Help Me Come To Agree With The Church On Immigration

[Darren10]

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.

If someone is here illegally and remains here illegally, who is the repentant prodigal son? And since when are illegal ialiens "returning" here when, by the nature of their illegal status, were not here in the first place?

I don't think anyone here is against beingh chritable. The main issue is how do illegal immigrants get temple recommends while legal citizens probably wouldn't if they did the same things here just in different circumstances? I knew a certain family from my youth via the Scout program and the father eventually got excommunicated after being convicted of financial fraud. Financial fraud is heavily involved in illegal immigration. In short, they don't pay any income tqax and many are employed under false identification. If I created a false ID to get extra employment somewhere, would I get to keep my temple recommend?

[Darren10]

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.

Our system is a nightmare, but, frankly, your son-in-law needs to do what he has to do at this point.

Edited March 13, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

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.

As posted previously, illegal immigration involves many levels of crime. First, there is the explicit violation of a nation's sovereignty. were I to go to Canada everyday illegally to work, would I still get to keep my temple recommend? What if I got arrested for it? Still then?

Then there is the the identification issue. To get employment here one needs to prove they are here legally, no? So if you are not here legally than whatever documentation you provided was done fraudulantly. If I did that do I keep my temple recommend? What if I was smuggling in illegal aliens and sheltering them and the one providing the false IDs? Should I go to the temple?

There's also the issue of taxes. I can recall explicit condemnation by LDS leaders for those [members] who don't pay them. Why if illegal aliens don't pay much of the taxes they would by doing things legally, do I need to pay my taxes as per the Church leaders?

It sounds like you and I are alike along the realm of political thinking so I'd be curious why you support President Uchtdorf's position and as a very active church member, I'd like to know why you made the conclusion that what he said was God's revelation. Even if it were, I don't find it binding upon the rest of the Church.

Edited March 14, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

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.

Yet there's nothing unclear or unsimple about being here illegally is illegal. In fact, thats about as unimbiguous as anything can get.

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.

First off, Arizon'as law was absolutely no different than federal law. The only difference was the fact that the federal government was not doing its job and as a result some ranchers got killed in Arizona. It's a state taking the initiative ot do the job the federal government should have done. It was admirable.

Second, I agree with your condemning the two-faced crowd who benefit from illegal workers while seeking to condemn people trying to protect themselves from chaotic thuggary.

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.

Absolutely follow the Spirit but who is advocating us reporting on our illegal neighbors? I don't get it.

[Darren10]

No one in government is proposing another amnesty.

Say what???

What they are proposing is a path to citizenship. Now if we can just get the Congress off their duffs.

The Republicans are proposing a path to citizenshp which includes amnesty. (As soon as the Gang of 8's bill wouldp ***, all illegals may stay legally). The Democrats are proposing amnesty period with some promise of becoming citizens.

I favor thus far the versionM Marco Rubio has laid out. I've never cared much for McCain's ideas on immigration, and didn't even like Reagan's granting of amnesty. But I'll take Rubio's plan over any others anyday.

[Darren10]

A little while ago I was in NY...

"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”...

I celebrate the principles that this country was founded on.. it seems strange to me that many conservatives, who also claim to uphold original foundations, do not understand the melting pot that this country is...

More than any other political movement, Conservatives do preserve the melting pot concept. You've said nothing which Conservatives oppose.

[Darren10]

I support the melting pot. However, we're not melting right now, we're bifurcating. Furthermore, we want people to come through the front door via legal immigration.

Again, I have no problem with legal immigration. What's your point?

I completely agree.

[Darren10]

I cannot understand many of you guys over in the new world.

How did you get there? Did the Natives give you documents, work permits and citizenship?

In effect, you are all descended from illegal immigrants (even if the illegallity was moral) and now you want to stop others from doing what your ancestors did.

I think the scriptures call it hypocrisy.

I've been to the US. It's a very big country. There is no problem with overcrowding. I drove literally thousands of miles when I was there and it was mostly just deserts and mountains. It was absolutely wonderful. You could fit the entire population of Mexico in and hardly notice it.

Use the opportunity to teach them the gospel instead of judging them for something your own grandparents did.

Thanks for the Sunday School bashing lesson on hypocracy. The reason many British people came over here in the first place was from the intolerable conditions set forth within a small island across the pond. That included enforcing religion by the power of the state. Since that happened in the past, would you allow it to happen in the present or would you be a hypocrite for standing against it?

Native Americans did not give the British settlers documents to come to the Americas, the British government did after claiming portions of it as her own. Are you suggesting that Americans today allow people to come here without restrictions simply because they claim part of the United States as theirs?

(TO ALL: This is my last post for the night).

Edited March 14, 2013 by Darren10

[Calm]

There simply is no other country so welcoming of immigrants as that of the United States.

And yet when we were in Canada, there were many immigrants that moved up there because they were unable to move to the States....some waited there until they could move down, the economy at the time being better in the States.

The US is actually below a number of countries in net migration rates, including Canada: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_migration_rate

Edited March 13, 2013 by calmoriah

[Danzo]

What do you find so sacred about current immigration law?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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. .

Very true, we are a Nation of immigrants, and our Church a kingdom of them...world-wide.

[ERayR]

The thing for all to remember The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a church without borders.

[The Nehor]

Legal immigration is a joke at this point. Suggesting they should get on the list and hope is like suggesting to people they should put off getting a job in case they win the lottery.

The Church is also not actively encouraging people to break the law; they are advocating changing the law to be more merciful and encouraging members to show compassion. None of this is against the Constitution or the scriptures.

[Cobalt-70]

Yet there's nothing unclear or unsimple about being here illegally is illegal. In fact, thats about as unimbiguous as anything can get.

It's more complicated than you probably think. At least half of undocumented immigrants came to the U.S. without breaking any U.S. criminal laws. Maybe their parents brought them to the U.S. Maybe they didn't leave the country before their visas expired. Merely being in the United States, without permission of the State Department, is not a crime. Deportation is a civil penalty, much like the interest fees you have to pay if you file your income taxes late. Edited March 14, 2013 by Cobalt-70

[Darren10]

And yet when we were in Canada, there were many immigrants that moved up there because they were unable to move to the States....some waited there until they could move down, the economy at the time being better in the States.

The US is actually below a number of countries in net migration rates, including Canada: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_migration_rate

I still say that immigrants are more welcome in the US than any other country. The US welcomes them simply because they come. This is not from a pointed effort such as the French to get immigrants to come to fill a specific need (which the US should do more of) but they welcome immigrants simply becasuse they want ot come and live here in the US.

[Darren10]

What do you find so sacred about current immigration law?

As for me, nothing.

Edited March 14, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

The thing for all to remember The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a church without borders.

That's very true but should the Church recognize the nation's borders? Isn't recognizing their borders what lead to building of the temple in what was East Germany? Miracles happen when people obey the laws of their lands.

Edited March 14, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

Legal immigration is a joke at this point. Suggesting they should get on the list and hope is like suggesting to people they should put off getting a job in case they win the lottery.

The Church is also not actively encouraging people to break the law; they are advocating changing the law to be more merciful and encouraging members to show compassion. None of this is against the Constitution or the scriptures.

The question for me is what laws may one break and still be found worthy to attend the temple? If one can be an illegal immigrant here and be temple worthy than why should I stress as much as I do when ansering if I'm honest in my dealings with my fellow man?

[The Nehor]

What do you find so sacred about current immigration law?

I am trying to picture these same arguments being used as to why our tax laws are equally important and how the Articles of Faith support them completely and that suggesting change is in defiance of the Constitution.

Nope......not seeing it.

[Darren10]

It's more complicated than you probably think. At least half of undocumented immigrants came to the U.S. without breaking any U.S. criminal laws.

I disagree. I actually think it's *much more* than half of illegal immigrants came here legally and simply overstayed their visas. For a long time they had to promise to go to court if caught and they were not held if they made that promise. You can imagine how many didn't keep that promise. If one promised to go to court on immigration charges and does not, are they being honest? If they are still temple worthy than why should I be honest to others?

Maybe their parents brought them to the U.S. Maybe they didn't leave the country before their visas expired. Merely being in the United States, without permission of the State Department, is not a crime. Deportation is a civil penalty, much like the interest fees you have to pay if you file your income taxes late.

Nobody gets deported for filing their income taxes late. furthermore, what of all the imcome taxes they've evaded? If my local leaders found out I've evaded decades of taxes, would they give me a temple recommend?

Then this specifically:

Merely being in the United States, without permission of the State Department, is not a crime.

Huh???

Edited March 14, 2013 by Darren10

[The Nehor]

The question for me is what laws may one break and still be found worthy to attend the temple? If one can be an illegal immigrant here and be temple worthy than why should I stress as much as I do when ansering if I'm honest in my dealings with my fellow man?

Maybe read the Torah and how it tells you to treat strangers in your land? Parsed down it is that the patriarchs were wandering landless vagrants and then you went to Egypt and were treated awfully. You did not like that much did you? Do not do it to other people.

There are a lot of scriptural injunctions about honesty. You will not find many on immigration and deportation. Therein lies the difference. I am guessing most people on this board have committed some level of software piracy which is a form of stealing yet go to the temple. Surely we are not going to throw stones at people who broke even more minor laws to make money or seek a better life,

By this silly standard breaking the speed limit would disqualify one from attending the temple and our temples would be empty. I seem to recall President Monson talking about an individual making a high speed run in a sportscar to the temple to speak without condemning that person for speeding.

[Darren10]

Were breaking any country's migration laws the best way to to care for my family, I would break them in a hearbeat, and I would stand before God with a clean conscience at least on this one thing.

Anyone in that situation is more than welcome to come to the US as far as I'm concerned. How I wish there were a feasible way to decipher who these people are.

[Tacenda]

The question for me is what laws may one break and still be found worthy to attend the temple? If one can be an illegal immigrant here and be temple worthy than why should I stress as much as I do when ansering if I'm honest in my dealings with my fellow man?

I totally see where you are coming from here. They haven't been honest in all there dealings. And if illegals weren't so freely allowed to come here maybe my daughter wouldn't have met and married one. Of course he was brought over by his dad, so maybe out of his control. And the way they have to live my daughter may as well be illegal too. They have no medical insurance and his pay is low. They could have been homeless or come near it if it weren't for some help from my husband and I. She works at night but can't get medical insurance. Currently they are unable to fly anywhere. She drives because he doesn't have a drivers license. He works long hours, and sometimes not under the best conditions. This is not the life I imagined for her. Nor for anyone who meets and marries an illegal immigrant. Edited March 14, 2013 by Tacenda

[Darren10]

Maybe read the Torah and how it tells you to treat strangers in your land? Parsed down it is that the patriarchs were wandering landless vagrants and then you went to Egypt and were treated awfully. You did not like that much did you? Do not do it to other people.

Oh, gosh, I'm kicking myself big time here trying ot recall the scripture which another blogger frequently used for immigration. It spoke of treating immigrants the same as you would a native born in the city or something ot that affect. I don't even remember key words so I cannot do a scripture search with any success. My response to that blogger was in the form of a question: "should we allow immigratns to run for the US presidency". The answer is an obvious no and my point is that we naturally discriminate between citizen and immigrant and I find that healthy. I likewise find it healthy to discriminate between legal and illegal immigrants. Also, the US is already *very* humane in how they treat and are to treat illegal aliens and I support being humane though granted that I find some approaches going way overboard.

Then there's this:

And behold, it came to pass that Laban was angry, and thrust him out from his presence; and he would not that he should have the records. Wherefore, he said unto him: Behold thou art a robber, and I will slay thee.

1 Nephi 3:13

Although there is only little difference between a thief and a robber in most modern minds, there were considerable differences between the two under ancient Near Eastern law. A thief (ganab) was usually a local person who stole from his neighbor. He was dealt with judicially. He was tried and punished civilly, most often by a court composed of his fellow townspeople. A robber, on the other hand, was treated as an outsider, as a brigand or highwayman. He was dealt with militarily, and he could be executed summarily.

(bold mine)

Thieves and Robbers

Seems to me natives and "outsiders" were hardly treated on the same level. To strengthen this insight, how did both the Nephites and Lamanites attempt to deal with the surgence of the Gadianton Robbers? It was to find them and kill them. Note that the title of the evil doing band was Gadianton Robbers, not Gadianton Thieves. These band of robbers behaved like and were treated as outsiders and thus carried the death penalty for their crimes.

(bold again mine)

Recently studies have shown in detail how the ancient legal and linguistic distinctions are also observable in the Book of Mormon.² This explains how Laban could call the sons of Lehi "robbers" and threaten to execute them on the spot without a trial, for that is how a military officer like Laban no doubt would have dealt with a robber. It also explains why the Lamanites are always said to "rob" from the Nephites but never from their own brethren—that would be "theft," not "robbery." It also explains the rise and fearful menace of the Gadianton society, who are always called "robbers" in the Book of Mormon, never "thieves."

It seems that you and the before mentioned fellow blogger of mine attempt to cite scripture to as a means to justify the moral obligation to treat everyone equally, without discrimination as to where they are from. Such has never been the case in the eyes of God, so far as I can tell.

There are a lot of scriptural injunctions about honesty. You will not find many on immigration and deportation. Therein lies the difference. I am guessing most people on this board have committed some level of software piracy which is a form of stealing yet go to the temple. Surely we are not going to throw stones at people who broke even more minor laws to make money or seek a better life,

Who said anything about throwing stones? If you committed software piracy and thus do not feel worthy to go to the temple than don't go until you repent. Has the Church issued any statement regarding laxing laws for those who commit said piracy? And since when is evading taxes a "minor" offense? I can make my life "better" by illegally evading them. Should I go to the temple while doing so?

By this silly standard breaking the speed limit would disqualify one from attending the temple and our temples would be empty.

Again, has the Church, or rather, anyone in the First Presidency speaking on behalf of the Church by stating what the Church's moral position is, offered a position to lax laws on speeding? If an individual speeds and doesn't feel worthy to attend the temple, than don't go until whatever impediment is "fixed".

I seem to recall President Monson talking about an individual making a high speed run in a sportscar to the temple to speak without condemning that person for speeding.

That's quaint since I used to travel around 90 MPH down I-94 in Illinois just to make sure I got to the ward's temple session on time. (Good times!!! )

Edited March 14, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

I totally see where you are coming from here. They haven't been honest in all there dealings. And if illegals weren't so freely allowed to come here maybe my daughter wouldn't have met and married one. Of course he was brought over by his dad, so maybe out of his control. And the way they have to live my daughter may as well be illegal too. They have no medical insurance and his pay is low. They could have been homeless or come near it if it weren't for some help from my husband and I. She works at night but can't get medical insurance. Currently they are unable to fly anywhere. She drives because he doesn't have a drivers license. He works long hours, and sometimes not under the best conditions. This is not the life I imagined for her. Nor for anyone who meets and marries an illegal immigrant.

And of course one should judge your son-in-law very differently than his parents who brought him over here in the first place. I home taught a family which the lady of the house hada younger sister whose husband was deported and awaited to come back legally. He too came here very young. He missed their son's birth and all. Very sad but very happy when he finally returned.

As for medical insurance, I haven't had it for years. I simply cannot afford it. But I can guarantee that his basic medical needs can and will be taken care of at free clinics (you just need ot wait through the chaos there) and emergencies are covered as well. Things will work out for him and I give you and your husband high marks for the help you have offered them. Perhaps you may take in your daughter and have him return to his homeland. It totally sucks as i truly wish there were legal recourses to take for him to stay here while his documentation papers come through (under Marco Rubio's plan he'd do just that - just an shamless plug on my part for Rubio here) but that is an option and in the long run perhaps the beast one to take.

God bless you and yours, Tacenda.