USAPatriot

Ok, so if I am reading some of these posts right, it is alright to lie as long as it's about your immigration status? Am I missing something here? It's fine for some people to lie but not others?

I am not at odds with his immigration status, but at the fact that he lied about it and has continued to lie. Thanks for all your input.

I saw this on another forum and wanted your opinion on it...... "Since My friend plans on serving a mission he will most likely leave sometime next Spring 2012 but he is worried about leaving since his Bishop told him that he DID NOT Have to Leave the States if he did Not want to. But He has not told him that he is an Illegal Immigrant because he Lied When he got baptized in the LDS church a while ago because he felt shame/embarrassed when he had to tell whoever was filling out the application his Place of Birth. HE just is reluctant to let others know that he is NOT AMERICAN by Birth that he does not have Legal Status in the USA. and does not want anyone to know within the church yet. He is unsure of how to talk about this matter since well He wants to go and I told him well I don't really know too much so talk to whoever is in charge. The Reason for HIM Serving a 2 YR LDS Mission is that Currently his family petition through 245i has not come through since it takes between 10-15 yrs. And its only been 10 yrs since his Uncle petitioned for his father. And by leaving for 2 yrs it might help ease the burden of his problems and worries by going somewhere else. He turns 19 next march and plans on leaving on March 2012. " I guess my question is, did he commit a serious sin by lying to the bishop before he was baptized? Also, if he is sent on a mission, would he be committing a more serious sin? Just want some advise. I do not know who this person is but it seems to me to be a serious situation. Thanks

And what happens when the "sponsor" doesn't have any money to cover the costs of the person they sponsored? Are they going to provide housing, food, medical care, transportation, liability insurance? If the person commits a crime, are they going to pay for the costs of incarceration? If the person hurts, damages or kills someone, are they going to be held liable for the financial cost of the harm, damage or wrongful death they caused to others? What about the worker and his family that this worker displaced? Is the sponsor going to co-sponsor the family that now is without a livelihood because of the illegal they sponsored took their job?

Lawmakers pushing immigration bills receive threats By David Montero The Salt Lake Tribune First published Feb 14 2011 07:11PM Updated Feb 15, 2011 06:26AM Two state lawmakers running immigration reform bills were e-mailed perceived death threats over the weekend and Utah Highway Patrol authorities confirmed Monday they are investigating the matter and taking it “very seriously.” Reps. Stephen Sandstrom, R-Orem, and Chris Herrod, R-Provo, were the only two state lawmakers to receive the one-and-a-half page letter, confirmed top state law enforcement officials, who said they were too early in the investigation to determine the severity of the threat. Utah Public Safety Commissioner Lance Davenport, who oversees the UHP, said in the wake of the attempted assassination of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., in Tucson, as well as “living in a post-9/11 world,” even veiled language needed to be scrutinized. “We don’t want to overreact, but at the same time, we don’t want to risk not taking it seriously,” Davenport said. “Because the world we live in now is the way it is, we want to do the right thing and protect our legislators.” Sandstrom, who authored HB70, the enforcement-only bill that has been decried by some critics as racist, said the letter “freaked out” his wife. However, he said it was possible that whoever wrote the letter “may have not been thinking about what they were doing.” But after his SUV was egged this weekend and his daughter’s car had tomatoes thrown at it, he decided to alert law enforcement. The letter is signed the “United Front for Defense of Immigrants” and features the images of Che Guevara and, separately, a semiautomatic weapon with a banana clip. It isn’t directly addressed to Sandstrom or Herrod. Instead, it is headed with the words, “In response to HB-70 (Communique III-2/11/11)” and references Arizona — the home of the nation’s first enforcement-only law that became the epicenter of the immigration debate. The letter says: “ A comprehensive immigration reform has never and will never be established in Utah through peaceful dialogs [sic], civil discourse, or the Mormon Church involvement. It will be established as any other revolutionary changes always have been ... by pen and gun, by word and bullet, by tongue and teeth.” Lawmakers pushing immigration bills receive threats | The Salt Lake Tribune