Homeland Security's "Sweeping Plan to Deport Undocumented Immigrants" Came Out Today...Impact on Church Mbrs?

[RevTestament]

7 hours ago, PeterPear said:

So we should be upset that the current administration is now enforcing the law as intended; instead of the former administration which did not.

I worked part time for a nationwide tax preparer some years back. In walked "hispanic" couples with two years of tax returns asking if they qualified for a tax rebate being handed out by the Govt. When I asked one couple why they had different SSNs on their two returns, they got up and left. Maybe the SSNs belonged to one of you.

I met a young lady from the State of Chihuaha, Mexico, LDS; claimed her Father was a Stake Patriarch. When I jokingly asked if she were illegal, she got angry (she was). But she had a bank account, a drivers license, etc.

Which part of being honest she would we ignore?

This type of thing is not limited to illegal immigrants. As a tax preparer I witnessed many couples walk in the door. They often wanted to know what the wife's refund would be if she were to file as head of household, sometimes using a separate address, as if filing as head of household were an election. Many tax preparers would encourage this type of thing in order that the wife could claim an earned income credit and get a refund of $5000 or more. This is one of the large faults of the current tax law. It encourages married couples to lie and file as separate heads of household. They will divvy up the kids between them, and collect two such refunds rather than no refund under a married filing jointly return with a combined income over $40,000. However, it is not limited to Hispanics, although in my experience they were especially guilty. There are reports that American Muslims in polygamous marriages also do this. Certain polygamous "Mormon" sects also do this. It is a fairly rampant practice.

I believe the vast majority of Mexican immigrants are simply hard working people who want a better existence than they have in Mexico. One fellow I know would work in Mexico in the winter, and come to Utah in the summer to do yard work. I saw he and his truck routinely. I don't believe he would do this if he were a criminal, drug smuggler or some other stereotyped group. I believe most other Cuban, Asian and European immigrants are the same. I personally don;t have a problem with such people. However, immigrants can come here under work visas. I see nothing expressly wrong with enforcing the laws of the United States. If people feel these laws are too repressive, they should pressure congress to change them. The law will not force families to be ripped apart. If children are citizens they are free to return to their native country with their parents. There is no compulsion there. Obviously, many won't like that, but that is a different story. 

[The Nehor]

43 minutes ago, bluebell said:

These kinds of laws need to be enforced with an emphasis on mercy and not justice.  

Taking illegal but otherwise law abiding parents away from their citizen children is cruel.  The foster care system is broken (the statistics of children's chances of being physically and sexually abused--as many as 75% of foster children are sexually abused--and neglected in foster care are staggering.  95% of kids in foster care won't even graduate high school and most have serious emotional and mental problems as adults) and putting kids in it under such circumstances is evil.  

It also weakens our country's future, seeing as how we all have to deal with these kids once they turn 18 and are kicked out of the system with psychological problems, no support system, and hardly any education or prospects to get it.

 

I work with the foster care system a lot. While the 75% figure is probably high the actual number is probably horrifying. I also would not throw the foster parents under the bus too quickly. While in some cases the abuse comes from them a lot of it comes from the children abusing each other or seeking sexual experiences outside of the foster home. It is heart wrenching watching unloved teen girls deliberately seek pregnancy so someone will finally love them.

Sorry for the derail.

Edited February 22, 2017 by The Nehor

[Buckeye]

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am going to go with what God says through his apostles and prophets rather then a random member making suggestions based on their political views.

I'm on your side of this political issue Nehor, but I would caution against pulling out the "God" card. The church has not claimed any revelation regarding its political statements with respect to immigration. I'm confident that the brethren give serious and prayerful thought to political issues before taking a side (which they do very rarely). But it's not accurate to label their policy views as the spoken word of God. If it were otherwise, then the church would not allow for members who disagree with the church's political positions on SSM, Zion curtain, missile defense systems, gambling, etc.

 

ETA - I also forgot to thank you in an earlier post for your work with CPS and foster children. Seriously, bravo!

Edited February 22, 2017 by Buckeye

[provoman]

2011

Immigration: Church Issues New Statement 

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints today issued the following official statement on immigration:

Around the world, debate on the immigration question has become intense.  That is especially so in the United States. Most Americans agree that the federal government of the United States should secure its borders and sharply reduce or eliminate the flow of undocumented immigrants. Unchecked and unregulated, such a flow may destabilize society and ultimately become unsustainable.

As a matter of policy, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints discourages its members from entering any country without legal documentation, and from deliberately overstaying legal travel visas.

What to do with the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants now residing in various states within the United States is the biggest challenge in the immigration debate.  The bedrock moral issue for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is how we treat each other as children of God.  

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

As those on all sides of the immigration debate in the United States have noted, this issue is one that must ultimately be resolved by the federal government.

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

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

In furtherance of needed immigration reform in the United States, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints supports a balanced and civil approach to a challenging problem, fully consistent with its tradition of compassion, its reverence for family, and its commitment to law.

[thesometimesaint]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

Okay, but let's focus on the impact this new policy will have on the LDS Church and its members.

Thanks,

-Smac

Nothing good.

Matthew 25: 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:
 

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, provoman said:

2011

Immigration: Church Issues New Statement 

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints today issued the following official statement on immigration:

Around the world, debate on the immigration question has become intense.  That is especially so in the United States. Most Americans agree that the federal government of the United States should secure its borders and sharply reduce or eliminate the flow of undocumented immigrants. Unchecked and unregulated, such a flow may destabilize society and ultimately become unsustainable.

As a matter of policy, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints discourages its members from entering any country without legal documentation, and from deliberately overstaying legal travel visas.

What to do with the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants now residing in various states within the United States is the biggest challenge in the immigration debate.  The bedrock moral issue for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is how we treat each other as children of God.  

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

As those on all sides of the immigration debate in the United States have noted, this issue is one that must ultimately be resolved by the federal government.

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

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

In furtherance of needed immigration reform in the United States, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints supports a balanced and civil approach to a challenging problem, fully consistent with its tradition of compassion, its reverence for family, and its commitment to law.

This statement makes me proud to be LDS.  

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

I'm on your side of this political issue Nehor, but I would caution against pulling out the "God" card. The church has not claimed any revelation regarding its political statements with respect to immigration. I'm confident that the brethren give serious and prayerful thought to political issues before taking a side (which they do very rarely). But it's not accurate to label their policy views as the spoken word of God. If it were otherwise, then the church would not allow for members who disagree with the church's political positions on SSM, Zion curtain, missile defense systems, gambling, etc.

 

ETA - I also forgot to thank you in an earlier post for your work with CPS and foster children. Seriously, bravo!

I believe it represents God's views. It is not the direct word of God in the same way a written revelation might be and details may be flawed but I take it on the whole as to what God wants us to do. 

And thanks.

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

Okay, but let's focus on the impact this new policy will have on the LDS Church and its members.

Thanks,

-Smac

The issue for me is how we do NOT comply with the law of the land. I feel I cannot.

[Black Moclips]

25 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am going to go with what God says through his apostles and prophets rather then a random member making suggestions based on their political views.

I didn't realize that following the law was a political view. I was always taught that the church valued honesty, civic responsibility, and the law of the land where you reside. Is this not the case? I realize you might feel sorry for these immigrants, but there is a legal process to follow and they ignored it. Doesn't the church also teach accepting the consequences of your actions when faced with wrong doing?  

[thesometimesaint]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The issue for me is how we do NOT comply with the law of the land. I feel I cannot.

It's a tough question with a harder answer. When does violating the law become the moral thing to do?

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

This statement makes me proud to be LDS.  

I'm grateful the church is on board with keeping families together. My son-in-law is illegal, brought over by his father, but he was just out of high school. 

I worry every day he'll be deported. We've hired an immigration lawyer and are getting all the paperwork done. But like in the past when we hired a lawyer, we backed out and got cold feet that he may not return. My daughter and he have two sons, they've been happily married for over ten years, and he's not a criminal or hasn't done anything wrong criminally. Maybe we shouldn't have held back many years ago, worried he'd be detained for 10 years. Now I feel sick to my stomach it may happen even more. I guess we had hopes that the country would do as Reagan did many years ago and give amnesty to them. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128303672 I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally," Ronald Reagan said in 1984.

 

[Bob Crockett]

It is a sad day for the United States.  In my ward I work with the young men.  One was taken to the U.S. as a baby by his father, who then abandoned the family.  I'm sure he worries constantly about his future; his ability to get a driver's license, a passport, going to college.

What are immigration restrictions?  I know my ancestors didn't face any.  

Moreover, Americans don't want to hear this, but California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas were stolen from Mexico in a false provocation manufactured by United States citizens living in Mexico.  The US consistently refused to take action against Mexico for border skirmishes in Texas until residents there created a false story and whipped up jingoism in the United States to invade Mexico.  Today, schoolchildren in Mexico hear all about this story, and how Mexico lost its territory.  When you read Henry Dana's book, Two Years Before the Mast, you can see the extensive Mexican communities up and down the coast of California; extensive commercial operations and landholdings with significant peaceful trade between the U.S. and Mexico.  The US stripped Mexico of all of that; centuries of landholding and wealth of peaceful Mexican citizens who raised no army in Mexico were lost.

Now, the children of these landholders are excluded and discriminated against in the United States.  Moreover, as we can understand from the dispute involving Elder George P. Lee, the Church does not view the promises of Israel to the Lamanites as limited to the pure race of North American Indians but to all of mixed race on the two continents.  They are entitled to this land, and the Book of Mormon does not talk about borders.

Sure, poor immigrants bring drugs and crime into the U.S.  There is no doubt about that.   For similar reasons immigration restrictions were enacted against the Chinese, Irish and Italians, who were labeled as opium fiends and gangsters (and in the case of the Irish, lazy idiots).  Islamic immigrants bring the risk of terrorism, so the story goes.  Borders aren't going to stop that; nor will mass deportation.  The risk may be reduced, just as sanctions against North Korea can reduce the risk of nuclear holocaust.  But these things are wrong-headed, and the solution is increased trade relations with rogue and poor counties to elevate their poor, and pressure put upon the governments to reduce corruption, along with legalization of drugs to reduce gangsterism.   

Edited February 22, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[The Nehor]

25 minutes ago, Black Moclips said:

I didn't realize that following the law was a political view. I was always taught that the church valued honesty, civic responsibility, and the law of the land where you reside. Is this not the case? I realize you might feel sorry for these immigrants, but there is a legal process to follow and they ignored it. Doesn't the church also teach accepting the consequences of your actions when faced with wrong doing?  

It is a political view.

The church does value those things but they are not our highest laws and when the law of the land conflicts with charity which should give way?

It says that consequences follow actions. It does not (outside of Priesthood leaders dealing with certain sins) suggest that God needs us to enforce those consequences on others.

They ignored it? Most do not know how to follow it and many are bilked by dishonest lawyers exploiting them while claiming to be helping them secure residency. I take the words inscribed on Lady Liberty as a higher law then our small-minded regulations we refuse to update or adapt that just carry on forever because congress is incompetent. Now we have decided to bring down the hammer on non-criminals because our slow-minded President gets accolades from the morons amongst us for doing so. Why, in your mind, does this nonsense function as an effective exemption to compassion?

Edited February 22, 2017 by The Nehor

[Tacenda]

10 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

It is a sad day for the United States.  I my ward I work with a young man who was taken the U.S. as a baby.  I'm sure he worries constantly about his future; his ability to get a driver's license, a passport, going to college.

What are immigration restrictions?  I know my ancestors didn't face any.  

Moreover, Americans don't want to hear this, but California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas were stolen from Mexico in a false provocation manufactured by United States citizens living in Mexico.  The US consistently refused to take action against Mexico for border skirmishes in Texas until residents there created a false story and whipped up jingoism in the United States to invade Mexico.  Today, schoolchildren in Mexico hear all about this story, and how Mexico lost its territory.  When you read Henry Dana's book, Two Years Before the Mast, you can see the extensive Mexican communities up and down the coast of California; extensive commercial operations and landholdings with significant peaceful trade between the U.S. and Mexico.  The US stripped Mexico of all of that; centuries of landholding and wealth of peaceful Mexican citizens who raised no army in Mexico were lost.

Now, the children of these landholders are excluded and discriminated against in the United States.  Moreover, as we can understand from the dispute involving Elder George P. Lee, the Church does not view the promises of Israel to the Lamanites as limited to the pure race of North American Indians but to all of mixed race on the two continents.  They are entitled to this land, and the Book of Mormon does not talk about borders.

Sure, poor immigrants bring drugs and crime into the U.S.  There is no doubt about that.   For similar reasons immigration restrictions were enacted against the Chinese, Irish and Italians, who were labeled as opium fiends and gangsters (and in the case of the Irish, lazy idiots).  Islamic immigrants bring the risk of terrorism, so the story goes.  Borders aren't going to stop that; nor will mass deportation.  The risk may be reduced, just as sanctions against North Korea can reduce the risk of nuclear holocaust.  But these things are wrong-headed, and the solution is increased trade relations with rogue and poor counties to elevate their poor, and pressure put upon the governments to reduce corruption, along with legalization of drugs to reduce gangsterism.   

Thanks for your post Bob. Often I think, here we are living on what use to be Mexico, here in Utah. And I think about the Native Americans also. White man came in and took both their lands. 

Edited February 22, 2017 by Tacenda

[provoman]

6 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

It is a sad day for the United States.  I my ward I work with a young man who was taken the U.S. as a baby.  I'm sure he worries constantly about his future; his ability to get a driver's license, a passport, going to college.

What are immigration restrictions?  I know my ancestors didn't face any.  

Moreover, Americans don't want to hear this, but California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas were stolen from Mexico in a false provocation manufactured by United States citizens living in Mexico.  The US consistently refused to take action against Mexico for border skirmishes in Texas until residents there created a false story and whipped up jingoism in the United States to invade Mexico.  Today, schoolchildren in Mexico hear all about this story, and how Mexico lost its territory.  When you read Henry Dana's book, Two Years Before the Mast, you can see the extensive Mexican communities up and down the coast of California; extensive commercial operations and landholdings with significant peaceful trade between the U.S. and Mexico.  The US stripped Mexico of all of that; centuries of landholding and wealth of peaceful Mexican citizens who raised no army in Mexico were lost.

Now, the children of these landholders are excluded and discriminated against in the United States.  Moreover, as we can understand from the dispute involving Elder George P. Lee, the Church does not view the promises of Israel to the Lamanites as limited to the pure race of North American Indians but to all of mixed race on the two continents.  They are entitled to this land, and the Book of Mormon does not talk about borders.

Sure, poor immigrants bring drugs and crime into the U.S.  There is no doubt about that.   For similar reasons immigration restrictions were enacted against the Chinese, Irish and Italians, who were labeled as opium fiends and gangsters (and in the case of the Irish, lazy idiots).  Islamic immigrants bring the risk of terrorism, so the story goes.  Borders aren't going to stop that; nor will mass deportation.  The risk may be reduced, just as sanctions against North Korea can reduce the risk of nuclear holocaust.  But these things are wrong-headed, and the solution is increased trade relations with rogue and poor counties to elevate their poor, and pressure put upon the governments to reduce corruption, along with legalization of drugs to reduce gangsterism.   

Mexico, engaged in the landholding norms of the day - battle; and Mexico lost those lands according to the norms it agreed too. 

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, provoman said:

Mexico, engaged in the landholding norms of the day - battle; and Mexico lost those lands according to the norms it agreed too. 

Not exactly. President Polk offered to buy some land on the border and Mexico refused. The US moved troops into the disputed area. The Mexicans attacked the force they believed was in their territory. The US President made the dubious claim that American blood was being shed on American soil. The problem was he had just acknowledged the border was not set by offering to buy the 'American soil' in question.

The United States provoked the war to fulfill our expansionist aims. While Mexico was not entirely innocent suggesting they agreed to conquest as a legitimate method of expansion and thus on some moral level agreed to lose their land is silly.

Edited February 22, 2017 by The Nehor

[Black Moclips]

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is a political view.

The church does value those things but they are not our highest laws and when the law of the land conflicts with charity which should give way?

It says that consequences follow actions. It does not (outside of Priesthood leaders dealing with certain sins) suggest that God needs us to enforce those consequences on others.

They ignored it? Most do not know how to follow it and many are bilked by dishonest lawyers exploiting them while claiming to be helping them secure residency. I take the words inscribed on Lady Liberty as a higher law then our small-minded regulations we refuse to update or adapt that just carry on forever because congress is incompetent. Now we have decided to bring down the hammer on non-criminals because our slow-minded President gets accolades from the morons amongst us for doing so. Why, in your mind, does this nonsense function as an effective exemption to compassion.

The emotion is strong with this one......

If you personally want to follow your heart and deem yourself above the laws of our country when it suits your purpose, go right ahead and house as many illegal immigrants as you can take in your house. If you are okay ignoring the damage and crime caused illegal immigration because it doesn't fit with your politics, keep on sleeping soundly.  But when we are talking about the church and the position it should take - mind you, an actual legal entity (a corporation) that exists in the United States of America and operates using the benefits of the US government's rules, laws, tax code, etc......I think it would behoove them follow its own council by obeying the laws of the land encouraging its members to do so. Do you think the church would stand for one nano second if people started baptizing themselves and giving themselves the priesthood without following the proper rules and procedures in its wards? In the same vein, why should our government not be able to control who comes here and who enjoys the benefits of being American? "Because I feel bad for them, that's why!" yells Nehor.  

And yes, they IGNORED the proper process. If they aren't educated enough to figure that out, do we want them here in our country? Don't we already have enough poor and uneducated here already that we can help? Do we really need to import more? I don't get how that makes us a stronger country. 

It is true we are reaping the consequences of government inaction on immigration from both sides, but that doesn't mean we should just forget about solving the problem. I think most people in the US realize this and support action. You can argue whether this is the most effective first step, but at least its a step in the right direction. I think in the long run, we would probably help more people if we had an effective, secure, and enforced immigration policy. It would ensure those that come here are setup to succeed and contribute.

 

 

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I work with the foster care system a lot. While the 75% figure is probably high the actual number is probably horrifying. I also would not throw the foster parents under the bus too quickly. While in some cases the abuse comes from them a lot of it comes from the children abusing each other or seeking sexual experiences outside of the foster home. It is heart wrenching watching unloved teen girls deliberately seek pregnancy so someone will finally love them.

Sorry for the derail.

My parents were foster parents for years.  I do not at all mean to throw all foster parents under the bus.

[The Nehor]

58 minutes ago, bluebell said:

My parents were foster parents for years.  I do not at all mean to throw all foster parents under the bus.

I did not think you meant to but can see how someone might take the statistic you quoted that way.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Black Moclips said:

The emotion is strong with this one......

If you personally want to follow your heart and deem yourself above the laws of our country when it suits your purpose, go right ahead and house as many illegal immigrants as you can take in your house. If you are okay ignoring the damage and crime caused illegal immigration because it doesn't fit with your politics, keep on sleeping soundly.  But when we are talking about the church and the position it should take - mind you, an actual legal entity (a corporation) that exists in the United States of America and operates using the benefits of the US government's rules, laws, tax code, etc......I think it would behoove them follow its own council by obeying the laws of the land encouraging its members to do so. Do you think the church would stand for one nano second if people started baptizing themselves and giving themselves the priesthood without following the proper rules and procedures in its wards? In the same vein, why should our government not be able to control who comes here and who enjoys the benefits of being American? "Because I feel bad for them, that's why!" yells Nehor.  

And yes, they IGNORED the proper process. If they aren't educated enough to figure that out, do we want them here in our country? Don't we already have enough poor and uneducated here already that we can help? Do we really need to import more? I don't get how that makes us a stronger country. 

It is true we are reaping the consequences of government inaction on immigration from both sides, but that doesn't mean we should just forget about solving the problem. I think most people in the US realize this and support action. You can argue whether this is the most effective first step, but at least its a step in the right direction. I think in the long run, we would probably help more people if we had an effective, secure, and enforced immigration policy. It would ensure those that come here are setup to succeed and contribute.

 

 

If compassion for the plight of the downtrodden makes me emotional then the man whose name I took upon myself by covenant is also emotional and I am doing it right. Thanks.

I think you may want to check your statistics. Immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate then citizens. If you are worried about the crime rate (violent crime has been falling for quite a while) the solution is to deport citizens and bring in more immigrants to replace them. The church does not encourage illegal immigration (says so in the statement quoted). I do not either in most circumstances. But for refugees and families and individuals seeking a better life or escaping one destroyed around them compassion should overrule the brutal blind hand of justice. As to changing because of my say so.......On one man's say so we implemented a stupidly designed incompletely detailed immigration ban. I trust my voice more then his. Not to toot my own horn but while I try to serve God and my fellow man he talks about how great it is that he can perv out walking into women's dressing rooms. Plus one voice can have power. And, to judge by the protest numbers, I am not a lone voice.

So we should specifically turn away the poor and uneducated because it will weaken our country? What kind of ubermensch philosophy is that? Should the church apply a similar philosophy so it grows strong? Seems incompatible with what the carpenter of Nazareth taught. 

It is a step in a direction but I would not call it the right one. Maybe I am a pathetic sap but I actually believe that if we were to welcome in those fleeing war or seeking a better life and bind up their wounds of all kinds and help them to rise up that God would pour out his blessings on this nation. We could be the light on the hill to the world. Instead I listen to hate-filled rallies of exclusion and selfishness and think of Sodom burning for its cruel treatment of the strangers in their land.

[Ahab]

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

Okay, but let's focus on the impact this new policy will have on the LDS Church and its members.

Thanks,

-Smac

More legal residents as more illegal aliens in the Church get legally authorized to be here, or more illegal aliens leaving the country/countries they are not legally authorized to be in.

The Church has a door to enter to become a member of God's kingdom on Earth.  Getting in illegally isn't really a good option.

It would be nice if we could make it fairly easy to be a legal alien.

p s. And why is it that when people think of illegal aliens in America that they think of illegal Mexican immigrants?  There are many other countries further south of Mexico. And what about Canadians? And Russians? And Chinese? Etc.

An illegal alien in the US of A is anyone who is here illegally.

 

Edited February 23, 2017 by Ahab
p.s. and typo

[Jeanne]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

My parents were foster parents for years.  I do not at all mean to throw all foster parents under the bus.

Kudos to your folks.  I truly believe it takes a special people that can temporarily care and love..then let go. 

[Duncan]

16 minutes ago, Ahab said:

More legal residents as more illegal aliens in the Church get legally authorized to be here, or more illegal aliens leaving the country/countries they are not legally authorized to be in.

The Church has a door to enter to become a member of God's kingdom on Earth.  Getting in illegally isn't really a good option.

It would be nice if we could make it fairly easy to be a legal alien.

p s. And why is it that when people think of illegal aliens in America that they think of illegal Mexican immigrants?  There are many other countries further south of Mexico. And what about Canadians? And Russians? And Chinese? Etc.

An illegal alien in the US of A is anyone who is here illegally.

 

There was a girl in our stake who was a nanny in the US and let's just say she comes from a family that thinks they are above the law and she extended on her visa and got deported  back here to Canada, can't say I was unhappy for the US. In the YSA ward recently though the EQ Pres. came here for school and due to some minor screw up he had to go back to Minnesota, all he wanted to do was go to school here because they didn't offer the program there and some technicality got him kicked out, so stupid!!!

Edited February 23, 2017 by Duncan

[Rajah Manchou]

7 hours ago, Black Moclips said:

If they aren't educated enough to figure that out, do we want them here in our country?

Yes.

Quote

Don't we already have enough poor and uneducated here already that we can help? Do we really need to import more?

Yes.

Quote

I don't get how that makes us a stronger country. 

Neither did the Sodomites.

 

[Storm Rider]

• I find that I am in the minority on this issue.  I actually, (I know it is a bizarre concept), think that a nation should have borders and they need to be real i.e. if you illegally enter another nation you are ILLEGAL - you don't belong nor should your illegal presence in that nation be used as a reason to benefit the illegal individual.  
• I think that the US should modify its immigration policy to facilitate those individuals deemed worthy candidates for citizenship.  I also think that we need to modify our Green Card policies to facilitate workers.  
• I think that no individual should be allowed to stay in a country illegally.  They need to be identified immediately, their case reviewed, if they are deemed to fit within our new, modified immigration policies they should be allowed to stay until such times as their Green Card or citizenship is received.  What is operative is that no individual is in the country illegally and unknown.  
• I reject the use of the term "refugee" when addressing all immigrants or illegal aliens.  There are few refugees while the nation is inundated with illegal aliens that consciously chose to break the law of this nation.  
• If a person cannot enter the nation legally they do not belong in a host nation.  Why is this hard to understand?
• Lastly, the right of citizenship for simply being born on US soil needs to be stopped.  Does any other nation offer such a right?  Having lived in the Middle East I met countless families who would go to the USA when the wife was near to delivery and stay until their child was born - get a US passport for the child and then return to their own country in the Middle East.  All of the children have US passports - I just find that bizarre.  I think citizenship has value in any nation, not only the USA.  Times have changed and this method of gaining citizenship is no longer viable or desirable. If your parents are citizens of the USA then the child will be a citizen.  If not, then the child will have the citizenship of their parents home nation.

My family's presence in the United States began as immigrants - legal, authorized immigrants.  I don't have any sympathy or any desire to value any illegal act, particularly one where individuals illegally enter another nation.