Trib Article re: The Church & Members and Mass Deportations

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

Thank you for your thoughtful response.  As applied to this thread I would suggest the following:

1.  The U.S. needs a robust, rationally controlled flow of immigrants, both to meet economic need and because our country was founded on the premise that lawful immigration is an important element of what the country stands for…opportunity.

I agree with this.  

I also submit that this proposal is not evidence that you are bigot and hate women and children.

6 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

2.  Immigration is broken because the current policy is flawed, since in large part the only legal path is the asylum path and that path, while a necessary element to any immigration policy, will necessarily be misused and abused if it is the only practical available path.

I can't quite go along with this characterization.  We have naturalized 7.7 million people and welcomed them as citizens in the last decade.  The process is there, and involves a lot more than asylum-seekers.  From ChatGPT:

Quote

To apply for naturalization and become a U.S. citizen, applicants must meet specific requirements set by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). The qualifications can vary slightly based on the applicant’s situation, but the general criteria include the following:

---

1. Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) Status

• You must be a lawful permanent resident (green card holder) for a certain period, usually:
  • 5 years: If applying based on general eligibility.
  • 3 years: If married to a U.S. citizen and meeting specific conditions.

---

2. Continuous Residence

• You must have continuously resided in the U.S. for:
  • At least 5 years (or 3 years for spouses of U.S. citizens).
• Continuous residence means you have maintained your primary home in the U.S. during this period.

---

3. Physical Presence

• You must have been physically present in the U.S. for at least:
  • 30 months out of the last 5 years, or
  • 18 months out of the last 3 years (for spouses of U.S. citizens).

---

4. Time in State or USCIS District

• You must have lived in the state or USCIS district where you are applying for at least 3 months before filing.

---

5. Good Moral Character

• You must demonstrate good moral character during the statutory period (5 or 3 years before applying) and up to the time of naturalization.
  • This includes obeying the law, paying taxes, and avoiding serious crimes.

---

6. Attachment to the Constitution

• You must be willing to uphold and support the principles of the U.S. Constitution.

---

7. English Language Proficiency

• You must demonstrate the ability to:
  • Speak, read, and write basic English.

Exceptions:

• Applicants with certain physical or developmental disabilities.
• Applicants who meet specific age and residency exemptions (e.g., age 50+ and living in the U.S. as an LPR for 20+ years).

---

8. Knowledge of U.S. History and Civics

• You must pass a civics test covering basic U.S. government and history concepts.

Exceptions: Similar to English language exemptions, certain age, residency, or disability exceptions may apply.

---

9. Oath of Allegiance

• You must be willing to take the Oath of Allegiance, committing to loyalty and responsibilities as a U.S. citizen.

---

Special Considerations

• Spouses of U.S. Citizens Working Abroad: May qualify without meeting standard residency requirements under certain conditions.
• Military Service: Members of the U.S. Armed Forces may qualify for expedited naturalization based on their service.

---

Application Process

1. Form N-400: File the Application for Naturalization with USCIS.
2. Biometrics Appointment: Attend a biometrics appointment (fingerprinting and photo).
3. Interview and Tests: Attend an interview where USCIS reviews your application and administers the English and civics tests.
4. Oath Ceremony: If approved, attend the oath ceremony to become a U.S. citizen.

---

Meeting all the qualifications ensures eligibility, but USCIS will review each case individually to determine whether an applicant meets all requirements.

And re: asylum seekers:

Quote

The U.S. government does not specifically track the number of naturalized citizens who originally entered the country as asylum-seekers in its annual naturalization statistics. However, it is possible to estimate the contribution of asylum-seekers to naturalization numbers based on related immigration data. Here's an explanation:

Naturalization Process for Asylum-Seekers

1. Path to Citizenship:

   • Individuals granted asylum can apply for a green card (lawful permanent residence) one year after being granted asylum.
   • After holding a green card for five years, they can apply for naturalization, assuming they meet the standard requirements.

2. Timeframe:

   • It typically takes at least six years from the grant of asylum to become eligible for U.S. citizenship: one year to obtain a green card and five years of residency as a green card holder.

Annual Naturalization Numbers

• In recent years, approximately 700,000 to 900,000 people have been naturalized annually in the United States.

Estimation of Asylum-Seeker Contribution

• According to data from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), tens of thousands of individuals are granted asylum each year (e.g., approximately 20,000 to 30,000 grants of affirmative and defensive asylum annually in recent years).
• While not all asylum-seekers ultimately naturalize (some may not meet the residency or other requirements, or may choose not to apply), many do.

Limitations and Insights

• DHS and USCIS do not separately report the number of naturalized citizens who entered through asylum.
• Research and policy reports suggest that asylum-seekers make up a small but significant portion of new U.S. citizens, likely numbering in the tens of thousands each year.

"Research and policy reports suggest that asylum-seekers make up a small but significant portion of new U.S. citizens, likely numbering in the tens of thousands each year."

The United States is the greatest country in the world, such that far more people want to come and live here than we can feasibly accommodate.

6 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

3.  Our history with enforcement of the current policy is a lesson in extremes.  We either enforce the letter of the law and cut off needed immigration, or we selectively enforce or ignore the law as written and in doing so loose our moral authority to enforce it as written.

Yes, a bipartisan failure.

6 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

4.  The best path forward is a policy the recognizes both the economic and moral justification for immigration, sets annual limits on the number of immigrants in each category, provides a clearly articulated and readily available process for immigrants to apply for the applicable category (without the need of coming to the border), uses an objective and unbiased methodology to grant applications, and with the moral authority attendant to a rational and well administered immigration policy, aggressively shuts down attempts to enter the immigrate in any way not authorized by the policy.

Sounds good!

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Quote

We should also talk to victims of crimes committed by people who are here illegally, many of which crimes which would not have been committed had we a better track record of securing our borders and enforcing our immigration laws.

We should talk to victims of crimes committed by people who are blond, many of which crimes which would not have been committed had we a better track record of blond people. 

Ah.  You are now moving from being merely unduly combative to taunting and unserious.  I'll leave you to it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Quote

Working to make a living after having illegally entered the United States, or else being here unlawfully.

If I steal $50,000 from an elderly neighbor and use it to start a business "to make a living," to take care of my family, etc., do these purposes justify the theft?  

Again you are equating malum prohibitum with malum in se crimes.

If I were to enter your home without your consent, would that be malum in se or malum prohibitum?

8 minutes ago, Danzo said:

They are not the same morally. 

In many respects, I agree.  And yet broadly speaking, we need to comply with the malum prohibitum laws in order to have a functioning society.

I live on a road that includes about a 1+ mile stretch with no stop signs, but the speed limit is still 25 MPH.  This is a malum prohibitum law, as there is nothing innately immoral about driving down this road at 26 MPH.  Or maybe even 30 MPH.  But about about driving 50 MPH down this residential street?  70?  90?  Anything "immoral" there?

I acknowledge that malum in se laws generally hew closer to notions of innate morality and immorality, but I don't think that this means we are free to disregard malum prohibitum laws in ways that have profound effects on society.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Quote

Yes, there are lawful ways. 

This comment alone show that you do not understand current immigration law and that you are defending a fantasy version of the law that only exists in your mind. 

There are lawful ways to enter the United States.

There are lawful ways to apply for citizenship.  

The vast majority of naturalized citizens are not asylum seekers.

The United States is the greatest country on earth, or one of them.  As a result, far more people want to come here than we can feasibly accommodate.

A lawless, "open border" approach to immigration is very bad for our country.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

For an incredibly large amount of things the Federal Government has deemed to be illegal,  The government has two choices,

1.      pursue Criminal Sanctions

2.     Pursue Civil Sanctions

Deportation is a civil sanction, correct?

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

With Immigration violations( and tax violations, and environmental violations, and financial violations, and labor violations ) the Federal government rarely pursues Criminal Sanctions, and overwhelmingly chooses to go the civil route.

The disagreement I have with SMAC is that I think (and the courts generally agree) that whether something is treated as a crime is up to the discretion of the government (and validated by the courts). 

Whether a crime has been committed is a separate question of whether it results in a criminal charge / prosecution / conviction.

In a semantic and Due Process sense, a particular person is "innocent until proven guilty."  I acknowledge that.  But to say that an act (actus reus + mens rea) is not a "crime" at all until and unless a judge or jury says so does not reflect the real world.

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

His opinion seems to be that if a violation occurs that could , in theory be  treated as a crime, it is a crime.  

Pretty much.  Actus reus + mens rea = crime.  

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

it is my opinion, (and again you really can't call someone a criminal in a court of law unless they have been convicted of a crime) that a crime isn't a crime unless it is treated as a crime.  

A few years ago someone stole a wheelbarrow out of my garage.  In your view, because a judge or jury did not find a specific person guilty of it, the act of taking my wheelbarrow without compensation or consent was not a crime.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about that.

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

The federal government has no problem going after elderly, children for immigration violations using civil law, but they rarely go after them using Criminal penalties.  If the government chooses not to treat the the act as a crime, its not a crime.

Or it is a crime, just one that the State chooses not to prosecute.  This happens all the time.

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

This distinction (civil/criminal)  is often lost on people who are not involved in law.  Many people think that something illegal=crime, and I understand why people think that.  SMAC is a lawyer and I think he should know better. 

I do know better.  I reject your characterization.  Your personal digs and taunts are impeding substantive discussion.

Actus reus + mens rea = crime.  The parameters of the act are defined by penal law.  If on December 12, 2024 a person enters a gas station and intentionally takes away from it a candy bar without having paid for it and without the consent of the proprietors, then a crime was committed on December 12, 2024.  Whether the State chooses to do something in response to that act does not alter the fact that a crime was committed.  That, for Due Process purposes, an individual is deemed "innocent until proven guilty" does not alter the reality that a crime occurred.

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

For a potential crime to be an actual crime, there needs to be additional steps.

Actus reus + mens rea = crime.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SkyRock]

Amazing that this very political topic has  gone on with such contention without it being shut down. 

Anyway, how does the Church reconcile "being honest in dealings with fellow man" with identy theft, false papers, etc. common to almost all who are here illegally.  

An illegal alien missionary was busted while traveling about 15-20 years ago.  I later learned about illegal alien missionaries in California going back to the early 80s.  I recently obtained some personal papers from one of the leaders involved and it was justified mostly because retention rates and government inadequacies.  

 

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, SkyRock said:

Amazing that this very political topic has  gone on with such contention without it being shut down. 

Well, maybe we should veer this back to the intersecting-with-the-church portion of the discussion.

19 minutes ago, SkyRock said:

Anyway, how does the Church reconcile "being honest in dealings with fellow man" with identy theft, false papers, etc. common to almost all who are here illegally.

Perhaps the Church can be characterized as attempting to accommodate, to some extent, behaviors such as this.  

For example, the Church also allows Latter-day Saints to publicly support same-sex marriage, despite the Church's doctrinal stance that marriage is between a man and a woman.  On the other hand, I think an active Latter-day Saint may run into trouble if he were to publicly agitate in favor of polygamy.  So "accommodation" can only go so far.

The Church also allows for some accommodation of some people who "identify" in ways not congruent with their biological sex, but in other ways do not acquiesce to other forms of accommodation.

The Church is not in the business of enforcing civil immigration law, or of being an agent of the State.  The Church also doesn't have any systematic way of ascertaining immigration status.

I think the Church continues to struggle with addressing seemingly intractable issues such as this, but I think it's overall approach is about as good as we can hope to see.

19 minutes ago, SkyRock said:

An illegal alien missionary was busted while traveling about 15-20 years ago.  I later learned about illegal alien missionaries in California going back to the early 80s.  I recently obtained some personal papers from one of the leaders involved and it was justified mostly because retention rates and government inadequacies.  

From 2009: Undocumented Missionaries

Quote

Last week a Mormon missionary had completed his two-year mission and went to return home on a flight from Cincinnati. He was arrested for lacking the necesssary documentation to board his flight. You can read about this here, including comments from Elder Holland of the Church’s Missionary Committee.

Apparently the Church used to have a policy that undocumented immigrants had to return to their countries of origin and serve from there. But a 2005 law absolved religious organizations of criminal liability for knowingly allowing undocumented immigrants to provide volunteer service, including missionary work. So the Church allows undocumented immigrants to serve missions from their U.S. homes.

Such missionaries are always called to domestic missions only, and so far that has worked. But this arrest now raises the stakes and complexity of such service.

From 2011: The Mormon Church and Illegal Immigration

Quote

As explained by local and headquarters officials, the Church follows a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy which allows it to baptize illegal aliens and to assign them to key positions in the Church in spite of their immigration status and job-related criminal activities:

• “Our position is to invite everyone to learn more about the Gospel of Jesus Christ and his plans for his children independent of national origin,” said Mark Bassett, president of the LDS Mesa [Arizona] mission. “We don’t know what their immigration status is. We are not the government or the police.”⁸³
   
• “Our job is to bring souls under Christ,” Pablo Felix, the president of the Liahona Second Branch, a Spanish-speaking congregation in Mesa said. “The Lord doesn’t look at documentation. He just looks at our faith as members.”⁸⁴
   
• Wilford Andersen, a member of church’s Southwest governing body said that the church has not taken a position on immigration, “But we feel it is our responsibility to minister to all of God’s children, regardless of (immigration) status.”⁸⁵
   
• “The blessings of the [LDS] Church are available to anyone who qualifies for and accepts the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Federal law allows undocumented persons to provide volunteer church service, including missionary service, within the United States,” said Church spokesman Scott Trotter.⁸⁶

From a few days ago: Illegal immigrants have a friend in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Quote

Illegal immigrants might have an unexpected ally amid the incoming Trump administration’s expected crackdown: Mormons.

“Mormons are balancing their respect for the law with compassion for immigrant communities,” said Stephen Cranney, a data researcher and member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. “If there were a mass deportation, a lot of Latter-day Saints in the United States would be gone.”

Jessica Larson, senior director of advocacy at Mormon Women for Ethical Government, said the LDS church doesn’t waffle on its message of humane treatment for other human beings.

“Let me be clear: we do not support rounding up any you know, we do not support ICE rounding up people and putting them in any types of camps on the border,” Ms. Larson told The Washington Times.

The LDS church, which has nearly 7 million U.S. members, has historically taken what it sees as a pragmatic and compassionate stance on immigration, calling for solutions that uphold family unity while respecting legal frameworks. The church differs from evangelical Protestants on immigration, despite holding similar views on other social issues like gay marriage and abortion.

A recent study by American Enterprise Institute’s Survey Center on American Life found the LDS church was much less likely to view immigrants as burdens or to support harsh measures to deter illegal immigration, with only 6% of members agreeing that migrants should face increased danger crossing the border — the lowest among any faith group.

Several LDS sources say the church’s own history of national ostracization is, in part, what animates its advocacy for immigrant causes.

“When we were driven out of the eastern United States, we came to what was then Mexico, ironically enough: the Utah territory. When we came to Utah, it was technically Mexican territory,” Mr. Cranney said. “So occasionally, in general conference talk, [Mormon leaders] willl say, ‘We were refugees, too.’ In the same way, you know, that we were refugees and we were driven out, there’s this sort of obligation to help other refugees.”

 

According to the 2022 Cooperative Election Survey, 61% of Latter-day Saints supported granting legal status to undocumented immigrants who meet certain criteria, including paying taxes and avoiding felony convictions. Among Republican Latter-day Saints, 52% backed this pathway to citizenship, the highest support among Republican religious groups.

The church’s unofficial pro-immigration stance isn’t without its internal challenges. While the church advocates for compassion, some members struggle with the tension between doctrinal principles and legal realities.

“Some members have asked why undocumented immigrants can hold temple ‘recommends,’” Mr. Cranney said, referring to the requirement for members to live in accordance with the law to enter LDS temples. “There’s a mix of opinions. You have members who are to the right of the church on this issue, and some who are to the left.”

This internal divide mirrors broader political polarization in the United States.

According to 2024 data provided to The Washington Times by the Utah Foundation, Utahns are generally supportive of immigration but draw a sharp distinction between legal and illegal immigration.

Two-thirds of Utah voters agree that “America’s openness to people from all over the world is essential to who we are as a nation,” though conservative voters were more likely to worry that openness risks losing national identity.

Several members say this attitude is driven by the church’s expectation of a “mission” by young members, in which they spend six months to two years proselytizing in a particular area of the world, usually in pairs.

As Mr. Cranney pointed out in the Deseret News, researchers in a 2015 Columbia University Press report said a mission “fosters an empathetic perspective on illegal immigrants” having “seen firsthand the abject poverty that compels migrants to enter the U.S. illegally.”

The Church has a tough row to hoe on these issues.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Kevin Christensen]

So far, no one has mentioned this sort of thing.

Quote

He doth execute the judgment (mishpat) for the orphan and the widow, and he loves the stranger and wants him to be provided with food and clothing. Therefore, you must do the same: love the stranger — remember that you too were strangers [and were oppressed] in the land of Egypt (Deuteronomy 10:18–19).

I grew up being enticed by the picture of the Statue of Liberty, and this country being a nation of immigrants. "Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free."  And I notice  the right wing hysteria over the supposed invasions of hardened criminals (for example, one successful Presidential candidate claimed that there were hordes of murders and lunatics from prisons and asylums in the Congo, a claim that notably bewildered the government of the Congo), and I remember watching footage of this supposed invading army of relentless violence that looked remarkably like family groups seeking a better life.  It is also evident that some of the loudest voices urging deportation, are second or third generation immigrants, and at times, married to first generation immigrants.

If it comes down to conflict between legality and morality, I also remember being very inspired by the stories of Harriet Tubman and the Underground railroad and those who helped Jews escape from Nazi Germany and the Holocaust.  It just may be that in the next four years many people may be confronted with the opportunity to choose between rendering unto God, or rendering unto Caesar.  Some people opposed slavery and some passed the fugitive slave act and made compassion illegal.  I suppose those who want to deport millions do have some moral justification.  After all, did we not hear that "They are eating the dogs!"  Of course it wasn't true, but it does indicate the concern some people have about the danger of letting known criminals in, or lawbreakers, or potential lawbreakers, or people who are different and might "poison the blood of the country."  So the country elected a known criminal and Stephen Miller gets power to impose his vision and work his will on day 1.  What possible harm could he do if it is all legal?

Who is my neighbor?  And who and what do I worship and how?

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA  

Edited December 14, 2024 by Kevin Christensen
typo, grammar

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

So far, no one has mentioned this sort of thing.

I grew up being enticed by the picture of the Statue of Liberty, and this country being a nation of immigrants. "Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free."  And I notice  the right wing hysteria over the supposed invasions of hardened criminals (for example, one successful Presidential candidate claimed that their were hordes of murders and lunatics from prisons and asylums in the Congo, a claim that notably bewildered the government of the Congo), and I remember watching footage of this supposed invading army of relentless violence looked remarkably like family groups seeking a better life.  It is also evident that some of the loudest voices urging deportation, are second or third generation immigrants, and at times, married to first generation immigrants.

If it comes down to conflict between legality and morality, I also remember being very inspired by the stories of Harriet Tubman and the Underground railroad and those who helped Jews escape from Nazi Germany and the Holocaust.  It just may be that in the next four years many people may be confronted with the opportunity to choose between rendering unto God, or rendering unto Caesar.  Some people opposed slavery and some passed the fugitive slave act and made compassion illegal.  I suppose those who want to deport millions do have some moral justification.  After all, did we not hear that "They are eating the dogs!"  Of course it wasn't true, but it does indicate the concern some people have about the danger of letting known criminals in, or lawbreakers, or potential lawbreakers, or people who are different and might "poison the blood of the country."  So the country elected a known criminal and Stephen Miller gets power to impose his vision and work his will on day 1.  What possible harm could he do if it is all legal?

Who is my neighbor?  And who and what do I worship and how?

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA  

Kevin,

What are your thoughts about securing the border?  Are you in favor of it?  Oppose it?  Do you find any moral ambiguity in not securing the border?

Is the rule of law a relevant consideration?

An open border creates massive business opportunities for coyotes, who apparently regularly abuse women and children during illegal border crossings.

All sorts of baddies can and do cross the border illegally, along with the decent people just looking for a better opportunity.  An open border allows in the former along with the latter.

There are plenty of people who lack the means to cross the border illegally, as they are situated in Africa, Asia, etc.  Does the moral imperative to help others only apply to people who have access to northern Mexico or southern Canada?  Or might basic fairness require that people who want to come here should "get in line"?

Many countries secure their borders, but it seems like the United States is the only one that is vilified for it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MiserereNobis]

23 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Who is my neighbor?

The teachings of Christ are radical and dumbfounding.

I would think there would be greater pause among Christians when contemplating how to treat the poor, the stranger, the orphan, the widow, the hungry, the thirsty, the naked, the sick, the prisoner. And in that list, where does Christ place himself? Among the least.

[Danzo]

42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, maybe we should veer this back to the intersecting-with-the-church portion of the discussion.

Perhaps the Church can be characterized as attempting to accommodate, to some extent, behaviors such as this.  

For example, the Church also allows Latter-day Saints to publicly support same-sex marriage, despite the Church's doctrinal stance that marriage is between a man and a woman.  On the other hand, I think an active Latter-day Saint may run into trouble if he were to publicly agitate in favor of polygamy.  So "accommodation" can only go so far.

The Church also allows for some accommodation of some people who "identify" in ways not congruent with their biological sex, but in other ways do not acquiesce to other forms of accommodation.

The Church is not in the business of enforcing civil immigration law, or of being an agent of the State.  The Church also doesn't have any systematic way of ascertaining immigration status.

I think the Church continues to struggle with addressing seemingly intractable issues such as this, but I think it's overall approach is about as good as we can hope to see.

From 2009: Undocumented Missionaries

From 2011: The Mormon Church and Illegal Immigration

From a few days ago: Illegal immigrants have a friend in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

The Church has a tough row to hoe on these issues.

Thanks,

-Smac

Having served in leadership positions in the church in units with many people that do not have lawful presence in the US i can confirm.

The church does not care about someone's status.  It makes no difference at all.

-You can be baptized, even when the church (as defined by its local priesthood leaders) knows they do not have lawful presence.

-You can serve in callings. Have worked with branch presidents, relief society presidents and missionaries who I, and church leaders knew were not here legally. (there may have been people in other callings, but I did not have first hand knowledge of their immigration status)

- You can be called on a mission and serve as a missionary without legal presence

- You can be ordained an elder and be illegal

- You can get a temple recommend and be illegal

- you can get church welfare assistance and not be legal.

- you can go to BYU and not be legal

I don't really know of any position in the church or any ordinance received that immigration status is affected by.

[Danzo]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

An open border creates massive business opportunities for coyotes, who apparently regularly abuse women and children during illegal border crossings.

 

if the border were open, why would anyone use a coyote?

[Danzo]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What are your thoughts about securing the border?  Are you in favor of it?  Oppose it?  Do you find any moral ambiguity in not securing the border?

Is the rule of law a relevant consideration?

These are all noble considerations and noble ends but in the current situation the means are not justified by the ends.

The goal of "Securing" the border can be done in a much better way.

[MiserereNobis]

From the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops: Catholic Social Teaching on Immigration and the Movement of Peoples

Quote

First Principle: People have the right to migrate to sustain their lives and the lives of their families.

Second Principle: A country has the right to regulate its borders and to control immigration

Seems like a contradiction!

Quote

Third Principle: A country must regulate its borders with justice and mercy.

Justice and Mercy.

From the document:

Quote

A country's regulation of borders and control of immigration must be governed by concern for all people and by mercy and justice. A nation may not simply decide that it wants to provide for its own people and no others. A sincere commitment to the needs of all must prevail. 

While border regulation is acceptable, thinking in terms of "us vs. them" is not. We are all equal before God.

Quote

In our modern world where communication and travel are much easier, the burden of emergencies cannot be placed solely on nations immediately adjacent to the crises. Justice dictates that the world community contribute resources toward shelter, food, medical services, and basic welfare. 

We should be doing all that we can to support and build up the nations people are fleeing to come to the US.

Quote

Even in the case of less urgent migrations, a developed nation's right to limit immigration must be based on justice, mercy, and the common good, not on self-interest. Moreover, immigration policy ought to take into account other important values such as the right of families to live together. A merciful immigration policy will not force married couples or children to live separated from their families for long periods. 

Absolutely. The family separation policy is cruel.

Quote

Undocumented immigrants present a special concern. Often their presence is considered criminal since they arrive without legal permission. Under the harshest view, undocumented people may be regarded as undeserving of rights or services. This is not the view of Catholic social teaching. The Catholic Church teaches that every person has basic human rights and is entitled to have basic human needs met—food, shelter, clothing, education, and health care. Undocumented persons are particularly vulnerable to exploitation by employers, and they are not able to complain because of the fear of discovery and deportation. Current immigration policy that criminalizes the mere attempt to immigrate and imprisons immigrants who have committed no crime or who have already served a just sentence for a crime is immoral. In the Bible, God promises that our judgment will be based on our treatment of the most vulnerable. Before God we cannot excuse inhumane treatment of certain persons by claiming that their lack of legal status deprives them of rights given by the Creator. 

I don't think "But Lord, they didn't have documentation! They crossed illegally! We had to separate them from the families! After all, they are poisoning the blood of our country!" is going to go over well with God.

Quote

Finally, immigration policy that allows people to live here and contribute to society for years but refuses to offer them the opportunity to achieve legal status does not serve the common good. The presence of millions of people living without easy access to basic human rights and necessities is a great injustice. 

Absolutely. Danzo's stories attest to this great injustice.

Here are some good suggested activities from the document:

Quote

• Attend Mass with an immigrant community and reflect on the experience. 
• Learn a few words of the native languages of immigrants who worship in your parish. 
• Visit immigrants held in prison while waiting for their cases to be resolved. 
• Ask to meet with representatives of the Immigration and Naturalization Service to learn about their work and suggest ways they can better enforce the nation's laws while respecting the rights and needs of immigrants. 
• Identify immigrants in the parish still waiting for family members to be permitted to enter the United States. Learn about the process of sponsoring family members, and write to those still waiting overseas to promise friendship and welcome when they finally arrive. 
• Meet with local hospital and public health personnel to ask about how undocumented persons are able to receive medical care. 
• Meet with public school officials to ask how undocumented immigrant children are able to attend school.

When the "illegal alien" is no longer a concept, but a fellow human being, a child of God standing before you, the cruelties masquerading as abstractions become harder to rationalize.

Edited December 13, 2024 by MiserereNobis

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Having served in leadership positions in the church in units with many people that do not have lawful presence in the US i can confirm.

The church does not care about someone's status.  It makes no difference at all.

-You can be baptized, even when the church (as defined by its local priesthood leaders) knows they do not have lawful presence.

-You can serve in callings. Have worked with branch presidents, relief society presidents and missionaries who I, and church leaders knew were not here legally. (there may have been people in other callings, but I did not have first hand knowledge of their immigration status)

- You can be called on a mission and serve as a missionary without legal presence

- You can be ordained an elder and be illegal

- You can get a temple recommend and be illegal

- you can get church welfare assistance and not be legal.

- you can go to BYU and not be legal

I don't really know of any position in the church or any ordinance received that immigration status is affected by.

My stake has a Spanish-speaking ward.  I surmise about 80+% of these folks crossed the border illegally, or else overstayed a visa, or otherwise are in the United States in contravention of its laws.

Our political leaders, of all political stripes, have - for many years now - deliberately failed/refused to secure our borders and meaningfully enforce immigration laws, or to work together to improve these laws in both how they are framed and enforced.  As a result, the United States has metaphorically laid out a de facto welcome mat to illegal immigrants.  In some ways we have openly encouraged people to violate our laws and enter illegally.  I think we need to own that and make some measure of accommodation for it.

Meanwhile, the Church has no law enforcement authority or mandate.  It is a private religious institution, and as such it enjoys substantial autonomy to govern itself free from governmental intrusion.  This autonomy includes discretionary decisions on policies that touch on potentially controversial "in-house" issues, such as whether an illegal immigrant can serve as a missionary, receive a temple recommend, etc.  Such matters are beyond the purview of individual Latter-day Saints, and are instead within the stewardship of those we claim to sustain and prophets, seers and revelators.  There will never be a time when those leading the Church will achieve 100% approval ratings from the rank-and-file members of the Church.  We are living in a Telestial world, we still have far to go re: achieving Zion-like unity, reasonable minds can disagree about matters of secular law, etc.  For me, then, I defer to the Brethren, as I think they are working hard at addressing such things.  If they get it right (and I think they mostly do), good on 'em.  If they make a mistake here and there, they are human and deserve ample measures of grace, patience and accommodation.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Danzo said:

if the border were open, why would anyone use a coyote?

So are you advocating for open borders?  I don't want to jump to that conclusion, but your statement above sure seems headed that way.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Quote

What are your thoughts about securing the border?  Are you in favor of it?  Oppose it?  Do you find any moral ambiguity in not securing the border?

Is the rule of law a relevant consideration?

These are all noble considerations and noble ends but in the current situation the means are not justified by the ends.

The goal of "Securing" the border can be done in a much better way.

Could you elaborate?  What is your proposal?  Not picking a fight, not looking to set you up, or anything like that.  I am genuinely interested in what you have to say.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

There are lawful ways to enter the United States.

-Smac

These lawful ways are not available to the vast majority of people.

My mother and father in law had to apply for permanent residency status

Why?

Because they wanted to live in Mexico (where they wee born and raised).

In what world does that make sense? In the world of the current US immigration law.

 

You see, if a person in a small village in Mexico wants to visit their children in the US, the US will not let them visit. They won't give them a tourist visa, they can't come here legally to visit.

The only way for them to come here legally to visit (including for my daughters wedding last august) was for them to pretend they wanted to live in the US and get be 'on the books" a US residence.  They don't want to live here. Its too cold. but they have to pretend so they can travel here to visit.

 

My mother and father in law were lucky.  There were other relatives they we would have liked to invite to our daughter's wedding that couldn't legally come. Not because they were criminals, but because there was no legal way for them to legally come.

 

[Danzo]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Our political leaders, of all political stripes, have - for many years now - deliberately failed/refused to secure our borders and meaningfully enforce immigration laws, or to work together to improve these laws in both how they are framed and enforced.  As a result, the United States has metaphorically laid out a de facto welcome mat to illegal immigrants.  In some ways we have openly encouraged people to violate our laws and enter illegally.  I think we need to own that and make some measure of accommodation for it.

Exactly.

The only real way to do that is to change the law to 

1.   Provide a practical way for people to  legally enter the country

2.  Provide a statue of Limitations on civil immigration enforcement. 

[Danzo]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So are you advocating for open borders?  I don't want to jump to that conclusion, but your statement above sure seems headed that way.

Thanks,

-Smac

If there were a practical, legal way to enter the country legally, there would not be such a need for coyotes.

 

[Danzo]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Could you elaborate?  What is your proposal?  Not picking a fight, not looking to set you up, or anything like that.  I am genuinely interested in what you have to say.

Thanks,

-Smac

As I have said 

there needs to be

1.    A practical way for people to come here legally.  One that someone from another country, could reasonably follow to allow them to come if they don't have anything wrong with their background and enter the US in a reasonable time frame.

2.    A statute of limitations on immigration enforcement so that after a certain time here, if the government can't/won't enforce their laws against them, they can move on with life.  Crossing the border illegally shouldn't result in a life sentence.  If we can agree to have a statute of limitations for bank robberies and attempted murder, I think we can agree to a statute of limitations for crossing a border.

Edited December 13, 2024 by Danzo

[Rain]

2 hours ago, SkyRock said:

Amazing that this very political topic has  gone on with such contention without it being shut down. 

Most political topics are not inherently political. The majority of this thread has not been political much to my surprise though many of the posts could be perceived to lean specific political directions especially since the thread largely talks of US immigration. 

It's interesting that many in the church find immigration as political since so much of church history and scripture history is immigration.  Moses and the Israelites, Jesus' family going to Egypt, Lehi's family going to the promised land, so many Europeans coming to the US in the first church days. And those are just a handful. It's not a new thing or a political thing for the church to be involved in immigration. 

 

2 hours ago, SkyRock said:

Anyway, how does the Church reconcile "being honest in dealings with fellow man" with identy theft, false papers, etc. common to almost all who are here illegally.  

I guess the same way it reconciles Daniel in the lion's den breaking the prayer law.

2 hours ago, SkyRock said:

An illegal alien missionary was busted while traveling about 15-20 years ago.  I later learned about illegal alien missionaries in California going back to the early 80s.  I recently obtained some personal papers from one of the leaders involved and it was justified mostly because retention rates and government inadequacies.  

 

 

Edited December 13, 2024 by Rain

[MiserereNobis]

If I remember LDS history correctly:

The early LDS fled persecution in their home country and entered Mexico without permission.

Then, these illegal aliens actively and openly fought against the country they had invaded by fighting for the US in the Mexican-American War.

Hmm.

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, SkyRock said:

Amazing that this very political topic has  gone on with such contention without it being shut down. 

One, it needs to be reported. As far as I can tell mods only lock down after reports.  My guess is they don’t read much themselves, but enjoy providing the service.   Two, mods don’t show up every day.  Sometimes it can take two days or more for a thread to get locked down after I report it.

 I am too interested in it to report it this time around, lol.

Have you?

[teddyaware]

2 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

If I remember LDS history correctly:

The early LDS fled persecution in their home country and entered Mexico without permission.

Then, these illegal aliens actively and openly fought against the country they had invaded by fighting for the US in the Mexican-American War.

Hmm.

 

From the Wikipedia article on the subject of the Mormon settlements in Mexico:

In 1885 President John Taylor purchased 100,000 acres of land in Mexico. This act allowed over 350 Latter-day Saint families who practiced polygamy from Utah and Arizona to settle land in Mexico. This was a very strenuous task, but it allowed the men the opportunity to keep their multiple wives without being fined and jailed. These people started their own farming colonies and established their settlements in Chihuahua^[5] and Sonora, where they focused their labors on sheep, cattle, wheat, row crops, and fruit orchards.

Does paying the Mexican government a fair price for 100,000 acres of northern Mexican land, for the purposes of settlement, equate to the unlawful invasion and theft of sovereign Mexican territory?