Help Me Come To Agree With The Church On Immigration

[Calm]

I still say that immigrants are more welcome in the US than any other country. The US welcomes them simply because they come.

They just make it more difficult to come.

[Hamba Tuhan]

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.

Are these the verses (from Matthew 25) that you're trying to remember?

33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

The word here translated as 'stranger' is ξένος (xenos), the literal meaning of which is stranger, foreigner, alien, outsider.

It would appear that one of the things which a person who desires to be on the right hand of the Saviour must do is to 'take in' aliens/outsiders, including those deemed 'the least of these'.

Edited March 14, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

Sincere question for those on the Right whose political persuasions cause them to struggle with the Church's very clear statements on immigration: What would be your advice to those on the Left whose political persuasions cause them to struggle with the Church's very clear statements on 'gay marriage'?

[rodheadlee]

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.

They would be the ones that are working real hard doing the jobs nobody else wants to do. Do you think they come over here for other reasons? Like what?

[The Nehor]

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:

1 Nephi 3:13

(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)

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.

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?

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".

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!!! )

No, in fact some citizens cannot become President. Not sure why that is relevant. Unless you are one of those convinced a Kenyan Commie Socialist Secret Muslim is running the nation.

Why are you comparing immigrants to Gadianton robbers? Plus they specifically did not run into the mountains to kill them off. They hunkered down and fought defensively. When they won they imprisoned the Robbers and then taught the gospel to them. If they accepted it they were released. If it were politically possible I would suggest the same course at Guantanamo.

I find it telling that you want to leave the breaking of anti-piracy and speeding laws to the conscience of the individual but immigration laws are different and forbid one from attending the temple. Why the difference?

[Cobalt-70]

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?

I don't know what you are talking about. At least in the modern era, immigrants don't go to "court." They go to a deportation hearing, which is an administrative proceeding and not a criminal court.

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?

Tax evasion is a crime, so that's not an apt comparison. Being an undocumented immigrant is like being late on your taxes, or refusing to buy health insurance after 2014 under Obamacare. None of these are crimes, but they subject you to civil penalties. Do you think that a bishop would deny a temple recommend to any Mormon who does not get health insurance under Obamacare?

[Darren10]

Are these the verses (from Matthew 25) that you're trying to remember?

The word here translated as 'stranger' is ξένος (xenos), the literal meaning of which is stranger, foreigner, alien, outsider.

It would appear that one of the things which a person who desires to be on the right hand of the Saviour must do is to 'take in' aliens/outsiders, including those deemed 'the least of these'.

No. It's an Old Testament verse but thanks.

As for your implementation of that scripture in actual life, I could not agree more to treat all like brothers and sisters. Charity, as far as Incan tell, is not the issue here. It's how far one can go in breaking the laws of the land and still remain temple worthy. Would you obligate yourself to "take in" tax cheats in you place of business? How about "taking in" families who have a history of not paying their rent and offer the, a rental house you own? Are you suggesting that my salvation is in part dependent upon my accepting anyone who arrives in this country that the person should stay and be provided for? Is my salvation in jeopardy because I insist on I.legal aliens not stay? (Which. By the way, I do favor amnesty under certain conditions). It seems to me if I were to not accept people, "strangers" just because they are strangers, that such bigotry would place me at odds with the Savior but I'm all for providing necessities of "strangers" before deporting them. This includes food, clothes, basic shelter, etc. but how is insisting that they leave harmful to my salvation?

[Darren10]

Sincere question for those on the Right whose political persuasions cause them to struggle with the Church's very clear statements on immigration: What would be your advice to those on the Left whose political persuasions cause them to struggle with the Church's very clear statements on 'gay marriage'?

My advice is that the church's position on gay marriage is clear and so is their position that each individual should be free to vote their conscience. That includes avoiding preaching, lecturing, or suggesting that how they vote is going to condemn the, at the last day (ahem). I certainly don't speak in such terms with those on the Left in the Church.

[Darren10]

No, in fact some citizens cannot become President. Not sure why that is relevant. Unless you are one of those convinced a Kenyan Commie Socialist Secret Muslim is running the nation.

It's relevant so far as the scripture I have in mind which, for the life of me, still cannot remember. It's also relevant to the affect that you seemed to use scripture to obligate me on some sort of moral ground (which is exactly what the blogger I have in mind used to do) into accepting that people here, regardless of legal status, should stay. (Like in previous posts, I support amnesty, I don't understand why that seems to get lost in the woods but it's fun to watch the progress of those challenging me to seem to fail to include in their posts understand).

Why are you comparing immigrants to Gadianton robbers?

Who;'s comparing immigrants ot the Gadianton Robbers? I used them as an example of how God has not obligated His people, even His covenant people, to blanketly accept all people who live in their lands and to treat them equally. it was clear from "Thieves and Robbers" that ancient Israel did NOT treat natives nad foreigners eaqually under their legal system. Condemnation was much more severe upon "strangers" ("foreigners") who committed crimes intheir lands than were natives. Likewise, the Gadiantion Robbers, hid in the mountains and from their came down and committed crimes. They were foreigners, despite their original nativity being that of Nephite or Lamanite, and thus their punishment was much more severe than those who "thieved" in the land but were natives. The fact that the Book of mormon called the band of Gadiantion "robbers' and not "thieves" testifies to Jospeh Smith's account that he hasd original records of an ancient people and did not make up the story of the Book of Mormon. My comparison had much more to do with legal system than with saying that immigrants are Gadianton Robbers. The comparison I made was to rebute your assertion that scripturally we need to treat all "stangers" / 'foreigners" equally. I say there is not such scriptural obligation.

Plus they specifically did not run into the mountains to kill them off. They hunkered down and fought defensively.

I'm reading Helman now in my daily scrpture reading and it is at the part where the Nephites and Lamanites sought out the Gadianton Robbers in the mountains to kill them.

Here's the part I read just a couple of nights ago (bold mine):

28 And it came to pass that it was expedient that there should be a stop put to this work of destruction; therefore they sent an army of strong men into the wilderness and upon the mountains to search out this band of robbers, and to destroy them.

29 But behold, it came to pass that in that same year they were driven back even into their own lands. And thus ended the eightieth year of the reign of the judges over the people of Nephi.

30 And it came to pass in the commencement of the eighty and first year they did go forth again against this band of robbers, and did destroy many; and they were also visited with much destruction.

31 And they were again obliged to return out of the wilderness and out of the mountains unto their own lands, because of the exceeding greatness of the numbers of those robbers who infested the mountains and the wilderness.

Helaman 12.

It sure sounds to me that the Nephites and Lamanites sent armies out tothe mountains to "destroy", ergo, kill, the Gadianton Robbers. Hunkering down is a completely different part ofthe Book of Mormon. And, frankly, I'd rather crack down of illegal immigration before it gets to a point where the country may have to hunker down as the problem is out of control. But I'll leave all this to your interpretation as perhaps you may be smarter than me and have insights I'm not aware of.

When they won they imprisoned the Robbers and then taught the gospel to them. If they accepted it they were released. If it were politically possible I would suggest the same course at Guantanamo.

I think you're confusing the battle between the Nephites and the Lamanites under Captain Moroni (next to Jesus Christ, he's my all time favorite Book of mormon character and I sure do hope that your two likes -which I've no idea at this point who they are - were not done thinking that your post was an accurate depiction of scripture). Also, what do you think is going on in Guantanamo? The prisoners there are treated exceptionally well. I'd say even better than US prisoners here. You want ot preach the gospel to the military combatants there? Good luck with that. Go ahead and bring a Book of Mormon to jihadists. Tell me how that works out. So far as treating them well, like I said, therey are treated very well, far better than US military prisoners abroad. And I support humane treatment of prisoners. If you plan on offering a response to this I would suggest leaving water boarding out of the conversation. That'll make this threa too political and I can (and will) amply respond with how water boarding was restricted to a very few, done very few times, that it has saved American lives and lead the US to where Bin Laden was residing. But let's not go there. Baord policies, you know.

I find it telling that you want to leave the breaking of anti-piracy and speeding laws to the conscience of the individual but immigration laws are different and forbid one from attending the temple. Why the difference?

Let's see, have I outlined my concerns before regarding illegal immigration? Why yes, yes I have. Why is it people regularly seem oblivious as to what my positions are after I clearly lay them out for all to read?

Illegal immigration is linked to massive fraud. This includes fraudulant identiciation which than makes it very easy to allow the employer and employee avoid paying taxes on income and to hide one's income when applying for social progam benefits. Tax fraud in and of itself is a very bad thing to do. I know so in part because I recall LDS leaders telling me as much. It calls into question ones honesty and integrity and self worth. (In the following the bold are mine and red which i find very relevant)

What a destructive thing is a little dishonesty. It has become a cankering disease in society. Insurance executives tell of the soaring costs of dishonest claims. Cheating in the payment of taxes robs national treasuries of millions and places undue burdens on those who pay. Employee theft, padded expense accounts, and similar things bring tremendous losses to business institutions. The institution may be able to stand the loss of money, but the individual cannot afford the loss of self-respect.

I Believe

Integrity means always doing what is right, regardless of the immediate consequences. It means being righteous from the very depth of our soul, not only in our actions but, more importantly, in our thoughts and in our hearts. Personal integrity implies such trustworthiness that we are incapable of being false to a trust or covenant.

We all have within us the ability to know what is right and good. Having received the Spirit of Christ to know good from evil, we should always choose the good. We need not be misled, even though fraud, deception, deceit, and duplicity often seem to be acceptable in our world. Lying, stealing, and cheating are commonplace. Integrity, a firm adherence to the highest moral and ethical standards, is essential to the life of a true Latter-day Saint.

(snip)

A person who shoplifts for a candy bar, or makeup, or jewelry trades priceless integrity for a meager gain. A person who falsifies a tax return by not reporting income or claiming invalid deductions compromises valued integrity for a pittance of unpaid income tax...

Priceless Integrity

It should be noted that my second citation is from Elder Joseph b. worthin of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and is "Taken from an address delivered in April 1990 general conference. It’s literally the test of your life."

So, we have both President Hinkley giving the First Presidency message in the Ensign teaching mankind that not paying taxes results in a tremendous burden upon a nation and so does dishonersty in the workplace. Illegal immigration is laden with people avoiding taxes and cheating on employment. Then there's Brother Wirthlin's talk about how not reporting income "compromises valued integrity". I do not recall such word spoken regarding speeding or pirating a compurter game once (ongoing may be an issue, espcially if you're providing the pirating). If "a firm adherence to the highest moral and ethical standards, is essential to the life of a true Latter-day Saint" holds true (and, yes, it does), I simply ask why does one who is intricatly involved in tax fraud get to go to the temple? you go right ahead and get yourself a fake ID and use it to avoid paying taxes. Then confess all to your bishop at temple interview time and I'll be curious as to what comes as a result.

[Darren10]

I don't know what you are talking about. At least in the modern era, immigrants don't go to "court." They go to a deportation hearing, which is an administrative proceeding and not a criminal court.

They go to court if they are arrested for crimes and from there found to be an illegal immigrant. Many of these, having no criminal history, or arrested for minor offenses, are let go on recognizance. Good luck getting them to show.

Tax evasion is a crime

Thank you very much. It is a crime. So, tell me, when a person shows up for employment and provides fake ID to get that employment (also a crime), what happens to the taxes collected on that person's income? What of the employer who hires an illegal in order to avoid the taxes? It's a crime, yes?

Being an undocumented immigrant is like being late on your taxes, or refusing to buy health insurance after 2014 under Obamacare. None of these are crimes, but they subject you to civil penalties. Do you think that a bishop would deny a temple recommend to any Mormon who does not get health insurance under Obamacare?

Here (bold mine):

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection;

misrepresentation and concealment of facts

Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States

at any time or place other than as designated by immigration

officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration

officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United

States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the

willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first

commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or

imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent

commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or

imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

What civil crimes do you go to prison for?

Search 8 U.S.C. § 1325 : US Code - Section 1325: Improper entry by alien

(Found via Heritage.org) ===> http://blog.heritage...on-not-a-crime/

Also read

The difference between a civil offense and a criminal offense are usually defined by the nature of the offense and the punishment assessed. Civil offenses involve violations of administrative matters. The Federal Trade Commission frequently imposes civil fines on companies that violate consumer statutes.

(snip)

Another example of a civil offense is contempt of court. This can arise in any civil matter, but is often used in family law matters. If one parent is ordered to pay child support, but fails to make any attempts to pay their obligation, the other parent can move for contempt sanctions. Sanctions can include awarding the other parent attorney’s fees. In extreme cases, the court can hold the non-paying parent in contempt and order them to remain in jail for a period of time. Even though jail time is a consequence, the difference is that the underlying action arose from a civil or administrative dispute, not from the violation of a criminal statute.

Say, doesn't this mean that even a civil offense can result in losing your temple recommend? So why not being an illegal alien? Especially one who is working fraudulantly.

What is the difference between a civil offense and a crime?

Edited March 15, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

They would be the ones that are working real hard doing the jobs nobody else wants to do. Do you think they come over here for other reasons? Like what?

These specific people, who come because they have no other means to support their family, come because their homeland stinks to high heaven. If people come here to work and support their family than I'm OK with them staying. If they come to get the benefits than not so much. Free school, medical care, food, rent, etc. is enticing.

Jobs no one else will do, please. While there is *some* truth to that that statement is so overblown. And previously I did say that I very much support increasing work visas because there is a real need for immigrant workers. They do fill in work needs which the general populace avoids doing.

[The Nehor]

I realize the Nephites did go into the mountains to hunt them down. I just find it odd you endorse that plan when in the Book of Mormon it was an abject failure. I would take that as a "do not do this" example.

I would gladly teach the gospel to them given the opportunity. They are fellow children of God after all and need it. I do not subscribe to the idea that they are irredeemably broken for not loving the USA and wanting vengeance against it for both real and imagined wrongs. If we want to be imperialists with global hegemony we need to accept the revolts and hatred imperialism has always cultivated.

I also refuse to get into an argument about humane treatment and the silly "we are nicer then they are" defense. I have heard the same argument used to defend Japanese internment camps because they were not Aushwitz. Going down that rabbit hole is no fun.

[Bernard Gui]

Detection of communicable diseases and susequent quarantine of infected immigrants is a compelling

reason for strict immigration control. Illegal immigrants are not screened. The fallout can be catastrophic.

Edited March 15, 2013 by Bernard Gui

[Danzo]

What is wrong with saying that the current law is bad, and then wanting to change it?

[halconero]

To find compassion for illegal immigrants I find that I need to take a holistic approach:

Idea/belief/motivation/situation 'x' constitutes action 'y'.

Example:

Non-holistic approach: Noël lied to Fritz.

Holistic approach: Noël believes in Christian service and compassion. This motivates him to hide his Jewish neighbours when France is invaded by Nazi Germany. Fritz, the local SS commander, begins searching for his neighbours and he tells them that they fled to Spain.

(The holistic approach can also be applied to undoubtedly evil acts, such as rape, murder, etc)

Taking the holistic approach with MOST illegal immigrants this the pattern it tends to take:

The person lived in abject poverty/fear of death/fear of rape/was being prostituted/under the rule of drug cartels. They wanted a better life for them/their family. They wanted to escape.

They cross the border.

They come to find that they can't get work. They're getting hungry/need to support family there/don't have shelter, but know that going back will be worse. They commit fraud and get a fake social security number. They don't earn a lot, but enough so that they don't have to return. Even if they earn nothing they still don't want to return. They have family here, their children (also brought illegally at a very young age) are receiving a good education and they are safe (relative to Mexico/Guatemala/Honduras/Mozambique/Ukraine).

Notice that I haven't argued that their actions were legal, or good. I've just described the motivations that constitute the actions. This won't apply to all of them, but, I would argue, a vast majority of them.

I believe this approach illicits compassion. As it relates to the Church:

A convert once got baptized after lying on his interview with regards to his keeping of the law of chastity. He tried to serve faithfully...but just couldn't...he did not feel the Spirit...but now he had his family here. His kids held the Aaronic Priesthood.

He finally confessed, he was disfellowshipped. He suffered some penalties, but he was not asked to leave. In fact, he was encouraged to stay and make restitution. He eventually became a faithful member again.

This is my view on how illegal immigrants should be treated.

[halconero]

To find compassion for illegal immigrants I find that I need to take a holistic approach:

Idea/belief/motivation/situation 'x' constitutes action 'y'.

Example:

Non-holistic approach: Noël lied to Fritz.

Holistic approach: Noël believes in Christian service and compassion. This motivates him to hide his Jewish neighbours when France is invaded by Nazi Germany. Fritz, the local SS commander, begins searching for his neighbours and he tells them that they fled to Spain.

(The holistic approach can also be applied to undoubtedly evil acts, such as rape, murder, etc)

Taking the holistic approach with MOST illegal immigrants this the pattern it tends to take:

The person lived in abject poverty/fear of death/fear of rape/was being prostituted/under the rule of drug cartels. They wanted a better life for them/their family. They wanted to escape.

They cross the border.

They come to find that they can't get work. They're getting hungry/need to support family there/don't have shelter, but know that going back will be worse. They commit fraud and get a fake social security number. They don't earn a lot, but enough so that they don't have to return. Even if they earn nothing they still don't want to return. They have family here, their children (also brought illegally at a very young age) are receiving a good education and they are safe (relative to Mexico/Guatemala/Honduras/Mozambique/Ukraine).

Notice that I haven't argued that their actions were legal, or good. I've just described the motivations that constitute the actions. This won't apply to all of them, but, I would argue, a vast majority of them.

I believe this approach illicits compassion. As it relates to the Church:

A convert once got baptized after lying on his interview with regards to his keeping of the law of chastity. He tried to serve faithfully...but just couldn't...he did not feel the Spirit...but now he had his family here. His kids held the Aaronic Priesthood.

He finally confessed, he was disfellowshipped. He suffered some penalties, but he was not asked to leave. In fact, he was encouraged to stay and make restitution. He eventually became a faithful member again.

This is my view on how illegal immigrants should be treated.

[Nathair/|\]

They are definitely a blot on the moral landscape of the perpetrators.

This sign appears in the Gent's toilet in a pub in the West End of Glasgow (Partick)

[Darren10]

I realize the Nephites did go into the mountains to hunt them down. I just find it odd you endorse that plan when in the Book of Mormon it was an abject failure. I would take that as a "do not do this" example.

No, you didn't realize that the Nephites [and the Lamanites] went to the mountains to kill the Gadianton Robbers. Here's your exact words (bold mine):

Plus they specifically did not run into the mountains to kill them off. They hunkered down and fought defensively.

The very purpose of sending an army into the mountains was to kill the Gadianton Robbers. Hunkering down came only when the Robbers (at a different pioint in time in the Book of Mormon) came so numerous that opposing them in this manner became impractical. The only reason I brought up the gadianton Robbers was to support my assertion that God never obligated His people to treat all people the same regardless of their legal status as to where they reside. This is in direct response to those, including yourself, who cited scripture to me in a manner by which I must conclude that God's will is that all people are treated the same. The only moral imparative upon me and all Christians so far as I can tell is that God wants His people to treat all others as Christ would. This includes givnig them aid, confort, and support when needed. This does not include allowing anyone to stay after coming to this land illegally. This should sound familiar to you by now since this is the second I've explained this directly to you.

I would gladly teach the gospel to them given the opportunity. They are fellow children of God after all and need it. I do not subscribe to the idea that they are irredeemably broken for not loving the USA and wanting vengeance against it for both real and imagined wrongs. If we want to be imperialists with global hegemony we need to accept the revolts and hatred imperialism has always cultivated.

I'd love to teach the gospel to captured jihadists as well. I simply do not see evangalizing militant prisoners as a pragmatic means to reform them. Nor do I think you'd be successful in getting the gospel of Jesus Christ implamented into the US military (or civil) penal code. I'm sure there's already some degree in sharing the LDS Church and Christianity in general to these people and good for those involved. But when, exactly, did Captain Moroni preach the gospel to Lamanite prisoners.? I do not recall many conversions from captured prisoners. I recall many conversions via missionaries swho went ointo the lands of the Lamanites, but not withn the military prisons. Moroni's army also worked their prisoners very hard and slew them down on the spot when they became a threat (trying to espcae specifically). Would you support such a policy in guantanamo. For the record, I would but good luck getting that to work in our day and age.

Also, the Gadianton Robbers were NEVER captured and taught the gospel so far as I can recollect.

I also refuse to get into an argument about humane treatment and the silly "we are nicer then they are" defense. I have heard the same argument used to defend Japanese internment camps because they were not Aushwitz. Going down that rabbit hole is no fun.

I very much support Guantanamo but not based on being nicer than the other guys. I support it simply because that is what militaries have always done: capture their enemies and hold them indefinitely during their wars. I support being humane to them but frankly I think we are way too humane there. They do not have a right to glazed duck prepared with gloves so that the "infidel" will not touch their food.

My main concern and point of confusion of illegal aliens getting temple recommends is how they can do that if they are involved with many forms of fraud and dishonesty; not for, per se , simply being illegal.

Edited March 16, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

What is wrong with saying that the current law is bad, and then wanting to change it?

Nothing.

[Darren10]

Detection of communicable diseases and susequent quarantine of infected immigrants is a compelling

reason for strict immigration control. Illegal immigrants are not screened. The fallout can be catastrophic.

definitely one reason for controlling immigration.

[Darren10]

To find compassion for illegal immigrants I find that I need to take a holistic approach:

Idea/belief/motivation/situation 'x' constitutes action 'y'.

Example:

Non-holistic approach: Noël lied to Fritz.

Holistic approach: Noël believes in Christian service and compassion. This motivates him to hide his Jewish neighbours when France is invaded by Nazi Germany. Fritz, the local SS commander, begins searching for his neighbours and he tells them that they fled to Spain.

(The holistic approach can also be applied to undoubtedly evil acts, such as rape, murder, etc)

Taking the holistic approach with MOST illegal immigrants this the pattern it tends to take:

The person lived in abject poverty/fear of death/fear of rape/was being prostituted/under the rule of drug cartels. They wanted a better life for them/their family. They wanted to escape.

They cross the border.

They come to find that they can't get work. They're getting hungry/need to support family there/don't have shelter, but know that going back will be worse. They commit fraud and get a fake social security number. They don't earn a lot, but enough so that they don't have to return. Even if they earn nothing they still don't want to return. They have family here, their children (also brought illegally at a very young age) are receiving a good education and they are safe (relative to Mexico/Guatemala/Honduras/Mozambique/Ukraine).

Notice that I haven't argued that their actions were legal, or good. I've just described the motivations that constitute the actions. This won't apply to all of them, but, I would argue, a vast majority of them.

I believe this approach illicits compassion. As it relates to the Church:

A convert once got baptized after lying on his interview with regards to his keeping of the law of chastity. He tried to serve faithfully...but just couldn't...he did not feel the Spirit...but now he had his family here. His kids held the Aaronic Priesthood.

He finally confessed, he was disfellowshipped. He suffered some penalties, but he was not asked to leave. In fact, he was encouraged to stay and make restitution. He eventually became a faithful member again.

This is my view on how illegal immigrants should be treated.

Beautiful. I sat and listened to one fellow member's story of coming here illegally from Equador. The lady who told the story was very young. It involved bribes, lots of walking, and the taking of her younger brother and getting a payoff to get him back in what was obviously a colluisinon between the coyotes and the local Mexican police. They had no fear of beig raped or murdered in their homeland. In fact, the father eventually decided to go back and retire there. Your story may apply to some illegal aliens (and I do support asylum) but frankly it seems more of a novel than real life.

Edited March 16, 2013 by Darren10

[Hamba Tuhan]

"Responsibility of Church Members: Avoiding Being Judgmental"

"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.

"Bishops are in the best position to make appropriate judgments as to church privileges. Meanwhile, church members should avoid making judgments about fellow members in their congregations."

[The Nehor]

No, you didn't realize that the Nephites [and the Lamanites] went to the mountains to kill the Gadianton Robbers. Here's your exact words (bold mine):

The very purpose of sending an army into the mountains was to kill the Gadianton Robbers. Hunkering down came only when the Robbers (at a different pioint in time in the Book of Mormon) came so numerous that opposing them in this manner became impractical. The only reason I brought up the gadianton Robbers was to support my assertion that God never obligated His people to treat all people the same regardless of their legal status as to where they reside. This is in direct response to those, including yourself, who cited scripture to me in a manner by which I must conclude that God's will is that all people are treated the same. The only moral imparative upon me and all Christians so far as I can tell is that God wants His people to treat all others as Christ would. This includes givnig them aid, confort, and support when needed. This does not include allowing anyone to stay after coming to this land illegally. This should sound familiar to you by now since this is the second I've explained this directly to you.

I'd love to teach the gospel to captured jihadists as well. I simply do not see evangalizing militant prisoners as a pragmatic means to reform them. Nor do I think you'd be successful in getting the gospel of Jesus Christ implamented into the US military (or civil) penal code. I'm sure there's already some degree in sharing the LDS Church and Christianity in general to these people and good for those involved. But when, exactly, did Captain Moroni preach the gospel to Lamanite prisoners.? I do not recall many conversions from captured prisoners. I recall many conversions via missionaries swho went ointo the lands of the Lamanites, but not withn the military prisons. Moroni's army also worked their prisoners very hard and slew them down on the spot when they became a threat (trying to espcae specifically). Would you support such a policy in guantanamo. For the record, I would but good luck getting that to work in our day and age.

Also, the Gadianton Robbers were NEVER captured and taught the gospel so far as I can recollect.

I very much support Guantanamo but not based on being nicer than the other guys. I support it simply because that is what militaries have always done: capture their enemies and hold them indefinitely during their wars. I support being humane to them but frankly I think we are way too humane there. They do not have a right to glazed duck prepared with gloves so that the "infidel" will not touch their food.

My main concern and point of confusion of illegal aliens getting temple recommends is how they can do that if they are involved with many forms of fraud and dishonesty; not for, per se , simply being illegal.

I misspoke. I assumed we were talking about successful strategies against the Gadiantons. Your argument is that when the Nephites did the wrong thing it shows how God wants us to treat people? Interesting argument.

I also did not endorse unchecked immigration. I think our system is a mess and we need to open the gates a lot wider. I am arguing against the idea that illegal immigrants are criminals worthy of censure by the Church or the restriction of privileges.

3 Nephi Chapter 5:

4 And now it came to pass that when they had taken all the robbers prisoners, insomuch that none did escape who were not slain, they did cast their prisoners into prison, and did cause the word of God to be preached unto them; and as many as would repent of their sins and enter into a covenant that they would murder no more were set at liberty.

Calling our War on Terror a war is an abuse of the word "war" being used to justify things we would never tolerate in peacetime. The very name is stupid. We are declaring war on an emotion now? On top of that we do not treat it like a war. War has rules we do not follow because they were not in uniform and we are not actually at war.

Through legal trickery we have the best of both worlds. We have a war with the (supposed to be temporary) restrictions on freedom and surveillance. At the same time we do not follow the rules of war and hold people indefinitely or until the war ends. Best part is we never have to rescind the measures or let anyone go because the war never ends until we say so. They can't surrender and even if one group does we are at war with an undetermined number of groups with an indefinite membership and no qualifications for victory.

Guess when the Orwellian named "Patriot Act" is going to go away? Starts with "n" and ends with "ever". Why should it? All the benefits of the Cold War without needing to build as many nukes.

[ERayR]

I also did not endorse unchecked immigration. I think our system is a mess and we need to open the gates a lot wider. I am arguing against the idea that illegal immigrants are criminals worthy of censure by the Church or the restriction of privileges.

Also my sentiments

[CASteinman]

You are out of the thread for insults and preaching.

I must have missed something because the post seemed OK to me. Or maybe I'm gonna get banned and never really understand why. Anyway, here goes.

I have not read every post but I have these thoughts that all get mixed up:

1. We should try to obey the law. Even if we find ourselves in a situation where we are not living up to that, we should nevertheless not promote law breaking.

2. I am not sure that the Church is promoting any sort of law breaking. Rather it seems that they are expressing a political viewpoint where they feel that the Church Operations are a concern.

3. I personally do not like the lax approach to immigration we have had. I think it promotes abuse and lawlessness.

4. I think immigrants largely are a benefit to our nation.

5. I don't like how the current system -- regardless of how it came to be -- how it can tear up families. This bothers me.

6. I think that the USA is going to need more laborers in the next 30 years. I would like them to come here and become Americans. Not hyphenated Americans but Americans. I would like us to encourage that. I think we might have some problems with racism that prevent that. But in my observation, these can be stronger and better Americans than those of us who grew up here.

7. I think that we need to be very sure that the jobs we have for immigrants are paid well and fairly -- so that they are not abused and so that they do not "take" jobs from people who are "already here".

8. I suspect some of these points were in the minds of the leaders of the Church during this. I bet demographic forecasts were very important. Its possible that our Doctrine regarding Lamanites was also a really key factor. I would like to think so.