LDS Church calls on Congress to Make Room for Dreamers

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

Here’s an article based on very recently released United States Sentencing Commission statistics that updates the information you cite regarding crime and illegal immigrants. If the information in the article is true, we have been lied to for years.

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/crime/329589-the-truth-about-crime-illegal-immigrants-and-sanctuary-cities

"have they committed violent crimes predominantly against U.S. citizens"

Why in the world would we not also care about violent crimes committed against nonUS citizens?

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

This is very much an issue outside of online forum participants. I've been asked to do "anything goes" Q&As in other stakes before, and there are often questions about the Church's stance on illegal immigration. The people asking the question are not happy with the answers to that question (and the answers are not black-and-white, catechism-style). In the end, a difficult issue for people is how the Church can regard people who willfully and knowingly violated U.S. law to be in full fellowship in the Church (i.e., why the Church doesn't regard this as a disciplinable offense). They are even more angry when they learn that there are even bishops and other priesthood leaders who are not legally in the country --- and that I am not necessarily talking about Mexicans, either. 

The problem with the Church's Newsroom statement is that it sounds nice, but doesn't say anything or give any real guidance, so people are left to their personal default settings. The Church's position is:

a) it is completely neutral on government solutions

b) families should be kept together (i.e., not broken up by deportation or extradition)

c) countries have the right to enforce their laws, and all people should obey those laws.

This produces a contradiction/paradox, or at least it is a non-answer in practice. A stance that does not lean one way over another doesn't clarify, and pleases no one. 

Two things that have helped convert me from a staunch anti illegal immigration person and into someone who's fairly pro immigrant. 

1. I'm no longer a Javier type rule keeper.  I used to very much be concerned with keeping the rules myself, and I often judged others through this lens, if they would only keep the rules exactly then we wouldn't have the problems we have in society or church or fill in the blank. 

2.  I learned about the history of immigration policy in the USA.   When immigration laws started to be put in place, the discriminatory laws against certain races and ethnicities (even proposals for laws discriminating against Mormon immigration.)  Then I started to think about my ancestry, all of them were immigrants, and what kinds of laws existed and didn't exist when they came to America.  Laws are arbitrary rules, are the laws in place today even fair or realistic to manage the dynamics in place and the incentives for people to come here.  We have a very broken system and to just point the blame at the individuals who are in some ways victims of the broken system doesn't seem fair.  Also, the current incentives in some ways exploit immigrants for cheap labor.  There are many interest groups that benefit from the cheap labor that want to keep the current system in place as is.  This also isn't fair to the individuals.  

These two pillars helped me to have a major shift on this issue, oh and probably not listening to conservative talk radio drum beat on this topic every day. 

[hope_for_things]

13 minutes ago, rongo said:

Can you give more info on this? I would love to see what they said in Utah. To my knowledge, there is no official Church stance on this. Elder Clayton and Elder Schweizer told us in September that the Church is working on this, but that it doesn't currently have a position. 

The Church can't come out with an official position on this soon enough for me!  

I'm trying to remember, I think this first came up a couple years ago, and there have been a few things hit the news.  Here are a couple links.  I think the latest was last year when the church said they were reconsidering this issue, but when it first came up they were against it and I know it swayed the vote in the legislature.  

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-urges-cautious-approach-medical-marijuana-issue-utah

http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=3586998&itype=CMSID

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865683892/LDS-Church-calls-for-more-study-of-medical-marijuana.html

  

[Bobbieaware]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

"have they committed violent crimes predominantly against U.S. citizens"

Why in the world would we not also care about violent crimes committed against nonUS citizens?

Two reasons. 1) Because the crimes committed against US citizens wouldn’t have happened in the first place if the criminal illegal aliens weren’t here — a clear disruption to US domestic tranquility. 2) It’s difficult to obtain accurate figures of crimes committed against undocumented immigrants by criminal illegal aliens because the undocumented immigrants want to remain in the shadows and not draw attention to themselves by law enforcement. All too often, undocumented immagrant victims of crime suffer the outrages committed against them in silence because they want to remain “under the radar.”

At any rate, I’ll look this up and see if I can provide you with some stats on undocumented alien vs undocumented alien crime in the US.

 

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

Two reasons. 1) Because the crimes committed against US citizens wouldn’t have happened in the first place if the criminal illegal aliens weren’t here — a clear disruption to US domestic tranquility. 

Neither wouldthe crimes against anyone else within the borders.

What about crimes against legal immigrants?  Why shouldn't they be just as important?

[Danzo]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

4. I am aware of a young man, enrolled in DACA, who is reconsidering his decision to serve his mission because DACA has expired.  

 

-Spencer

Tell the young man not to worry.  I have many extended family members who served missions while they were here illegally. The church doesn't seem to mind (as is right).

[Calm]

They also assign them to missions where they don't have to get visas and even may have them avoid air travel.

[Danzo]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

This is very much an issue outside of online forum participants. I've been asked to do "anything goes" Q&As in other stakes before, and there are often questions about the Church's stance on illegal immigration. The people asking the question are not happy with the answers to that question (and the answers are not black-and-white, catechism-style). In the end, a difficult issue for people is how the Church can regard people who willfully and knowingly violated U.S. law to be in full fellowship in the Church (i.e., why the Church doesn't regard this as a disciplinable offense). They are even more angry when they learn that there are even bishops and other priesthood leaders who are not legally in the country --- and that I am not necessarily talking about Mexicans, either. 

The problem with the Church's Newsroom statement is that it sounds nice, but doesn't say anything or give any real guidance, so people are left to their personal default settings. The Church's position is:

a) it is completely neutral on government solutions

b) families should be kept together (i.e., not broken up by deportation or extradition)

c) countries have the right to enforce their laws, and all people should obey those laws.

This produces a contradiction/paradox, or at least it is a non-answer in practice. A stance that does not lean one way over another doesn't clarify, and pleases no one. 

Sometimes you have to break lower laws in order to be able to follow higher laws.

Why should it be a dsciplinable offence? Illegal presence is almost never a treated as a crime.

[Danzo]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

They also assign them to missions where they don't have to get visas and even may have them avoid air travel.

One of my sisters in law actually was called to serve  in mexico.  She was living here at the time. She went there  for two years then came back again Illegally again.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

   I for one am for letting them stay, but there still needs to be a vetting process for the criminal element. In fact that is my main concern as to the immigrant issue altogether.

If they were committing crimes they probably would have already been deported.

3 hours ago, rongo said:

This is very much an issue outside of online forum participants. I've been asked to do "anything goes" Q&As in other stakes before, and there are often questions about the Church's stance on illegal immigration. The people asking the question are not happy with the answers to that question (and the answers are not black-and-white, catechism-style). In the end, a difficult issue for people is how the Church can regard people who willfully and knowingly violated U.S. law to be in full fellowship in the Church (i.e., why the Church doesn't regard this as a disciplinable offense). They are even more angry when they learn that there are even bishops and other priesthood leaders who are not legally in the country --- and that I am not necessarily talking about Mexicans, either. 

It is easy to regard them as being in full fellowship. You just do it. I do it all the time.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Neither wouldthe crimes against anyone else within the borders.

What about crimes against legal immigrants?  Why shouldn't they be just as important?

Is Bobbieaware contending that they shouldn’t be? Perhaps I’ve missed something, or perhaps I’m misunderstanding her. 

[Danzo]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

They are even more angry when they learn that there are even bishops and other priesthood leaders who are not legally in the country --- and that I am not necessarily talking about Mexicans, either. 

 

These people should probably be encouraged to repent while they can.

perhaps you could read them mathew 25 and tell them  to avoid being a goat.

 

[CA Steve]

I think it is step in the right direction for the church to encourage others to not punish the children of adults who have committed some offense.

[Darren10]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

This is from the newsroom:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is established in 188 nations around the globe. Issues of immigration and legal status are of concern for many of our members. Most of our early Church members emigrated from foreign lands to live, work and worship, blessed by the freedoms and opportunities offered in this great nation.

Immigration is a complex and sometimes divisive issue. As we have stated before, we believe that our first priority is to love and care for one another as Jesus Christ taught. Each nation must determine and administer its policies related to immigration. The Church does not advocate any specific legislative or executive solution. Our hope is that, in whatever solution emerges, there is provision for strengthening families and keeping them together. We also acknowledge that every nation has the right to enforce its laws and secure its borders and that all persons subject to a nation's laws are accountable for their acts in relation to them.

We welcome the sincere efforts of lawmakers and leaders to seek for solutions that honor these principles and extend compassion to those seeking a better life. Specifically, we call upon our national leaders to create policies that provide hope and opportunities for those, sometimes referred to as “Dreamers,” who grew up here from a young age and for whom this country is their home. They have built lives, pursued educational opportunities and been employed for years based on the policies that were in place. These individuals have demonstrated a capacity to serve and contribute positively in our society, and we believe they should be granted the opportunity to continue to do so.

This SLC Tribune article also mentions that this statement has caught some people by surprise, believing that the new presidency would be more conservative.  

Some observers had suspected the new Mormon leadership — Nelson and his counselors Dallin H. Oaks and Henry B. Eyring — would take a more conservative stance. 

Is this stance going to be difficult for some members to accept?  I get a lot of anti-DACA stuff on Facebook from members.

I’m fine with DACA but strongly disagree with Obama creating it via executive order. I have long advocated a pathway to citizenship but to do this the borders must be secure first and certain standards should be met.  Realisitically the latter will never happen but I still support it. Being pro DACA is not automatically anti conservative. If tour facebook friends disagree, point them to me.

[Bobbieaware]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Neither wouldthe crimes against anyone else within the borders.

What about crimes against legal immigrants?  Why shouldn't they be just as important?

I’ve just spent two hours searching for information and stats on illegal alien crimes perpetrated against other illegal aliens, using many different search terms, and haven’t found a single article on the subject. Perhaps you’ll be more successful in the search than I (let me know if you find anything because I’m now very interested in the subject ). So this apparent lack of available information on the subject may explain why the article focuses on illegal alien crimes committed against US citizens, that reason being that stats on such crimes are actually available. Like I said, victimized undocumented aliens often remain silent because they think they need to remain in the shadows.

I’ll now see if I can find any information and stats on illegal alien crimes commited against legal aliens and non-citizen permanent residents. If I’m successful, I’ll return and report.

[Tacenda]

Yaaaayyyy!!!

[The Nehor]

34 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

I’m fine with DACA but strongly disagree with Obama creating it via executive order. I have long advocated a pathway to citizenship but to do this the borders must be secure first and certain standards should be met.  Realisitically the latter will never happen but I still support it. Being pro DACA is not automatically anti conservative. If tour facebook friends disagree, point them to me.

We can fix it as soon as we secure the border.

Translation: We can endlessly claim it is not secure enough even if we do build Trump's gold-plated wall and thus will never do anything.

[Bobbieaware]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Neither wouldthe crimes against anyone else within the borders.

What about crimes against legal immigrants?  Why shouldn't they be just as important?

No luck yet but I did find this related article. It seems that the oft-touted low statistics on illegal immagrant crimes were deliberately skewed because illegal immagrants and legal immagrants were lumped into the same group. So those who have illegally entered the United States have been lumped in with those who went way out of their way to enter this country legally have been combined to present a distorted view of reality. Fake news, anyone?

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/327229-crimes-by-illegal-aliens-not-legal-immigrants-are-the-real#.WmvgUqahtR4.

Edited January 27, 2018 by Bobbieaware

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Is Bobbieaware contending that they shouldn’t be? Perhaps I’ve missed something, or perhaps I’m misunderstanding her. 

It was in the article.

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

No luck yet but I did find this related article. It seems that the oft-touted low statistics on illegal immagrant crimes were deliberately skewed because illegal immagrants and legal immagrants were lumped into the same group. So those who have illegally entered the United States have been lumped in with those who went way out of their way to enter this country legally have been combined to present a distorted view of reality. Fake news, anyone?

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/327229-crimes-by-illegal-aliens-not-legal-immigrants-are-the-real#.WmvgUqahtR4.

I really hope one day I will stop having the urge to punch anyone who uses that stupid "fake news" term.

If I do not I may end up skewing criminal figures towards citizens committing more crimes.

 

Okay, we have an opinion piece from a guy at the Heritage Foundation there. And all he argues is that the numbers are probably skewed for various reasons and there is no way to know for sure but he suspects immigrant crime is much higher. Good to know. Yep, I'm convinced.

[provoman]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

A few thoughts:

1. I think we need to remind ourselves that the Church is not a political entity.  The Church's position on social/moral issues is based on doctrine and revelation, not on politial ideologies.  So some of the Church's stances align with "{American sociopolitically} conservative stance{s}," and some align with "{American sociopolitically} liberal or progressive" stances.

2. This was not a surprise to me, given the Church's previous moderate stance on immigration issues in the U.S.

3. I think it's weird that the Trib, of all news outlets (except, of course, for the Deseret News), would immediately leap to framing the Brethren's treatment of this issie in political terms ("some observers had suspected the new Mormon leadership ... would take a more conservative stance").

4. I am aware of a young man, enrolled in DACA, who is reconsidering his decision to serve his mission because DACA has expired.  

Love ya!

-Spencer

Mexican, Undocumented and Mormon   

Illegal immigrant within the United States, called to serve a mission.

 

Our immigration laws are not broken, our borders are broken, our failure to enforce immigration laws is broken. In addition, broken are the other countries that give rise for people to risk life and limb to illegally enter the United States. 

This from Pewresearch (would not be surprise if some on Trump's list"). I have a difficult time with amnesty and similar programs as such programs encourage illegal entry into the United States. 

Edited January 27, 2018 by provoman

[Rajah Manchou]

I'm all for legal migration to this country. And by legal I mean only the cream of the crop, you know. People who deserve it and have earned it through merit and wealth. Everybody else would probably want to buy a house next to mine and make my life miserable with their low class behavior.

 

[The Nehor]

8 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I'm all for legal migration to this country. And by legal I mean only the cream of the crop, you know. People who deserve it and have earned it through merit and wealth. Everybody else would probably want to buy a house next to mine and make my life miserable with their low class behavior.

 

Agreed, letting the filthy poor people in will lower my property values.

[Rajah Manchou]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Agreed, letting the filthy poor people in will lower my property values.

Especially in Zion, we've worked so long and hard to make it a liveable and safe place for us holy and chosen people. I'm ok with Lamanites moving here, but only those who can score a minimum of 99 out of 100 points on the I'm Not From One of Those ____hole Countries Test.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I really hope one day I will stop having the urge to punch anyone who uses that stupid "fake news" term.

If I do not I may end up skewing criminal figures towards citizens committing more crimes.

 

Much of what passes for news these days <is> fake, ginned up to push a political ideology or cause without even making a pretense of fairness and balance. 

It’s not surprising that some of those who complain the loudest about the term are the most frequent practitioners of it. 

Edited January 27, 2018 by Scott Lloyd