration reform.

My grandmother on my dad's side came here when she was a child. Her family of course came through Ellis Island. It's easy when you have boats bringing immigrants to isolate and review them. It's much harder when you have an entire border to contend with. But we might not have so many illegal crossings if one could go quickly through a checkpoint and get a Visa after a careful interview to see what their intentions were, where they intended going etc. I hope they fix the problem soon. I feel sorry for many of these families currently here and having to live in fear everyday, but I too am angered by the abuse of many who cross illegally only to commit crimes. The latter should be deported immediately when caught and not take up space in our jails, or worse yet let go.

[teddyaware]

Freedom will have to speak for himself but perhaps he is not being dismissive bur really doesn't see a problem. Isn't there something about separation of church and stat? Often those who make the biggest fuss about this turn around and complain the most when the church is not used as an immigration enforcement agency.

I really did have a good laugh over Freedom's response to emarkp. But only because after pouring out his heart in a very well-reasoned and cogent presentation of his concerns, hoping someone here might be able to help set his tormented mind at rest, emarkp gets a response from someone who seems to treat his valid concerns as if we were only having a debate over something as frivolous as which hamburger chain produces the best french fries. The laugh came when I imagined the exasperated expression on poor emarkp's face when he first read what Freedom had to say. Please understand I was once an aspiring comedy writer, and so I often see humor in situations where others would fail to do so. With this in mind, please forgive me if I seem somewhat cavalier at times.

On a more serious note, what concerns me most about this issue are the unintended consequenses that may come as a result of the church seeming to ignore our own Articles of Faith on being honest, true and obeying the laws of the Constitutional laws of this land (the US).

12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

13 We believe in being honest, true... (Articles of Faith)

My fear is one of falling dominoes. For once the people of the Lord set out on a road that allows them to pick and choose what Constitutional laws of the land they are willing to follow and uphold -- especially if the laws being ignored and broken have a very good grounding in honesty, common sense, reason, righteousness and national survival -- what will be the end result thereof? There is a possibility that once the precident is established, lawlessness may even begin to infect the church; and it doesn't seem reasonable, at least to me, that this would likely end up being a good thing. A better path of wisdom would seem to be to encourage those born in other lands to remain or return there, even if the path is hard, in order to be the leaven of the Lord's righteousness throughout the world and to establish Zion.

Nevertheless, In spite of all I've said thus far, I'm submissive enough to the Lord and his servants to be willing to admit I don't know it all, and that the Lord may have a very good reason to have the Church leaders take the path they're taking on the issue of illegal immigration. To this point, whenever I hear illegal immigration discussed, the following scripture always makes me wonder...

6 Wherefore, I, Lehi, prophesy according to the workings of the Spirit which is in me, that there shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord. (2 Nephi 1)

You are out of the thread for insults and preaching.

[Deborah]

12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

13 We believe in being honest, true... (Articles of Faith)

Some laws are rather difficult to obey when the people in charge of upholding the law don't take them seriously, immigration being a case in point. Look how erratically it is enforced or ignored altogether.

Being honest and true to what? I suppose if I was a parent living in a country where I couldn't support my family, the honest and true thing would be to go where I could honestly work to take care of them.

[emarkp]

My daughter met her husband 10 yrs. ago who was an illegal immigrant, she was a senior in high school. They have two children now and are happily married. He came over with his brother, sister and father when he was barely 18.

I understand why this is painful now. What do you say to the couple who were dating and decided not to marry because one couldn't immigrate legally? They are not married now and don't have those children because they decided to obey the law.

Two of my wife's brothers married recent immigrants, and the process has been a nightmare, but they did it legally. They've gone through a lot of hoops, paid a good amount of money, and burned a lot of time dealing with the paperwork. I have a colleague whose wife is from Mexico -- same deal. My best friend at my first job out of college and his wife were both software engineers from Macedonia who poured out money and time to go through the process. Imagine how stupid they all feel for doing things legally.

When I was a missionary in Chile, divorce wasn't legal. Cohabitation was common, but we couldn't baptize a couple living together if they weren't married. The only option at the time was to get an 'annulment' (basically paying a lawyer to bribe people and assert that the original marriage wasn't valid, to get it scrubbed) and then marry the person they wanted to be married to. Some people could do that, some couldn't. Was it wrong for the church to insist people follow the law in that case?

Edited March 9, 2013 by emarkp

[pogi]

Motivated by this thread, and this FAIR post... This is an issue which has caused me a lot of personal pain in the last few years. I hope someone can help me on this (critics of the church will be ignored).

Note: In the FAIR post, I was the commenter posting as "dangerdad" (it's a tag I've used more recently, being more pronounceable than 'emarkp' -- but then I found I already had registered here with 'emarkp').

The church's response to the issue of immigration started causing me serious discomfort back in 2011 (this press release in particular). Theses passages made me see red:

It read to me as both insulting and childlike in understanding. Especially since some of this seemed to be a reaction to Arizona's SB1070, which was about enforcing existing law.

Some of my concerns included:

1. The statements appear to contradict church doctrine, including following the law (D&C 58:21, AoF 12)
   
2. The language used is not legal, but is rather a modern politically-correct term invented on at whim of a judge and popularized. The legal term is “illegal alien”. The phrase “undocumented immigrant” is contradictory because all immigrants pass through a legal process, including appropriate documents. This neologism is the same kind of push that softened “abortion” to “choice” and more recently “reproductive choice/health”.
   
3. Illegal aliens are not allowed to work in the United States. Thus, in order to have an income they must be violating tax law and likely committing identity fraud. Furthermore, any alien who re-enters the country after being ejected is committing a felony.
   
4. The bit about mass expulsion seemed to be a total disconnect from reality -- no one is proposing it except the occasional random voice on the street. Additionally, the church posted the statement in Spanish. So I guess we know they're not aiming it the many illegal aliens from Asia, Africa, etc.?
   

I presented my Bishop with my concerns and asked a few questions including:

1. Is it in fact church policy that local leaders are not to report illegal aliens to immigration authorities?
   
2. If this indeed is church policy, how can I teach my children D&C 58:21 and AoF 12?
   
3. What other crimes (including felonies) may I commit and still receive a temple recommend?
   

Then I found out from my EQ president that when he was on his mission in TX (about 10 years ago) he recalled that temple recommends were denied to illegal aliens. I guess that policy changed shortly after that, since "The First Presidency has for many years taught that undocumented status should not by itself prevent an otherwise worthy Church member from entering the temple or being ordained to the priesthood."

I never got any reply of consequence. My Bishop confirmed the policy but didn't have any answers to my other questions.

I have never seen anyone seriously address the legal and logical concerns I and others of the "enforce the existing laws" mindset have presented. I've seen continued comments (like the recent ones by Pres. Uchtdorf) about being merciful -- but we put convicted criminals in jail (which separates them from their families) and we deport illegal aliens.

In the FAIR post I again felt that Lance Starr (who apparently doesn't agree with me on this issue) wasn't being honest. He dismissed tax and identity fraud by saying:

When I confronted him with the point that the I-9 form requires a physical card, he admitted

Which means they're not just making up an SSN number to give to an employer. They make up a number and then get a forgery to show the employer.

I repeatedly see advocates soften the reality of the law breaking (and crime, and harm) that takes place with illegal immigration and belittle the concerns of people on my side of the issue. This doesn't convince me they're right, it just shows them to be intellectual frauds to me.

I see the continued effort for amnesty as the new slave trade in the United States. It is an intentional effort to import an underclass for purposes of exploitation. The church seems to excuse that and encourage illegal behavior. Pushing amnesty instead of the rule of law legitimizes the entire slave trade IMO.

But it seems I'm on the losing side of this issue, especially given Pres. Uchtdorf's comments.

I had a recent deeply spiritual experience which took away much of the pain I've felt about this whole thing. It's allowed me to have some measure of joy again at church for the first time in months. President Uchtdorf's interview was like a kick to the stomach.

So how do I resolve this? How can I change my view to be more in line with where the church is going? I've reached out to my local leaders and gotten nothing.

The whole immigration issue is a very sensitive issue with no answer that will sit well with everybody. I do not see the Church's quote as being insulting and childlike in understanding. In fact it falls right in line with what many in the Republican party are pushing for at this time, including Marco Rubio and John McCain, to provide a path to legal residence without citizenship. The fact is that there are going to be some changes to the laws regarding illegal residents, the church is simply voicing their concerns before those laws are established. It looks like the church is going to get their way too. After the results of the last election, you are going to see the republicans softening their stance toward hispanic issues.

Amnesty as a the "new slave trade in the United States"? This sounds more like a poor attempt at taking the moral high ground than a serious concern about illegals being exploited. Instead of telling illegal residents what is best for them, why don't you ask them what is best for them, if you are truly concerned about their well being and fair treatment? Do you really think that they would be better off being booted back to Mexico or whatever impoverished, corrupt, and drug Lord infested nation they came from to be exploited there? If you are really concerned about exploitation, legalize them! I have heard many good arguments against amnesty, this is simply not one of them.

The fact is that they are not being exploited near as much as they used to be, and they only continue to be exploited because they are not yet legal. Even when they are being exploited, their living conditions are far greater here then where they came from. They know what they are worth now and employers are willing to pay for their skills and work ethic. I worked construction for many years and know that illegals are paid the same if not more than their white counterparts. They worked harder, faster, and more hours then their white counterparts and made far more money on piece rate than I did because of it.

I don't know if there is a right answer to the issue, but I certainly understand where the church is coming from. They are coming from the perspective of their brothers and sisters looking for a shot in life.

Edited March 9, 2013 by pogi

[William Schryver]

I have given this issue a lot of thought over the years, and despite the fact that I am a political conservative (with libertarian leanings), I am very much in accord with the policy expressed by President Uchtdorf, and I very much believe that the policy is prompted by revelation.

That said, in order to address your concerns, I need to better understand them. Primarily, I need to understand your fundamental concerns with immigration.

Also, you will have to understand that my time will be very limited today, so I may not be able to post very much today, but will attempt to pick up the discussion at the beginning of the week.

I will say this: I believe the future of the Church, and the vitality of the United States economy, is dependent on fostering an environment wherein this country opens its borders to immigration in the same fashion it did at the turn of the 19th/20th centuries, and that the "native" membership of the Church returns to the levels of fecundity it displayed during the middle of the 20th century.

Edited March 9, 2013 by William Schryver

[Tacenda]

Not too long ago a Stake President was deported here in Utah. I could probably find the story and post when at my computer.

So how come he would be and not these other millions? I think it's whenever someone attempts to get legal or is in the limelight or is a danger to the community. This Stake President was a good person, didn't break any laws, well one, has a family here. Probably the reason for alot of nervous illegals.

My son in law has never used the system (welfare, free medical care etc.) but I'm sure many have, how they are able to is beyond me, probably cause the USA has alot of heart.

We have a great lawyer now who is a graduate from BYU. Never thought this could happen to us but it's probably an epidemic. Would be nice if it were a perfect world where no one would be barred from being with family.

Edited March 9, 2013 by Tacenda

[Bikeemikey]

I understand why this is painful now. What do you say to the couple who were dating and decided not to marry because one couldn't immigrate legally? They are not married now and don't have those children because they decided to obey the law.

Two of my wife's brothers married recent immigrants, and the process has been a nightmare, but they did it legally. They've gone through a lot of hoops, paid a good amount of money, and burned a lot of time dealing with the paperwork. I have a colleague whose wife is from Mexico -- same deal. My best friend at my first job out of college and his wife were both software engineers from Macedonia who poured out money and time to go through the process. Imagine how stupid they all feel for doing things legally.

When I was a missionary in Chile, divorce wasn't legal. Cohabitation was common, but we couldn't baptize a couple living together if they weren't married. The only option at the time was to get an 'annulment' (basically paying a lawyer to bribe people and assert that the original marriage wasn't valid, to get it scrubbed) and then marry the person they wanted to be married to. Some people could do that, some couldn't. Was it wrong for the church to insist people follow the law in that case?

There is no religious parallel between cohabitation and being in a country illegally... Even if you are cohabiting because you can't legally wed due to there being no legal opportunity to divorce a pervious spouse. There are however many civil and legal similarities.

Cohabitation is a violation of gods moral law. Being some where that a govt does not want you to me is not.

Edited March 9, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[emarkp]

Cohabitation is a violation of gods moral law. Being some where that a govt does not want you to me is not.

The only reason they weren't legally married is because the laws didn't allow it. Seems pretty similar to me.

[teddyaware]

Some laws are rather difficult to obey when the people in charge of upholding the law don't take them seriously, immigration being a case in point. Look how erratically it is enforced or ignored altogether.

Being honest and true to what? I suppose if I was a parent living in a country where I couldn't support my family, the honest and true thing would be to go where I could honestly work to take care of them.

Honest and true to the law that says it's illegal to enter the United States without obeying the laws of immigration. Obeying the law the same way my paternal grandfather did when he came here after leaving Minsk and landing on Ellis Island on May 30, 1914. His right of immigration was properly processed there and he entered this country legally. Some years later, he officially became a citizen.

[jwhitlock]

The purpose of law in a society is to foster order so that society can flourish. When laws become punitive, inconsistent, are blatantly supportive of narrow special interests, too complex to understand, and the regulatory power of bureaucracies becomes oppressive, then obedience to law in society starts to break down. Because of this, I see many Americans viewing our legal system as something to be avoided or ignored where possible; people tend to work around oppressive and inconsistently enforced laws and regulations by ignoring them if they think they can get away with it. We Americans commit millions of small, illegal acts every day in many ways; they are expressions of dissatisfaction and civil disobedience as it pertains to our legal system. This is indicative of a deeper problem in our society, one that has been fostered by the steady deterioration in the value systems of those who are in charge and who have power to make such laws and regulations.

Immigration is an example of how messed up our legal system has become. The issue has become heavily politicized for a long list of reasons; border states who have to bear the cost and the brunt of illegal immigration have different perspectives than other states that only benefit from the unskilled labor those immigrants supply. I don't see any proposals that address these different perspectives, for instance, and I don't think it's going to get better anytime soon. I was troubled by Arizona's hard-core laws concerning immigration that were passed out of frustration with the situation (a bad reason to pass a law). I was also nauseated by the reaction of northern liberals to Arizona laws, who self-righteously condemned them, while exploiting the work of illegal immigrants as underpaid gardeners and nannys in support of their McMansion lifestyles.

Given all that, in the past it was far easier for the church to take a more black and white approach to honoring and obeying the law. In our day, it's not particularly clear cut as to what that really means. I am very interested in how the church is addressing illegal immigration because it can give valuable guidance as to how we, as members, should adjust some of our formerly strict perspectives concerning secular obedience. It will be up to each individual to find the balance that fits for him or her, guided by the whisperings of the Spirit. I think that one of the most conflicting things a person can do is to take a strict approach to legal obedience; doing so will increasingly cause an individual to move away from Christian principles, especially as we move progressively towards a legal system that demands that we report our neighbors for suspicious or "illegal" activity.

[emarkp]

That said, in order to address your concerns, I need to better understand them. Primarily, I need to understand your fundamental concerns with immigration.

I have no problems with immigration. Legal immigration should be made easier and even though the US has over 1 million legal immigrants per year, I'd love to see it larger. Illegality, that I have a problem with. Violation of the law, followed by the church pooh-poohing the violation is something I have a problem with.

I will say this: I believe the future of the Church, and the vitality of the United States economy, is dependent on fostering an environment wherein this country opens its borders to immigration in the same fashion it did at the turn of the 19th/20th centuries, and that the "native" membership of the Church returns to the levels of fecundity it displayed during the middle of the 20th century.

I see the muddling of legal and illegal crossing to be part of the dishonesty of the amnesty side of the immigration debate. Legal immigration is essential and laudable, and I gave examples of several people in my own family and environs who are assets to the US and who are legally here.