I fear that many misunderstand the Prophet, concerning “refugees”.

[Stargazer]

45 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Are you aware that at the time of D&C 58, the "Law of the land" didn't restrict immigration.

Yes, and so what?  At the time, the "Law of the land" didn't restrict a lot of things that it does now, and restricted a lot of things that it doesn't any longer.  Are you of the persuasion that the laws in force at the time of D&C 58 are the only laws that should be in force from then until now?  That D&C 58 through some undocumented and unknown process acts to set in stone what was in force at the time it was given?  Slavery was legal in a good portion of the country, for example.  Should slavery therefore still be legal?

45 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Or maybe you  believe the scripture covers all law that have ever been made or ever will be made?

The scripture doesn't admit of any exceptions, does it?  It doesn't say, for example, that Saints should follow all the laws except for the ones they find inconvenient or that they disagree with.  It says to befriend the constitutional law of the land. When the supreme court upheld the law forbidding polygamy, the Church acted to obey it. Reluctantly.

From Official Declaration 1:

"Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise."  -- Wilford Woodruff, President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I'm not saying that a government could not pass laws which are inimical to the purposes of the Lord and therefore such laws justified rebellion.  It's certainly possible.  But we're not there, are we, in the United States?

[Tacenda]

22 minutes ago, pogi said:

Me too.  But I also appreciate a multitude of subcultures within a culture - that is what makes America great - a diversity of thought, culture, and ideas.  Could you imagine going out to eat and only having American food (whatever that is!) to choose from?  No authentic Mexican joints, no Thai, Indian, Italian, Chinese, Japanese/Sushi, etc. etc.  I love going to China towns, or little Italy, or the little street taco stands.  I love seeing the diverse cultural dresses walking down the streets of SLC.  All thanks to immigration and a melting pot concept.   

The good ole' US of A, is a melting pot. That's how it began! I love seeing diversity as well. I believe we have plenty room for refugees, and I love that someone pointed out on this thread to me that the main thing is that we take care of the refugees so that they can aclimate themselves from having to leave the country of their origin. Luckily there are refugees that have been living here for years that can hopefully enable that help and give great insight. It was Hamba that mentioned this, now thinking about it. And how awful he felt when he was the outsider and the way some people pretty much gave him the cold shoulder. 

There are white nationalists out there that don't understand diversity as being a good thing. Maybe they need to go to an island and not propagate somewhere. Don't want their offspring to take on their attitudes.

[Kevin Christensen]

Quote

Leviticus 19:34
You must treat the foreigner living among you as native-born and love him as yourself, for you were foreigners in the land of Egypt. I am the LORD your God.
 

And then there is Stephen Miller and, it must be said, his institutional enablers over the past three years.

What should we do when the laws of the land encourage us to forget the laws of God?  A great deal of the New Testament describes the conflicts between Jesus and the notion of love as the First and Great commandment upon which all other commandments ought to be based, and those who sought to replace morality based on "doing unto others as we would have them to us," with the notion that Legality Trumps Morality.  If a thing is legal, lawful (e.g. slavery, predatory lending, polluting the planet, or separating children from families, caging them, with no way of tracking them, and no concern for trauma inflicted) then liberal morality has nothing to say.  "It deters criminal activity."  Legality is all.  Remember, as James said, "If any man lacks wisdom, let him ask of God who gives to all men conservatively, and therefore what they have, they must have earned with my blessing, and if they don't have it, that is evidence enough that they don't deserve it."  Something like that.  If we ignore so much like this:

Quote

Deuteronomy 10:19
Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

One of the things that permits people with the perspective to be self critical, to "remove the beam from our own eye" as a necessary prelude to seeing clearly is the presence of people and ideas and information that is different than what currently nests in our heads.  Part of what adds to joy and expansion of the mind and enlargement of the soul is the combination of variety and beauty that God put here for us to enjoy.  Pure knowledge greatly enlarges the soul without hypocrisy and without guile.  It follows that impure knowledge leads to contracted souls that display both hypocrisy and guile.  And where in the world can one go to observe that in our glorious Trumptopia?

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited December 7, 2019 by Kevin Christensen
typo

[bluebell]

33 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

The good ole' US of A, is a melting pot. That's how it began!

Interestingly, the melting pot analogy does not promote diversity.  When you melt things together, you end up with one product that is homogenous--all parts are the same.   Diversity is a tapestry, not a melting pot.   

[Ahab]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

That’s it? No questions,

No questions needed, at least not as a requirement for entering the country.  If someone has nefarious motives they could just lie, so what good purpose would any questions serve. 

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

no medical exams,

Before entering a country?  Are they doing that now at the borders?  What would be the point of doing a medical exam at the border, or requiring someone to go get a physical and a written note from a doctor to say "Yeah, he's got some health problems, but nothing catchy".

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

no background or criminal checks?

Not necessary.  Just make sure they aren't carrying any drugs or bombs or weapons unless they have some piece of paper to say it's okay for them to have those drugs or bombs or weapons.

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

No verification of identity?

Oh, come on.  Are you Bob Smith or are you really Ferdinand Balboa?   You look like Ferdinand Balboa to me.  Are you carrying any drugs or bombs or weapons?  Turn around here and let me check.  Okay, nothing on you.  You can go in now.  Have a nice day!

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Should there be a limit on numbers who enter without permission?

No. Buses should encouraged. Less pollution and less traffic than a bunch of cars carrying one person at a time.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

The scripture doesn't admit of any exceptions, does it?  It doesn't say, for example, that Saints should follow all the laws except for the ones they find inconvenient or that they disagree with.  It says to befriend the constitutional law of the land. When the supreme court upheld the law forbidding polygamy, the Church acted to obey it. Reluctantly.

From Official Declaration 1:

"Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise."  -- Wilford Woodruff, President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

You're not seriously making that argument?  Basically everyone that signed off on issuing the Manifesto continued to break the associated laws.

And scripture does allow for exceptions when it specifies laws that are constitutional  (in keeping with the freedoms outline therein).

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Yes, and so what?  At the time, the "Law of the land" didn't restrict a lot of things that it does now, and restricted a lot of things that it doesn't any longer.  Are you of the persuasion that the laws in force at the time of D&C 58 are the only laws that should be in force from then until now?  That D&C 58 through some undocumented and unknown process acts to set in stone what was in force at the time it was given?  Slavery was legal in a good portion of the country, for example.  Should slavery therefore still be legal?

The scripture doesn't admit of any exceptions, does it?  It doesn't say, for example, that Saints should follow all the laws except for the ones they find inconvenient or that they disagree with.  It says to befriend the constitutional law of the land. When the supreme court upheld the law forbidding polygamy, the Church acted to obey it. Reluctantly.

From Official Declaration 1:

"Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise."  -- Wilford Woodruff, President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I'm not saying that a government could not pass laws which are inimical to the purposes of the Lord and therefore such laws justified rebellion.  It's certainly possible.  But we're not there, are we, in the United States?

While I appreciate your desire to always obey every law, I have found that often laws conflict.  This is true for man made laws as well as the laws of god.  There are higher laws and lower laws.  When laws conflict the challenge is to choose the higher law, rather than the lower law.

For example, we are commanded to attend sacrament meeting and to administer to the sick and afflicted. Usually, these two commandments do not conflict, but there have been times in my life where administering to the sick and afflicted required me to miss attending my church meetings.  Two laws conflicted, and I choose to follow what I thought was the higher law.

The same applies here.  We are commanded to take in the stranger (see matthew 25) and "obey the law of the land" as you pointed out.  

Sometimes they conflict.  If there is a conflict, I believe we need to follow the higher law.  The scriptures have numerous examples of choosing to follow the laws of god at the expense of following the laws of man. 

Our prophets and apostles emphasis kindness and compassion toward illegal immigrants and they authorize them to be baptized, hold callings and serve missions and receive temple covenants.

Unfortunately, I often see that our people seem to react like the people of Ammoniah in Alma chapter 14 when "the people went forth and witnessed against them—testifying that they had reviled against the law, and their lawyers and judges of the land, and also of all the people that were in the land"

We know how that turned out. 

 

 

Edited December 5, 2019 by Danzo

[Ahab]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

DC 58:21 Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land.

You may disagree with the immigration laws, but apparently God wants you to obey them.

DC 98:5-6 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me. Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;

Again, inasmuch as the law is constitutional, the Lord enjoins you to befriend it -- which means to obey it and require others to obey it as well.

If you have a beef with the law, use the law to lobby to have it changed.  

Yeah, I know, I have a rebellious streak in me when it comes to stupid, evil laws.  I have a problem with them and I tend to try to just ignore them rather than obey them.  Good laws that make sense are not something I have a problem with.  And I don't have enough time in my day t go out lobbying to change all of the stupid, evil laws that are on the books in this country, considering all of the other things I really need to try to get done.  Not obeying the stupid, evil laws in the world does prick my conscience though so I have a feeling I should probably just submit to them instead of just not obeying those stupid, evil laws.  I'm still working on how to handle it and I have been for many years now.

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

You want a moral justification for the law as it now stands?  Fine.  You live in a dwelling, do you not?  Would you not object if someone decided to move into your dwelling without your permission?  Of course you would.  The land of the United States is the common property of the people of the United States.  Those who wish to come to the land of the United States must get the permission of the common owners of the land of the United States, or in other words, the permission of the people of the United States, as expressed in the laws their freely elected representatives have enacted for this purpose.

Your idealized vision, as you express it, "God didn't put borderlines on our planet and I think everyone should be considered free to move to any country they wish to live in." will be fulfilled once the Lord returns in glory.  Until then, men are left to themselves, to do their best to secure their own best interests in accordance with God's laws.  And you will note that God never gave as a commandment that anyone could move anywhere they felt like without consideration of the people who were already there.  If you think he did, then you automatically justify invasion.

Some laws are good, but some laws are stupid/evil.  Crosswalk lights for example.  Sure they can be helpful at times, but when the way is clear and there is nobody around, like late at night when there is hardly anyone on the streets, those stupid things are just stupid annoyances and I have a very hard time just standing there waiting for the light to change to say I can then walk when I could have easily walked without any danger a few minutes ago!  And that goes for traffic lights, too!  Sometimes they are helpful but we shouldn't be subject to some stupid evil law that says we can't or shouldn't walk when there is no good reason to wait. And the fact that it is a "law" is no justification for that stupid, evil law.

[Tacenda]

56 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Interestingly, the melting pot analogy does not promote diversity.  When you melt things together, you end up with one product that is homogenous--all parts are the same.   Diversity is a tapestry, not a melting pot.   

So true, never thought of it like that. Going to change my words! Love the tapestry word much better, thanks bluebell!

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

I must be tired, could you put this in context, so I don’t have plow back through which question I was answering. 

If illegal immigrants leave the US or other countries to do missionary work for the Church in their native country, do you suggest they stay in their native country after their mission or attempt to enter the host country illegally again.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

Thank you for the context, I hope none have such issues of cherry picking most laws today. 

Who are you referring to as cherry picking laws in the past and do you think they were right or wrong to do so?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

This reply was from another edited comment, with an “I” at the end, so again could I have some context? 

You are concerned for the deaths of those resulting from allowing the sick to enter a country.

I am asking what do you think of the sick who die because they are not allowed to enter a safer country that gives them access to medical treatment?

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

Too whom is this addressed? If it is myself, I was speaking of the shame of such leaders who often create the very conditions that cause the innocent to flee, NOT the Refugees. 

Of course it is addressed to your OP comments. I think we can support people in need, whether they are in country illegally or not. To help is to answer Jesus' call, which was even to extend support to lawbreakers.

 

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Interestingly, the melting pot analogy does not promote diversity.  When you melt things together, you end up with one product that is homogenous--all parts are the same.   Diversity is a tapestry, not a melting pot.   

I think maybe you're misunderstanding the intent of the phrase.  In America, we are all different and yet we are all Americans.  None of us is the same.  And yet we strive for the ideal of equal rights for everybody... rights that promote what is good for all of us in our pursuit of happiness.

Some people mistakenly believe everyone having equal rights means everyone should have the right to do whatever they want to do, but our country's forefather's never had that in their mind.  Nobody should have the legal right to do something that is evil.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

The land of the United States is the common property of the people of the United States. 

So when are you moving back to Europe and giving your land back to the natives?

[alter idem]

9 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

This just appeared in my Facebook feed: Trump gave states the power to ban refugees. Conservative Utah wants more of them. Good stuff!

Utah isn't really conservative, at least, not by my standards.  Utah is run by moderate to liberal Republicans.  Look at our new Senator, Mitt Romney.  And, call me skeptical, but I'm suspicious of why they want more refugees.  It's certainly not out of the goodness of their hearts, there is likely some payoff of more federal money going into the state coffers.

[pogi]

14 hours ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

but taking the unvaccinated, whom we know, due to conditions in large “homeless communities”, that carry many diseases such as Typhous, the bubonic plaque, small pox, diseases that we once eradicated, it is wrong and wrong headed, especially to those who become sick. What of those who die, just because we feel we have a “moral right” to do so, not by law, but because of our feelings. 

First, small pox is eradicated WORLD-WIDE.  Unless someone breaks into a government lab and releases a sample into the environment, I don't think we need to worry about immigrants bringing it in to the US.  Second, locally acquired/transmitted bubonic plaugue occurs every year in the US from infected US rodents and their fleas (not from foreign immigrants).  There has not been any documented cases of non-local acquired bubonic plague being transmitted from person to person in the US since 1924.  This sounds like a lot of unreasonable fear mongering. Third, there is no vaccine for these diseases in the US at present so being unvaccinated isn't going to increase the risk for these specific diseases.  Fourth, for vaccine preventable diseases, we have the means to vaccinate immigrants. 

Do you have any comprehension of how many US travelers visit developing countries every year?  Only a tiny fraction of those travelers are fully vaccinated. These travelers are by far and large a greater risk to community health than the comparatively/relatively tiny percentage of immigrants/refugees.  Should we ban all foreign travel to developing countries?  This community health argument is baseless when compared against foreign travel.  I work in travel medicine.  

Edited December 5, 2019 by pogi

[Stargazer]

 

10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

You're not seriously making that argument?  Basically everyone that signed off on issuing the Manifesto continued to break the associated laws.

 

So what?  Officially, the church said "don't do it."  Are you arguing that we should get back on track and have plural marriages again?  That's your position?  I suppose you make a good point -- the example of "everyone that signed off on" it should be followed. So how many wives are you proposing to add to your marriage?

I'm seriously saying, obey the law of the land.  If you don't like what it says, then work to change it.  But in the meantime the scriptures admonish you to obey the law of the land.  And I haven't heard one peep from the stand at General Conference about doing otherwise.  Not during my lifetime anyway.

10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

And scripture does allow for exceptions when it specifies laws that are constitutional  (in keeping with the freedoms outline therein).

Yes, it does!  I didn't say anything contrary to this.

I was considering quoting D&C 134:5 earlier, but it would have been out of context, but now that you've taken it that far... here it is:

"We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience."

So, yes, exceptions are allowed for!  Sedition and rebellion is implicitly allowed for if government goes too far.  But are we there yet?

Believe it or not, even Abraham Lincoln recognized the right of rebellion. In his first inaugural address:

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."

In his book, "Things as They Really Are", Elder Neal A. Maxwell also implied that there might come a time when Caesar had gone too far.  He wrote that it would be a task for disciples to know what to do when a bloated Caesar demanded too much.  Can't write out the quote properly because my copy of the book is 5,000 miles away from my present location.

But, are we to the point where we must consider widespread civil disobedience or outright rebellion?  Surely not.

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, Danzo said:

While I appreciate your desire to always obey every law, I have found that often laws conflict.  This is true for man made laws as well as the laws of god.  There are higher laws and lower laws.  When laws conflict the challenge is to choose the higher law, rather than the lower law.

For example, we are commanded to attend sacrament meeting and to administer to the sick and afflicted. Usually, these two commandments do not conflict, but there have been times in my life where administering to the sick and afflicted required me to miss attending my church meetings.  Two laws conflicted, and I choose to follow what I thought was the higher law.

I don't disagree!  We are commanded to attend sacrament meeting, yes, but nowhere does the command specify how frequently it must be done.  You were not disobeying the command to attend your meetings. Any more than the Pharisee was breaking the Sabbath to rescue his ox from the mire.  

But some other laws may not be righteously disobeyed.

3 hours ago, Danzo said:

The same applies here.  We are commanded to take in the stranger (see matthew 25) and "obey the law of the land" as you pointed out.  

Sometimes they conflict.  If there is a conflict, I believe we need to follow the higher law.  The scriptures have numerous examples of choosing to follow the laws of god at the expense of following the laws of man. 

Of course, there can and will be conflicts. And the conflicts must be resolved as you indicate.  There may be risk in it, but sometimes that risk is absolutely necessary.  When the Gestapo comes to your door and ask if there are any Jews hiding in your house (or any other house), the answer must always be "No, I know of none", even if you know that there are and where they are.

3 hours ago, Danzo said:

Our prophets and apostles emphasis kindness and compassion toward illegal immigrants and they authorize them to be baptized, hold callings and serve missions and receive temple covenants.

And they are absolutely correct to do so!  I think it incumbent upon us, however, to encourage illegal immigrants to obey the law of the land and return to their home countries, and only return if they could do so legally.  We should not encourage people to violate the law.

3 hours ago, Danzo said:

Unfortunately, I often see that our people seem to react like the people of Ammoniah in Alma chapter 14 when "the people went forth and witnessed against them—testifying that they had reviled against the law, and their lawyers and judges of the land, and also of all the people that were in the land"

We know how that turned out. 

I don't consider it my job to enforce the law of the land, as a general rule.  Especially when the law in question, if violated, amounts to a petty misdemeanor.  I've known several persons who were "unlawfully present" in the USA.  Believe it or not "unlawful presence" is not a crime.  Perhaps they committed the crime of "improper entry", which is the misdemeanor I was referring to, but how would I know?  I didn't witness how they arrived in the US.  Perhaps they came in legally, but overstayed their visas or entry permissions.  Persons who are unlawfully present are subject to deportation or removal, which are civil, not criminal, penalties.  You might find this blog entry of interest in this connection.

But your cite of Alma 14 does not apply here.  The people in question were committing a crime themselves, called false accusation, and were probably also inciting to riot.  If I were to go to some immigration office and said that I suspected my neighbor of being unlawfully present in the USA, even if he or she were not, I would not be committing a false accusation, any more than I would if I told a police officer that I suspected my neighbor had committed any other crime.  But I would likely not do anything of the kind unless my "unlawfully present" neighbor seemed to be committing crimes.  In fact, I've known and worked with a few men who I knew for a fact were "unawfully present".  A man I knew well and liked, named Israel, was from Mexico, and even had an forged Washington state drivers license (that he paid a lot of money for). He was married to a native of Guatemala, but she wasn't present with him in the US at the time, though she was in Mexico -- illegally! 🙂  During the time I was  in contact with him, he went back to his hometown in Mexico and worked with the authorities there to get his wife legal resident status in Mexico -- so he could bring her to US, illegally of course, and so if ICE ended up deporting them both, they could at least be deported to the same country! He was a honest, hardworking man, and if anyone deserved to live in the US, he did.  One of his cousins was also unlawfully present, however, and this cousin was a shiftless layabout who was also dealing drugs on the side.  He definitely should have been sent back.

By the way, this whole "illegal alien" thing has touched my family personally.  One of my sons has a roofing business in Georgia.  There was a period during which he had to put his business on hiatus and move elsewhere for a couple of years because a gang of men who were improperly present in the US had cornered the roofing business in their area. These men had been hired by a US citizen to work as roofers at below-market wages (sub-minimum wage, in fact), and not only did they outcompete the other roofers in the area on price, they also occasionally intimidated the other roofers from even coming to bid on multi-house jobs (we're talking new house subdivisions here).  Eventually ICE busted the operation and my son was able to move back to his home city and resumed business.  They were violating labor laws big-time, and I would have to say that intimidation is a crime. 

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So when are you moving back to Europe and giving your land back to the natives?

Ha ha, very funny.

Also completely bogus.

Shift your eyes to the left and examine my profile information, especially in connection with where I live.  And then consider that I am also a native. In both senses.  I was born in Los Angeles, and though my ancestry is mixed and contains a lot of European ancestors, it also contains American Indian ancestors. And, as it happens, I am a California Indian, with documentation to that effect.  So my house in the US is on "native owned" land.

So, why don't you give your land to me (the native in this case), and move back to wherever your ancestors came from?

But nevermind, that's completely nonsensical.  Humans have been conquering each other for thousands of years.  I suppose you could say this is illegal, but once a place is conquered, it is typically counted as a "done deal."  The conquerors keep what they took, most of the time.  You could almost call that a law.  Present day US citizens could no more be expected to hand back the country to the natives than the descendants of the Angles, Jutes and Danes in Great Britain could be expected to hand back the land their ancestors took from the Romanized Celts 1500 years ago.  For a start, the conquest is a done deal, and not only that, they would have to fight over out with the Norman French who came half a millenium later.  And besides all that, they are completely intermarried and there's no way to sort out who is who any longer.  There isn't a single pure blood Maidu Indian (my tribe) left in North America.  Even my less-adulterated relatives are all mixed up with everything from English, German, Norwegian, Hawaiian and Chinese ancestry. So stop being ridiculous.

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 hours ago, alter idem said:

Utah isn't really conservative, at least, not by my standards.

I didn't write the headline.

Quote

I'm suspicious of why they want more refugees.  It's certainly not out of the goodness of their hearts, there is likely some payoff of more federal money going into the state coffers.

Did you read the article? It gives a pretty complete answer.

[Bob Crockett]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

If illegal immigrants leave the US or other countries to do missionary work for the Church in their native country, do you suggest they stay in their native country after their mission or attempt to enter the host country illegally again.

The Church does not require an illegal to leave the US. 

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

The Church does not require an illegal to leave the US. 

I know.  It was PaPa's idea for immigrants to return to their native countries as missionaries, he described it as an "effective tool"***.  Since the context was illegals/undocumented migrants, I was wondering how he imagined that would work.

The Church as an institution protects, imo, illegals to a certain extent, including helping missionaries who are illegals avoid situations they might be caught in.

***http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/72453-i-fear-that-many-misunderstand-the-prophet-concerning-“refugees”/?do=findComment&comment=1209945297

 

Edited December 5, 2019 by Calm

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, alter idem said:

Utah isn't really conservative, at least, not by my standards.  Utah is run by moderate to liberal Republicans.  Look at our new Senator, Mitt Romney.  And, call me skeptical, but I'm suspicious of why they want more refugees.  It's certainly not out of the goodness of their hearts, there is likely some payoff of more federal money going into the state coffers.

As far as I can find, states do no receive money for accepting refugees, but maybe I just haven't found the information yet.  I did find some articles on states refusing refugees because they tend to cost the state more at the beginning than the state can afford or wants to pay.

[Hamba Tuhan]

12 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

The Church does not require an illegal to leave the US. 

Not only doesn't require it but absolutely forbids it. And then uses private vehicles to transport the missionaries to and from their assigned mission fields in order to help them avoid detection and deportation. But don't tell @Stargazer ...