Help Me Come To Agree With The Church On Immigration

[halconero]

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.

Wow...my dad must be a fictional character then...considering he went though what I described. Oh...and most of the Latinos I taught in Arizona on my mission...oh and my professors field work among Latinos in New Mexico. Maybe they are all fictional characters.

I'm sorry, it's the opposite actually. Your Ecuadorian friend's experience is the exception rather than the rule.

[Darren10]

"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."

I pretty much agree but what's the source for that?

[Darren10]

Wow...my dad must be a fictional character then...considering he went though what I described. Oh...and most of the Latinos I taught in Arizona on my mission...oh and my professors field work among Latinos in New Mexico. Maybe they are all fictional characters.

Bull. I don't believe it. Give some sources there. What field work? "Most Latinos" you taught on your mission were here for fear of being raped and killed by drug cartels? What's the sutatistics on that?

The fear is real I know and the danger definitely present but just because it's there doesn't mean it's going to happen. I lived for many years in the ghetto. Just because there's gang activity dosn't mean I was going to be hurt or killed by gang violence. I know many many many illegal aliens and very few have to do with fleeing drug cartels and threats of rape. They come cuz there's jobs and lots of social benefits to get here. Your account does not collaborate wit hthe fact with during our beloved recession, illegal immigration has dropped. Why should it if all those coming here are doing so out of fear of being raped and murdered? What, they're going to forego their safety just because maid services, McDonalds, and lanscaping businesses are not hiring?

I'm sorry, it's the opposite actually. Your Ecuadorian friend's experience is the exception rather than the rule.

Nope, it's not. I've known many parents of children who were brought here illegally return to their homeland after getting tired of being here. That's the norm. I'll say that's not the majority but it is the norm.

[Calm]

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/avoiding-being-judgmental-immigration Edited March 16, 2013 by calmoriah

[Darren10]

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.

Please Nehor, I think you can do much better than this. Shall I explain my reasoning a third time directly to you? You're rephrasing my position in a way to force my position into somewthing it is not. It has nothing to do with successful strategies only that God has NEVER obligated his people to treat everyone in their lands equally. Period. There that's the third time I've explained it to you. Shall we go for a forth? How about a fifth? If you're deliberately misconstruing my position than you're worthless to dialogue with on this.

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.

True enough but you have endorsed, on moral / scriptural grounds, that once an illegal is here we as God's people are obligated to treat them equally regalrdless of their legal status. I have simply said no we do not have to do any such thing. We as God's people are to treat all others humanely. that is all and I very much support that.

As for expanding immigration, I've said the same thing on this thread. So why are we arguing?

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.

Than you for that. Obviously I was wrong in that the Gadianton Robbers were never taught the gospel in prison but I still do not see that as a normative means against the robbers. Nior do I see this asa vialble option for jihadists today.

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.p

Really?

No terror involved? Maybe if we just shared the gospel more this would not have happened?

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.

What does this have to do with the thread?

At the same time we do not follow the rules of war and hold people indefinitely or until the war ends.

That's always been part of the rules of war, sir.

Best part is we never have to rescind the measures or let anyone go because the war never ends until we say so.

Pretty much how it works.

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.

Sure they can surrender. That'll end the war quickly.

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.

Now we're getting into the Patriot Act? If so this thread is derailed. I can very much respond to the Patriot Act.: my uport and serious concerns for it. But I won't. Let's stick to illegal immigration.

Edited March 16, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

calmoriah;

From your #154:

The LDS Church discourages its members of the Mormon faith from entering any country without legal documentation.

The underlying concern of immigration issues "is how we treat each other as children of God."

Immigration issues need to be resolved at the federal government level.

State legislation that focuses only on enforcement "is likely to fall short of the high moral standard of treating each other as children of God."

The church supports efforts "where undocumented immigrants are allowed to square themselves with the law and continue to work without this necessarily leading to citizenship."

In a related statement issued simultaneously Friday morning, the LDS Church reiterated the First Presidency teaching that undocumented status shouldn't alone prevent an otherwise worthy Latter-day Saint from entering the church's temple or being ordained to the priesthood.

The secondary statement also underscored each bishop's role in making appropriate judgments regarding a member's church privileges and discouraged Latter-day Saints from judging fellow congregation members.

Thank you for that.

[Calm]

No terror involved?

I believe he was focusing on using the term "war" rather than "terror".

I think the use of "war" for things like "war on drugs", "war on terror" is an appeal to emotion. It doesn't make sense for one thing, drugs are not people, cannot act on their own and we are not even talking about the majority of drugs people use in their lives but only illegal drugs and it should be "terrorism", not "terror"....why aren't we getting rid of horror films and such things if we are trying to eliminate "terror" in our lives?

Yes, I understand the sayings are symbolic...just think they are overdramatic pitches that tend to discourage thoughtful approaches, like "pro-choice" and "pro-life".

[Darren10]

I believe he was focusing on using the term "war" rather than "terror".

Perhaps but by and large those who criticize the term "war on terror" and ask if we are going to war on emotions their focus is on 'terror". "Terror" is a vague word with no specific object behind it. There is some legitimacy to not liking the "war on terror" but when one leanrs the focus behind what is called the "war on terror" than I do not see a conflict. Saying that I think there is room to modify that term. You yourself pretty much outlined what I think. Just apply it to "terror" and not "war".

I think the use of "war" for things like "war on drugs", "war on terror" is an appeal to emotion. It doesn't make sense for one thing, drugs are not people, cannot act on their own and we are not even talking about the majority of drugs people use in their lives but only illegal drugs and it should be "terrorism", not "terror"....why aren't we getting rid of horror films and such things if we are trying to eliminate "terror" in our lives?

Yes, I understand the sayings are symbolic...just think they are overdramatic pitches that tend to discourage thoughtful approaches, like "pro-choice" and "pro-life".

[Calm]

Just apply it to "terror" and not "war".

The problem with the term "war" is that it creates in the hearer's mind a set of circumstances that may or may not apply to the situation with illegal drugs and terrorism. It sets up expectations and permission for use of certain behaviours that are applicable in military situations that may not be appropriate for what is a civilian issue.

Saying one is "at war" emotionally removes almost all limits on behaviour because one sees it as a matter of survival against someone that wants to destroy you (and that might be the case for some terrorist, it certainly isn't the case for drugs cartels who would prefer to keep their customers around or pretty much every other slogan 'war' there is out there). Using the term "war" allows one to justify what is often unjustifiable in any other situation...such as killing someone without real thought or trying to find out who they are.

Then you have the "war on illiteracy", "war on poverty", "war on Christmas", "war on cancer"....and the term begins to lose pretty much all meaning except for "something we really don't like and would like to get rid of" or "something we must defend no matter what".

Edited March 16, 2013 by calmoriah

[Darren10]

The problem with the term "war" is that it creates in the hearer's mind a set of circumstances that may or may not apply to the situation with illegal drugs and terrorism. It sets up expectations and permission for use of certain behaviours that are applicable in military situations that may not be appropriate for what is a civilian issue.

I would certainly agree with you. The "war on drugs" is a perfect example of that. I think the federal government should not be involved at all with the "war of drugs" unless drugs cross state lines of is invovled in parts of the country which the federal government has sovereign control, such as in the military. If a drug remains completely within a state than it's up to that state wto decide what to do with it. Calling the drug crack down a "wwar" does connotate federal action being necessary when it should have no power to take any such action. President Nixon, while misapplying therm and initiating the misuse of federal power, did not do so out of the blue. Power of the federal government increased dramatically over the decades before Nixon and particularly when the Supreme Court OKd the federal government regulating crops because its sale will eventually affect national and international markets opened the door wide oen for the federal government to initiate a "war" on drugs. Because of the court gross overeaching of the Commerce Clause, it no longer matters if a product remains in a state or not. The federal govenrment may get involved in it, period.

Applying this to immigration, however, changes. The federal government *is* involved in immigration, especially aliens crossing the borders illegally. The federal government has ignored the problem too much for various reasons and border states have been left to basically fend for themselves. Arizona's law I think was brilliant as it merely copied federal law regarding immigration. It alslo included explicit language to make it illegal to use race to question one's legality in the states. Basically, I think it did just as the First Presidency said laws should do.

Saying one is "at war" emotionally removes almost all limits on behaviour because one sees it as a matter of survival against someone that wants to destroy you (and that might be the case for some terrorist, it certainly isn't the case for drugs cartels who would prefer to keep their customers around or pretty much every other slogan 'war' there is out there). Using the term "war" allows one to justify what is often unjustifiable in any other situation...such as killing someone without real thought or trying to find out who they are.

Good point. But returning to what i previously posted, that learning of what the term 'war on terror" entails historically: why we are at war and with whom, eliminates the hysteria behind the jesture. We were attacked on 9/11 by terrorists. We;ve been at war ever since. "War on terror" has meant that those involved in attacking us and supporting those who attacked us are our enemies and are to be destroyed. I tihkn over time though we've lost the focus on our war and I hardly consider our battlefield poolicies now as figthing anything. We're just killing people with no real goal or reason. So long as these are terrorists, I'm fine with their elimination but i'm not fine doing it with no end purpose. With no end purpose I'd much rather bring the troops home and go out the next time we're attacked. Granted, I wholeheartedly support erradicating all organized groups of terrorists (al-Quaida, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.) but frankly I don't see the currecnt administration doing any such thing. They said al-Quaida was decimated before Benghazi. It took them two weeks to explicitly link that event to al-Quaida and instead focused on an American and his You Tube video (who is still to this day the only one "brought to justice" over the tragedy).

Then you have the "war on illiteracy", "war on poverty", "war on Christmas", "war on cancer"....and the term begins to lose pretty much all meaning except for "something we really don't like and would like to get rid of" or "something we must defend no matter what".

All these "wars' are big government approaches to solve our problems. I'm much more of empowering local communities and states to tackle these issues. Uncle Sam does a few things right and does them very good. Taking care of our social ills is not one of them.

But this is really derailing the thread. I'll be glad to read any response you may have but I think I'm about done on this tangent for now.

[emarkp]

So in sum, there is no argument that supports the church's position on immigration law, except the abrogation of all laws.

Some examples from the closing pages:

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.

Which is what legal immigration allows for. Legal immigrants are (and should be) valued. Vagabonds are not.

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

There are existing laws. Why do you oppose enforcing existing laws?

What do you find so sacred about current immigration law?

I never said anything about current immigration law being sacred. Neither do the scriptures when we're directed to obey the law. Why do others scoff at the law?

The Church is also not actively encouraging people to break the law;

Yes it is. Lip service is saying "You should obey the law, but if you break it, there are no consequences. In fact, we instruct members not to not report violation of law."

Anyway it seems weird for people to equate US code with scripture.

That seems to be your problem, not mine. The law of the land is not required to be scripture to be the law of the land. Or are we lying when we say that we should obey the law?

For those who have had trouble with comprehending what I wrote it is simply that those who insist on the letter of the law will themselves be judged by the letter of the law. It brings to mind something about glass houses and rocks.

This is an argument against law generally, not anything regarding immigration. I've sat on a jury -- have I violated the principle? I don't think so.

Yet you and your ilk seem to think that actually enforcing law is evil. Reductio ad absurdum -> all human law is evil and should be ignored. That is the argument you are making. It's nonsensical, and violates my understanding of scripture and of God. We can be merciful yet still have law and order.

The childish arguments essentially restating "nobody's perfect" are pathetic. An analogy is that just because we aren't perfect, we still say we're "keeping the commandments" if we're seriously trying to be righteous and haven't committed major sin. Similarly, we can't say we're trying to keep the law if we know we're violating it, doing so intentionally, and are actively committing other crimes (tax fraud, etc.) to avoid detection.

If I were skipping out on child support should I say that I'm honest in my dealings? I mean, just because a court tells me I have to pay a certain amount doesn't mean I think it's right. And it's not scripture, so why should I care?

And finally, the people who say "hey, who will pick the lettuce if we enforce immigration laws?" I see you as morally equal to the people on the 1800s who said "without slaves, who will pick the cotton?" Congrats on being the 21st century slavemasters.

Thank you every one who participated. It's pretty clear to me that there indeed is no justification for abrogating immigration law, not one.

You are out of the thread for race baiting.

[Calm]

So in sum, there is no argument that supports the church's position on immigration law, except the abrogation of all laws.

The Atonement replaces mercy with justice. I am grateful the Lord is willing to do so, I would hope that I would be able to follow his example where it is appropriate.

Pointing out that in some places the law is unfair is not saying the same thing as let's get rid of all laws. You are, imo, creating a straw man there.

Edited March 21, 2013 by calmoriah

[emarkp]

On the contrary, perfect example of poor thinking. I have some understanding of the Atonement. I can personally forgive someone breaking into my house while shooting him in the face so he doesn't harm my family. You don't seem to be able to distinguish the concept of civil law.

[Hamba Tuhan]

The Nehor, on 14 March 2013 - 10:07 AM, said:

The Church is also not actively encouraging people to break the law;

Yes it is.

...

Thank you every one who participated. It's pretty clear to me that there indeed is no justification for abrogating immigration law, not one.

Now that you've got this all sorted out in your own head, maybe it's time to send off a letter to the prophets letting them know they've got it all wrong?

[Calm]

You don't seem to be able to distinguish the concept of civil law.

Oh, I understand it just fine. I just don't elevate it to the level of divine law. Edited March 21, 2013 by calmoriah

[emarkp]

No, I'm happy to wait for it to play out. The church can still be true even if a policy is wrong. I don't expect or require the leadership to be perfect at all times and in all policies.

[emarkp]

Oh, I understand it just fine. I just don't elevate it to the level of divine law.

In fact you do, by invoking the atonement to suggest we shouldn't enforce it.

[Calm]

In fact you do, by invoking the atonement to suggest we shouldn't enforce it.

If that is what I was actually doing, then you might be right.

That wasn't what I was doing.

[Calm]

So in sum, there is no argument that supports the church's position on immigration law, except the abrogation of all laws

That you interpret and summarize the discussion of this entire thread in such an absolute manner---"the abrogation of all laws"---seems to me very indicative of your entire approach and predictive of your response to any argument given.

[Tacenda]

On the contrary, perfect example of poor thinking. I have some understanding of the Atonement. I can personally forgive someone breaking into my house while shooting him in the face so he doesn't harm my family. You don't seem to be able to distinguish the concept of civil law.

I can't believe I'm going to say this, and have an illegal son-in law...I think had it not been so easy for foreigners to cross the border and stay in the country my daughter would not be in the situation she's in. They live in a totally different world than one who is legal would have it. My daughter drives everywhere they go, he no longer drives for fear of being zeroed in on with having a "special" license, there are no trips on an airplane, no health insurance, some weeks my son in law's boss cannot pay him because he has lost big time in Wendover, gambling. They live in a very small trailer home. But my daughter acts like that's all she needs. I guess I want her to have more or just a better life. So my angst is that she should have never been put in the position of meeting someone illegal in the first place even though he did come over while in his teens. But do understand how bad it got in Mexico and the desire for a better life. Oh, to be in a world where there isn't a need for borders!

[The Nehor]

Thank you every one who participated. It's pretty clear to me that there indeed is no justification for abrogating immigration law, not one.

Well, then your simplistic conclusion definitely empowers you to defy the prophets and apostles who gave the counsel. There might be more scripture encouraging you to heed their counsel then there are about obeying civil law so be careful.

[Mark Beesley]

So in sum, there is no argument that supports the church's position on immigration law, except the abrogation of all laws.

So sorry I've missed this thread. Having spent the last few weeks in Hawaii, where the there are a number of native Hawaiians who believe we violated their laws by invading their islands, but still manage to retain an aloha spirit about it all, I haven't been very invested in the the weighty matters of immigration law.

Perhaps you can bring me up to date . . . what exactly is the Church position on immigration law? And when we quote the 12th Article of Faith that says we believe in honoring, obeying and sustaining "the law," what law exactly are we talking about. I'm a simple guy, so you'll need to keep your explanations simple.

[emarkp]

You could read the first post--though few people who took the time to reply managed even that. Sigh.

[Mark Beesley]

You could read the first post--though few people who took the time to reply managed even that. Sigh.

Wasn't really sure if you understood the position since the Church press release stating that laws should contain more than simply enforcement provisions seemed to cause you heartburn. I just wanted to see if you could describe the Church position in your own words. I guess not.

[Danzo]

I never said anything about current immigration law being sacred. Neither do the scriptures when we're directed to obey the law. Why do others scoff at the law?

This is exactly what you are doing: making mans law more important than gods law. THe 12th article of faith was never intended to give congress a veto over god.