Trib Article re: The Church & Members and Mass Deportations

[smac97]

Latest from Mormon Land: Would the LDS Church and its members back Trump’s mass deportations?

As a preliminary manner, I think the Church's 2011 statement remains in effect:

Quote

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.

• "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."
• "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."
• "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."
• "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."
• "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."

And also here:

Quote

Immigration

As a worldwide church dealing with many complex issues across the globe, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints promotes broad, foundational principles that have worldwide application:

• We follow Jesus Christ by loving our neighbors. The Savior taught that the meaning of “neighbor” includes all of God’s children, in all places, at all times.
• We recognize an ever-present need to strengthen families. Families are meant to be together. Forced separation of working parents from their children weakens families and damages society.
• We acknowledge that every nation has the right to enforce its laws and secure its borders. All persons subject to a nation’s laws are accountable for their acts in relation to them.

Public officials should create and administer laws that reflect the best of our aspirations as a just and caring society. Such laws will properly balance love for neighbors, family cohesion, and the observance of just and enforceable laws.

It sounds like the Church favors a "Yes, secure the border" approach, coupled with a "Let's let people who are here (and who got here and/or are here illegally) stay here, but not give them an unfair place in the line for citizenship" caveat.  I question the feasibility of this latter proposal, as it maintains the status quo of an enticement/inducement to enter and/or stay illegally.  But maybe we need to err on the side of caution and run that risk.  Secure borders would drastically reduce the flow of illegal immigration.  Perhaps that reduction is the best starting point.  Those who are here illegally and seriously misbehaving (I'm thinking felonies and violent misdemeanors here) can be deported, while those who are here illegally but are otherwise law-abiding and contributing members of society can apply for a green card, periodically get it renewed, and thus - as the Church puts it - "square themselves with the law and continue to work without this necessarily leading to citizenship."  These folks will no longer be "in the shadows" in a legal sense.  

Anyway, here's the Tribune article:

Quote

While exit polls show most Latter-day Saints voted to return Donald Trump to the White House, that doesn’t necessarily mean they support his vow to return millions of immigrants lacking permanent legal status to their countries of origin.

Alas, a political candidate will virtually never make any particular member of the electorate happy in all respects.  There will always be tradeoffs.

Quote

That’s especially true given the global’s faith’s publicly stated immigration-friendly positions.

For starters, 19th-century Mormon pioneers were immigrants and refugees themselves, fleeing what they then viewed as a hostile United States to seek refuge in Mexican territory.

Quite true.  But nation-states and borders and immigration and such were all situated quite differently in the 19th century.

Quote

Fast-forward to 2011. That’s when the church said it “supports an approach where undocumented immigrants are allowed to square themselves with the law and continue to work without this necessarily leading to citizenship.” Five years later, it opposed Trump’s call for a ban on Muslims entering the U.S.

I am glad the Church took this stance.  A religion-based proscription is deeply problematic.

Quote

Top Latter-day Saint leaders also have twice given their blessing to the Utah Compact, a civic accord that emphasizes humane treatment of immigrants, keeping families together and focusing deportations on serious criminals.

I'm not sure this summary is quite accurate.  The Utah Compact mostly addressed state-level approaches to illegal immigrants:

Quote

As signers of the Utah Compact on Immigration, we are committed to promoting common-sense immigration reforms that will strengthen our economy, as well as attract talent and business to our state.

We urge state leaders and Utah Members of Congress to adopt these five principles of the Utah Compact on Immigration:

1. FEDERAL SOLUTIONS  Immigration is a federal policy issue between the U.S. government and other countries—not Utah and other countries. We urge Utah’s congressional delegation, and others, to lead efforts to strengthen federal laws and protect our national borders. We urge state leaders to adopt reasonable policies addressing immigrants in Utah. 
2. LAW ENFORCEMENT We respect the rule of law and support law enforcement’s professional judgment and discretion. Local law enforcement resources should focus on criminal activities, not civil violations of federal code. 
3. FAMILIES  Strong families are the foundation of successful communities. We oppose policies that unnecessarily separate families. We champion policies that support families and improve the health, education and well-being of all Utah children.
4. ECONOMY  Utah is best served by a free-market philosophy that maximizes individual freedom and opportunity. We acknowledge the economic role immigrants play as workers and taxpayers. Utah’s immigration policies must reaffirm our global reputation as a welcoming and business-friendly state.
5. A FREE SOCIETY  Immigrants are integrated into communities across Utah. We must adopt a humane approach to this reality, reflecting our unique culture, history and spirit of inclusion. The way we treat immigrants will say more about us as a free society and less about our immigrant neighbors. Utah should always be a place that welcomes people of goodwill.

The Compact has Utah disclaiming the responsibility to enforce immigration laws, and instead allocated that responsibility to the Feds.

The Compact does not, AFAICS, have anything to say about - as the Trib puts it - "focusing deportations on serious criminals."  Rather, it speaks of "respect {for} the rule of law," while at the same time proposing that "{l}ocal {that is, non-federal} law enforcement" should not be in the enforcing-federal-laws business."

One quibble I have with the Compact is its apparent suggestion that entering the U.S. illegally (illicit border crossings) is a "civil violation" of federal law.  It is, in fact, a criminal violation.   In contrast, staying in the U.S. illegally (overstaying visas) is, I believe, a civil violation.

Quote

And, in the first major public policy stance taken under church President Russell Nelson’s administration, the faith urged Congress in 2018 to protect from deportation hundreds of thousands of “Dreamers,” whose undocumented parents brought them to the U.S. as children.

Not sure this is accurate.  From the Church's 2018 statement:

Quote

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has long expressed its position that immigration reform should strengthen families and keep them together. The forced separation of children from their parents now occurring at the U.S.-Mexico border is harmful to families, especially to young children. We are deeply troubled by the aggressive and insensitive treatment of these families. While we recognize the right of all nations to enforce their laws and secure their borders, we encourage our national leaders to take swift action to correct this situation and seek for rational, compassionate solutions.

I had understood that the Church's statement was about separating families at the border (arising from illegal border crossing), not deporting the children of illegal immigrants in the U.S.  Am I wrong in my recollection?

Quote

It should be noted as well that the church lets undocumented immigrants be baptized, serve missions and obtain temple recommends. Church meetinghouses, meanwhile, have doubled as welcome centers in places like Las Vegas and Mesa, Arizona, helping newcomers to the U.S. — regardless of their legal status.

Yes.  The Church is not a law enforcement agency, nor is it - nor ought it be - an agent of the State.  There is no principle of law requiring the Church to withhold membership privileges in the Church, or withhold humanitarian outreach, based on a person's immigration status.

Quote

“If there were a mass deportation,” Latter-day Saint data researcher Stephen Cranney told The Washington Times last week, “a lot of Latter-day Saints in the United States would be gone.”

Quite so.  My stake as a Spanish-speaking ward.  I think a lot of these folks are here illegally.  We have spent years/decades turning a blind eye to securing our border, and in so doing have given implicit permission/approval to disregard immigration laws.  We now face the prospect of large numbers of good and decent people bearing the overdue consequences a violating laws they were, in a sense, encouraged/induced to break.  Very troubling stuff.

Quote

McKay Coppins, an award-winning Latter-day Saint journalist who covers national politics for The Atlantic, echoed that view.

“Mass deportations could sweep away families that are the backbone of various branches and wards [congregations] throughout the country, and trigger backlash from fellow members,” he said in a postelection “Mormon Land” podcast. “...The church has made very clear it wants a humane policy of immigration enforcement that prioritizes keeping families together.”

I think a sequentialized approach may work best with what the Church has in mind:

First, secure the border, vigorously go after the coyotes, and work with Mexico to reinstate the "Remain in Mexico" policy.

Second, move to deport those convicted of felonies and violent misdemeanors. 

Third, work with Mexico to reinstate the "Stay in Mexico" policy.

Fourth, implement a "squaring with the law" policy (or, better yet, legislation) allowing people who have been here for a certain period, and who have a (mostly clean) criminal record, to apply for a green card that must be periodically renewed (and, perhaps, have a limit on the number of renewals, so as to allow others to come here and work).

Whatever happens, there will be no universally satisfactory resolution.

I appreciate the Church's guidance on these issues.  I hope we can find an as-humane-as-possible approach to enforcing immigration laws and securing our borders.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 12, 2024 by smac97

[Peacefully]

I agree with the church’s stance. I’m very concerned about the incoming administration’s plans to deport so many people. The leaders in Texas seem all too ready to accommodate those plans which also gives me concern. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Peacefully said:

I agree with the church’s stance. I’m very concerned about the incoming administration’s plans to deport so many people. The leaders in Texas seem all too ready to accommodate those plans which also gives me concern. 

Ditto. I can see why Texas has such a big voice in the conversation but there’s a lot of solutions that are devoid of mercy and I think mercy needs to included with justice in this discussion. 

[Vanguard]

The problem as I see it is that 'you break it, you buy it". We have virtually countless undocumented immigrants here who are simply trying to better themselves for their families - and we let them in. For those, we will have to find an alternative to sweeping them back over the border. I am much more agreeable to the idea of shipping all of those who have picked up felonies and probably most who have picked up misdemeanors since arriving. That's probably about the best balance we're going to get.

On a practical level, IMO there is simply no way the new administration will be able to literally pick up every undocumented individual and return them. The ensuing chaos would be boundless...

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Vanguard said:

and we let them in. For those, we will have to find an alternative to sweeping them back over the border.

Yes!  We have to live with the consequences of our choices as much as they should.

Quote

probably most who have picked up misdemeanors since arriving

Felonies***, yes; misdemeanor depends on what it is and if it’s a habit and their age and how long they have been here (petty shoplifting, for example…maybe it’s a dare; maybe they are hungry).

***Even with felonies I would want unusual or needful circumstances to be considered

Quote

On a practical level, IMO there is simply no way the new administration will be able to literally pick up every undocumented individual and return them. The ensuing chaos would be boundless...

Pulling people out of prison is probably the easiest way to ‘pick up’.  If they choose to go that route, I hope they will still look at each case in detail and be generous about mitigating circumstances, especially if decent behaviour in prison.

Edited December 13, 2024 by Calm

[Rain]

The undocumentated idea is an interesting one. Many of the boys from Sudan didn't have documentation. Then as they ran from their houses into the fields an trees and their families were being slaughtered they certainly didn't take documentation with them as they crossed the borders into neighboring countries. Yes, when they get chosen to be a refugee who goes to the US they will be given documentation, but it would be pretty US centric to say it's ok if they cross borders illeglly, but not in the US.

Many Afghans also didn't have documentation. With the crises I was one who help collect the documentation they had. Some of them had the same fleeing problems as the Sudan boys had.  Some only had 1 mom or dad with a work ID while their children had none. Others had their documentation taken from them by the taliban. 

Then the idea of crossing the border illegally is interesting. There is crossing the border illegally, but there is also crossing the border illegally and then asking for asylum which is legal. So somehow you can do the legal thing by doing part of it illegally.

The idea of Mexico keeping back those crossing is interesting as well. There are Mexicans crossing, but there are also Guatemalan, Venezuelans, Colombians, Afghans, Ukrainians and others going into Mexico and then crossing the US border. So if we just look at the US border it is US centric again. 

It's definitely a complicated thing and I have no answers for it, but it does bother me to look at this only as US related or as majority US related and when we put the rules ahead of people. 

Personally I lack the knowledge and intelligence to make policies on immigration so I just go with the idea of "when I was hungry you gave me food".

Edited December 12, 2024 by Rain

[Vanguard]

1 minute ago, Rain said:

There is crossing the border illegally, but there is also crossing the border illegally and then asking for asylum which is legal.

I don't know that this is true. My understanding is there is a legal way to cross the border to ask for asylum and that doesn't include crossing it in the dead of night at any point chosen by the immigrant. I don't think you can jump the fence and then legally claim asylum-seeking status. Is the individual seeking asylum, go through the accepted legal corridors to do so. 

[Calm]

Just now, Vanguard said:

Is the individual seeking asylum, go through the accepted legal corridors to do so. 

We need to make decently accessible ways to do this if we require it.  Desperate people who truly need asylum may not be able to manage the hoops.  

[Calm]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

to apply for a green card that must be periodically renewed (and, perhaps, have a limit on the number of renewals, so as to allow others to come here and work).

The problem with rotating people would be the longer someone is here, the smaller their support system grows elsewhere most likely.

Edited December 12, 2024 by Calm

[Rain]

2 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

I don't know that this is true. My understanding is there is a legal way to cross the border to ask for asylum and that doesn't include crossing it in the dead of night at any point chosen by the immigrant. I don't think you can jump the fence and then legally claim asylum-seeking status. Is the individual seeking asylum, go through the accepted legal corridors to do so. 

It is true or at least it was when I looked into it in 2019.  I was in the heart of it here in 2019 as so many were crossing.  There are several ways to ask for asylum. Some at the border, some in your own country, some in Mexico (which leaves the problem of crossing illegally into Mexico or other countries again). Then last crossing the border and then asking for asylum.  There are pros and cons to each method.

[Vanguard]

2 minutes ago, Rain said:

It is true or at least it was when I looked into it in 2019.  I was in the heart of it here in 2019 as so many were crossing.  There are several ways to ask for asylum. Some at the border, some in your own country, some in Mexico (which leaves the problem of crossing illegally into Mexico or other countries again). Then last crossing the border and then asking for asylum.  There are pros and cons to each method.

This link seems to suggest otherwise - https://www.rescue.org/article/it-legal-cross-us-border-seek-asylum#:~:text=Asylum seekers must be in,just have to show up.”

[Vanguard]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

We need to make decently accessible ways to do this if we require it.  Desperate people who truly need asylum may not be able to manage the hoops.  

I'm not sure if you're suggesting we aren't providing decently accessible way to do this? There are some 50 legal border crossings between the US & Mexico. I consider that number to be sufficient.

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

I'm not sure if you're suggesting we aren't providing decently accessible way to do this? There are some 50 legal border crossings between the US & Mexico. I consider that number to be sufficient.

I am not that familiar with the process.  If it is that accessible, why don’t all who seek asylum use the system? (Serious question)

This says there are 1500 asylum seekers admitted daily.  There was a high of 8000 daily who crossed illegally, but last May was around 4000 daily, so even at minimum twice as many are trying illegally if I understand correctly.  Is there any way to find out how many of those are granted asylum, so they mostly likely would have if they had done so legally?  Do we know those who apply legally are accepted at least as often as those who are already here (I can see it being easier to refuse someone at the border than someone they pick up after living in the US for several months and making it work well)?   I wonder how long the interviews that are meant to establish whether there is a credible risk take.  Got to wonder how one goes about proving persecution by law enforcement where there may be no chance for documentation.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/immigration-us-mexico-border-crossings-mayorkas-may-2024/

Edited December 12, 2024 by Calm

[Rain]

4 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

This link seems to suggest otherwise - https://www.rescue.org/article/it-legal-cross-us-border-seek-asylum#:~:text=Asylum seekers must be in,just have to show up.”

That does say being at the port or in the country so it looks like applying from  your own country or from Mexico may no longer be an option.  In not seeing anything about not being able to cross illegally though.  Just that you have to be here under a year.

I want to be clear here too, that just because you cross illegally it doesn't make you elligible for asylum.  Elligibility for asylum is much like for refugees where you are forced to leave or it is a danger for you to stay.  Many who cross illegally do so for economic reasons and last I heard that was still not enough for asylum status.

[Vanguard]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not that familiar with the process.  If it is that accessible, why don’t all who seek asylum use the system? (Serious question)

Maybe because the coyotes want to get them across as quickly and easily for the coyotes as possible and without chance of detection? Who knows?

[Rain]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not that familiar with the process.  If it is that accessible, why don’t all who seek asylum use the system? (Serious question)

This says there are 1500 asylum seekers admitted daily.  I wonder how long the interviews that are meant to establish whether there is a credible risk take.  Got to wonder how one goes about proving persecution by law enforcement where there may be no chance for documentation.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/immigration-us-mexico-border-crossings-mayorkas-may-2024/

Many, like I mentioned in my last post, are not elligible for asylum.  For others it can be a long process to do it at the port and many find they are preyed upon while there. Many ports are very unsafe for them.

I don't know how it is now, but a few years ago with those crossing and then asking for asylum, ICE could only hold them so long so at least starting the process is quicker.  They still have to go through the whole process, but courts are backed up. 

Edited December 12, 2024 by Rain

[OGHoosier]

I was a Spanish-speaking missionary in Los Angeles. While I was there I encountered a brother I will never forget, whose name I will not publicize. He was the best of us. I have not met a more supportive, nor a more dedicated member missionary, and rarely a kinder or more good-natured human being. His wife was not a wit behind him.

Alas, they couldn't take the sacrament because they weren't legally married. Both of them had been married to other people back in their home countries in Latin America. They couldn't go back to get the formal divorces. They had no documentation here. They were stuck, and there was a sort of resignation mixed with hope that God would look kindly on them whenever they talked about it. I could rattle off the names of at least 4 different couples who I taught who couldn't get baptized because of this same problem. I came home from the mission filled with zealotry for some sort of North American EU common borders thing so they wouldn't have to deal with that anymore. That didn't last long at all once I encountered the political realities obstructing such a system.  

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

came home from the mission filled with zealotry for some sort of North American EU common borders thing so they wouldn't have to deal with that anymore. That didn't last long at all once I encountered the political realities obstructing such a system.  

Some day….

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

 

On a practical level, IMO there is simply no way the new administration will be able to literally pick up every undocumented individual and return them. The ensuing chaos would be boundless...

Not to mention I think one report I saw on it puts the cost at more than a billion and the timeline somewhere in the vicinity of years.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

I don't know that this is true. My understanding is there is a legal way to cross the border to ask for asylum and that doesn't include crossing it in the dead of night at any point chosen by the immigrant. I don't think you can jump the fence and then legally claim asylum-seeking status. Is the individual seeking asylum, go through the accepted legal corridors to do so. 

From my understanding, they can illegally enter and then request asylum.  

[Danzo]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Latest from Mormon Land: Would the LDS Church and its members back Trump’s mass deportations?

As a preliminary manner, I think the Church's 2011 statement remains in effect:

• "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."
• "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."
• "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."
• "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."
• "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."

And also here:

It sounds like the Church favors a "Yes, secure the border" approach, coupled with a "Let's let people who are here (and who got here and/or are here illegally) stay here, but not give them an unfair place in the line for citizenship" caveat.  I question the feasibility of this latter proposal, as it maintains the status quo of an enticement/inducement to enter and/or stay illegally.  But maybe we need to err on the side of caution and run that risk.  Secure borders would drastically reduce the flow of illegal immigration.  Perhaps that reduction is the best starting point.  Those who are here illegally and seriously misbehaving (I'm thinking felonies and violent misdemeanors here) can be deported, while those who are here illegally but are otherwise law-abiding and contributing members of society can apply for a green card, periodically get it renewed, and thus - as the Church puts it - "square themselves with the law and continue to work without this necessarily leading to citizenship."  These folks will no longer be "in the shadows" in a legal sense.  

Anyway, here's the Tribune article:

Alas, a political candidate will virtually never make any particular member of the electorate happy in all respects.  There will always be tradeoffs.

Quite true.  But nation-states and borders and immigration and such were all situated quite differently in the 19th century.

I am glad the Church took this stance.  A religion-based proscription is deeply problematic.

I'm not sure this summary is quite accurate.  The Utah Compact mostly addressed state-level approaches to illegal immigrants:

The Compact has Utah disclaiming the responsibility to enforce immigration laws, and instead allocated that responsibility to the Feds.

The Compact does not, AFAICS, have anything to say about - as the Trib puts it - "focusing deportations on serious criminals."  Rather, it speaks of "respect {for} the rule of law," while at the same time proposing that "{l}ocal {that is, non-federal} law enforcement" should not be in the enforcing-federal-laws business."

One quibble I have with the Compact is its apparent suggestion that entering the U.S. illegally (illicit border crossings) is a "civil violation" of federal law.  It is, in fact, a criminal violation.   In contrast, staying in the U.S. illegally (overstaying visas) is, I believe, a civil violation.

Not sure this is accurate.  From the Church's 2018 statement:

I had understood that the Church's statement was about separating families at the border (arising from illegal border crossing), not deporting the children of illegal immigrants in the U.S.  Am I wrong in my recollection?

Yes.  The Church is not a law enforcement agency, nor is it - nor ought it be - an agent of the State.  There is no principle of law requiring the Church to withhold membership privileges in the Church, or withhold humanitarian outreach, based on a person's immigration status.

Quite so.  My stake as a Spanish-speaking ward.  I think a lot of these folks are here illegally.  We have spent years/decades turning a blind eye to securing our border, and in so doing have given implicit permission/approval to disregard immigration laws.  We now face the prospect of large numbers of good and decent people bearing the overdue consequences a violating laws they were, in a sense, encouraged/induced to break.  Very troubling stuff.

I think a sequentialized approach may work best with what the Church has in mind:

First, secure the border, vigorously go after the coyotes, and work with Mexico to reinstate the "Remain in Mexico" policy.

Second, move to deport those convicted of felonies and violent misdemeanors. 

Third, work with Mexico to reinstate the "Stay in Mexico" policy.

Fourth, implement a "squaring with the law" policy (or, better yet, legislation) allowing people who have been here for a certain period, and who have a (mostly clean) criminal record, to apply for a green card that must be periodically renewed (and, perhaps, have a limit on the number of renewals, so as to allow others to come here and work).

Whatever happens, there will be no universally satisfactory resolution.

I appreciate the Church's guidance on these issues.  I hope we can find an as-humane-as-possible approach to enforcing immigration laws and securing our borders.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

The problem with US immigration law is that it is broken and defective. When the law starts punishing morally correct behavior, it loses its legitimacy.  When it encourages immorality, it loses its legitimacy.

Broken laws are difficult to enforce.

Legislators of both parties have ignored the defects in the law for the past thirty years, resulting in a feral law that everyone who works with it recognizes. 

I remember once attending a family wedding.   The bride was Hispanic and the Groom was white.  One of the groom's family members that was invited happened to be the head of the immigration department for that particular region.   Only a few of the people attending knew who he was.  I was talking to him and I joked that maybe we should announce how honored the wedding was that such a high ranking government official was present.  He laughed and said he didn't work after hours. 

Even he knew how stupid the laws were and how it would have been immoral to try and enforce the laws at that time because, as written, they were immoral laws.

 

I Often find that people who try to defend the US immigration laws are often defending the laws as they imagine them to exist, not on the laws that actually exist.   After educating them on how the laws actual exist and how they are actually written,  the almost always agree that the laws are stupid and need to be changed.

 

 

 

 

[rodheadlee]

It takes longer to cross the border legally than it does illegally. It's a good solid 3-hour wait at San Ysidro. Tecate is much better but it's not open 24/7 and it's a good hour out of the way if you're trying to get to San Diego.

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

The undocumentated idea is an interesting one.

The word 'undocumented' is a stupid way of describing people.  Many of the 'undocumented' people have plenty of documents.

On the other hand, I regularly send my children to school without any documents at all.  Its not an issue of possessing 'documents'.

[Danzo]

3 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

It takes longer to cross the border legally than it does illegally. It's a good solid 3-hour wait at San Ysidro. Tecate is much better but it's not open 24/7 and it's a good hour out of the way if you're trying to get to San Diego.

San Ysidro is the worst.  

Did that once then decided that Air travel is the best way to go. 

[Danzo]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

One quibble I have with the Compact is its apparent suggestion that entering the U.S. illegally (illicit border crossings) is a "civil violation" of federal law.  It is, in fact, a criminal violation.   In contrast, staying in the U.S. illegally (overstaying visas) is, I believe, a civil violation.

 

Nothing is a criminal violation unless someone is charged with a crime.  In this case I believe that the government must charge within three years or it can't be a crime.

As a matter of practice people are very rarely charged with the crime of entering the US illegally because the government has no desire to create the need for due process and the higher burden of proof necessary (along with Jury trials, counsel, etc)

This is more evidence of a broken law.  True, a potential to being charged with a crime is on the books but the government knows a jury would probably nullify it a good percentage of the time.  

Pretty much everyone in the US as done something at one time or another that could be charged as a crime, but that does not make them a criminal.  

 

Edited December 13, 2024 by Danzo