Missionary's arrest sparks discussion, fear

[rockwoodchev]

It sounds like the LDS church has a "Don't ask, don't tell" policy when it comes to citizenship status and missions. Forgive me for saying this, but it sounds hypocritical to be "raising the bar" for missionaries, yet nobody checks to make sure that people are here legally before sending them on a mission.

No. It sounds like they have a policy of "Ask, but don't tell anyone else". They need to ask the missionary if they are illegal so that they know not to send them foreign. If they called a young man living here illegally to a mission outside of the country, they would need a passport. They must be called to somewhere a passport is not required.

Now, I'll bet these missionaries will be called to somewhere local, or they will be called to regional or 2-year stake missions. They will still be allowed to serve, but will be kept where they don't need ID to travel.

[BenRaines]

I spent three years working in a branch where spanish speaking members attended. Policy was and I believe still is "Don't ask, don't tell". Rules are to not knowingly baptize someone in the US illegally. We are also not to encourage anyone to break the law.

I don't recall it being a question on baptismal interview, temple recommend interview, etc.

If someone is to assume because someone speaks another language they are here illegally there will be lots of mistakes made.

My mom always said "believe nothing of what you read and only half of what you see"

Ben Raines

[Guest missingsomething]

I don't recall the Church verifying my citizenship when I went on a mission.

-a-train

I was going to make that point- there is no citizenship questions. There maybe in the future though...

[rockwoodchev]

Hey Ben,

The only thing I'm thinking is on the news article from Elder Holland, it appears that these Elders are only called to state-side missions. In order for that to occur, they must mark the application somehow to show that they can't go foreign. I'm not sure how that could be asked. Maybe something like:

Question 15-A: Are you eligible to hold a passport?

Question 15-B: If you were asked for proof of citizenship when re-entering the USA, could you provide it?

I don't think there is anyway to do a "Don't Ask" policy. They have to know to not do a foreign call.

Also, what does this then say about the young men and the 12th article of faith. It doesn't seem well for a young man's worthiness if they can't live up to a "raised bar"

[mightynancy]

I have to agree, if anyone here is not speaking the basic English language and claiming him/herself a citizen, probability is more than 90-percent that they are here illegally. Part of the naturalization process is learning to speak the basic English language.

Being a non-citizen and an illegal alien are two different things. You can be a legal resident without ever being naturalized.

Also, I used to teach English to people applying for legal residency and citizenship under the Amnesty Act of 1986. I had lots of grads who, for all their efforts, failed to speak English even kind of well. However, they did comply with the requirement to take an authorized course *or* pass a test. Only those seeking actual citizenship needed to demonstrate a mastery of basic English and pass a citizenship test. Those just looking for residency just needed to come to class. And no, there weren't very many who didn't give it the ol' college try. :) Good times. I loved that job!

[Moksha]

They must be called to somewhere a passport is not required.

Now, I'll bet these missionaries will be called to somewhere local, or they will be called to regional or 2-year stake missions.

It might be wise to keep illegal alien missionaries limited to either the Jell-O Belt or their planet of origin, so that local law enforcement would be sympathetic enough to turn the other eye cluster.

[YellowLight]

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. (D&C 58:21)

Illegal immigrant missionaries must be honest with themselves, the church, and their fellow men in order to have the spirit with them and be Temple Recommend worthy. So, how does this happen?

[Traveler]

Oh, and while we're at it, if we're going to get into politics as a people (the LDS, I mean), why don't we put some vigor into changing our immigration laws?

I beliefe there is too much false politics involved in changing immigration laws. Since you recommend changing the law please let us know which immigration law you hold personal disagreement.

The Traveler

[Maxel]

It sounds like the LDS church has a "Don't ask, don't tell" policy when it comes to citizenship status and missions. Forgive me for saying this, but it sounds hypocritical to be "raising the bar" for missionaries, yet nobody checks to make sure that people are here legally before sending them on a mission.

It's about as hypocritical as saying they're going to "raise the bar" at all- the instant it's said, things don't magically change. Institutional changes take time, and the focus of "raising the bar" wasn't to make sure only legal residents served- it was speaking about raising the spiritual maturity and gospel knowledge of missionaries. Changes have to start somewhere and then move "line upon line" to other issues- this is one that either hasn't been streamlined yet, or is fine as it is and there's a deeper reason they let illegal aliens serve missions.

I can't dismiss Elder Holland's statement about the Church not denying people blessings, and how serving a mission is a great blessing.

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. (D&C 58:21)

Illegal immigrant missionaries must be honest with themselves, the church, and their fellow men in order to have the spirit with them and be Temple Recommend worthy. So, how does this happen?

Well, people lie in Temple Recommend interviews and mission interviews. It's true! I heard it on MSNBC.

Seriously, though- the Church isn't perfect, neither is its practices, neither are its members, neither are its leaders. There's already plenty of controversy about immigration issues anyway- if a person is morally right before God, and trying to attain legal status but are blocked in that endeavor, and want to serve a mission- is it wrong or going against the spirit of the laws of the land to send the men on missions? Last time I checked, serving a mission required no federal or state funding, or anything else that is a burden to society.

[gaspah]

If the leaders were aware.. I have a serious problem with that. If they had no clue.. I can let it slide.

It says that LDS has a 'policy' on illegal immigrants serving missions which say they are well aware of their illegal status. Whilst I think it is a good thing for these people to serve a mission, i'm not sure it is worth comprimising some of our fundimental beliefs as per The Articles of Faith

12. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

Not only is it compromising the beliefs of all those involved in assisting them, it compromises the image of the LDS Church.

[rockwoodchev]

Here is a bit more information that was sent to me today. I'll get sources tomorrow.

It appears that back in 2005, Sen Bob Bennett of Utah did a last minute amendment to a Farm Agriculture bill that insulates religious organizations from illegal activities of service workers.

Church spokesman Scott Trotter said “the blessings of the Church are available to anyone who qualifies for and accepts the Gospel of Jesus Christs" and went on to say "Federal law allows undocumented persons to provide volunteer church service, including missionary service, within the United States.” What Trotter failed to mention is that the Church is actually responsible for the law that insulates religious organizations from prosecution for, among other things, knowingly permitting undocumented immigrants to be ministers or calling them as missionaries. In 2005, the Church lobbied Senator Bob Bennett to sponsor this “narrow exception” to federal immigration law, and he added the provision to an agricultural spending bill that was later signed into law (prompting Rep. Tom Tancredo to lambaste it as the “Bennett Loophole“).

"churches already were shielded if they didn't know the person was illegal, so the only reason to have the amendment is to knowingly recruit illegal aliens. "

US CODE: Title 8,1324. Bringing in and harboring certain aliens

Title 8 section 1324 of US Code:

© It is not a violation of clauses [1] (ii) or (iii) of subparagraph (A), or of clause (iv) of subparagraph (A) except where a person encourages or induces an alien to come to or enter the United States, for a religious denomination having a bona fide nonprofit, religious organization in the United States, or the agents or officers of such denomination or organization, to encourage, invite, call, allow, or enable an alien who is present in the United States to perform the vocation of a minister or missionary for the denomination or organization in the United States as a volunteer who is not compensated as an employee, notwithstanding the provision of room, board, travel, medical assistance, and other basic living expenses, provided the minister or missionary has been a member of the denomination for at least one year.

It appears to me that the church asked a member of the church, to put in last minute provisions into a bill that would protect the church from being charged if a member of the church was caught doing work for the church while at the same time was here in an illegal manner.

I'm still blown away by Elder Holland's comments in the article. That is the most worrisome portion of this whole topic.

"They go knowing themselves that they're at risk, and nothing in our mission call changes that," Holland said. "They know that, and we know that, and we work within those parameters to have them be constructive, honorable, faithful, spiritual, religious emissaries for that period of service."

Elder Holland is saying that the leadership of the church knowingly sends people who are breaking US law into a situation where there is a good chance they will be caught and prosecuted. I wonder if my Bishop knew that I was breaking US law if I could keep my recommend. No matter what a person thinks of immigration law, the fact of the matter is that the law is the law. How many times on this forum do people talk about obedience to every jot and tittle. I don't understand. I trust these men to make decisions for us that follow laws. Not to blatantly break them.

[YellowLight]

I guess my greatest concern is that the church positioned themselves to be 100% unliable. However, they then say "They go knowing themselves that they're at risk, and nothing in our mission call changes that," Holland said. "They know that, and we know that, and we work within those parameters to have them be constructive, honorable, faithful, spiritual, religious emissaries for that period of service."

So the church knows they are at risk, but do the missionaries "REALLY" understand the consequences of being recognized as an illegal immigrant. It sure was convenient for the church to claim neutrality while the missionaries could essentially be separated from their familes if prosecuted or deported.

[Hemidakota]

Being a non-citizen and an illegal alien are two different things. You can be a legal resident without ever being naturalized.

Also, I used to teach English to people applying for legal residency and citizenship under the Amnesty Act of 1986. I had lots of grads who, for all their efforts, failed to speak English even kind of well. However, they did comply with the requirement to take an authorized course *or* pass a test. Only those seeking actual citizenship needed to demonstrate a mastery of basic English and pass a citizenship test. Those just looking for residency just needed to come to class. And no, there weren't very many who didn't give it the ol' college try. :) Good times. I loved that job!

If you are referring to being a dual national, marrying an US citizen then yes. My siblings and my mother carried dual national citizenship under those terms. But that was not my point. I was talking about ILLEGALS versus those who sought for citizenship. You clearly made my point.

If anything that failed in this land, was the Amnesty act.

[Hemidakota]

For me, this is really troubling. I'm not sure how to explain it.

This is really stunning. I'm shocked at Elder Hollands statements that are just so blatant and disregard the individual. I'm not sure how this sort of thing occurs, but it really ticks me off.

1. The missionary should have been honest.

2. The BP should have known, asked, been aware of the situation.

3. The Church must know about these situations, as Holland clearly states that they are being sent to state-side missions. This is because the young man could not get a valid passport to go foreign. So, there is something on the form going into SLC with the application that indicates "Here illegally". WOW. WOW. WOW!!!

4. The church encouraged, in an Agricultural Bill, a rider to protect the church, but leave the poor missionary hanging out there.

5. The church then hides behind the bill when it claims it is the law, they are simply following it.

6. Then, this thing about sending an Uncle out to OK to pick up a missionary so he wouldn't be arrested as well. They don't even take responsibility for the missionary by seeing that he gets home ok, they send a family member.

I think this is really a sad state of affairs. I thought we has "Raised the Bar"? How can we let a young man be a missionary, when he is breaking the laws of the land.

Is the following statement no longer true? "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

Wow.

If the Branch President of a Spanish speaking ward did not check and validate his claims to be a citizen of the country, then we had problems.

[Traveler]

There are two parts to the law. The first part is that part that we are all most familiar. It is the written, spoken and defined law. The second part of the law is president or how the law is used. It is this second part of our immigration law that is broken but those that complain about immigration law being broken make no account about what is broken.

I have no question but that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is doing the best it can to bring about good things as well as honoring the law. The problem is the precedence that has been set in dealing with undocumented immigration. The USA has set an inconsistent precedence that dates back to over 100 years in dealing with undocumented immigrants and the citizens that assist such activities. This inconsistency has created a landscape where any definition or interpretation of the written law is impossible to be enforced without wide spread injustices that filter into other aspects of the law beyond immigration. One example of the problem that has been created by inconsistencies is associated with what is known as anchor babies. Another example is that ever individual must be treated the same. In other words any Church cannot treat someone differently because they suspect they are not documented – and that includes even asking if they are documented unless every member is required to prove their citizenship; a policy that would be extremely cumbersome and difficult to validate as well as being sure of keeping within the legal framework.

Because of the LDS church humanitarian mission to teach of Christ to all peoples there is reason to do all that is possible in the full intent of the Law to act as “Good Samaritans” and assist whenever possible. To leave the 99 in search of the 1. I believe this includes the blessings for missionary service. There is however, a great area in which the law has become inconsistent. This is not because of activities of the LDS Church but because of the vast interpretations of the law that vary in different regions of the country.

So how do I see the legislation of Brother Bennett? I see this as a means to protect the church from lawsuit generated by the anti-LDS that will to any extent and any expense to destroy the church and thereby prevent even a set-up situation that could be brought to bear against the church and its leaders (both general and local).

Without question the immigration policy and law enforcement is broken. It also appears that there is no effort by anyone to solve the problem within the framework of the law. It is not the responsibility of the LDS Church to solve the immigration crisis. (Think separation of Church and State). It is not the responsibility of the Church to dictate legal policy or define how the laws should be enacted and enforced. It is unreasonable to even expect the church to be pro-active and adhere to any degree of separation of Church and State. It is the responsibility of the LDS Church to make every effort to comply with the law – and that I believe the LDS Church is doing to the best of its collective ability.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

If the Branch President of a Spanish speaking ward did not check and validate his claims to be a citizen of the country, then we had problems.

To expect a branch President of a Spanish speaking ward to behave or treat their members any differently than ever other branch President or Ward Bishop - is in my mind a far greater problem that indicates the worse kind of racial bias (with evil intent bias) to even suggest such a thing.

The Traveler

[Hemidakota]

With serving in a branch in the past, I would be expected and would validate the same. Nothing to do with being racial bias at this point but protecting the interest of the church and the kingdom.

You are right, it is your assumption....but incorrect.

[Traveler]

With serving in a branch in the past, I would be expected and would validate the same. Nothing to do with being racial bias at this point but protecting the interest of the church and the kingdom.

You are right, it is your assumption....but incorrect.

It is a personal belief - and may be incorrect but I do not believe it to be so. That ever member should be treated the same regardless of the ward or branch in which they live. G-d, I do not believe is a respector of person.

The Traveler

[Faded]

Missionary's arrest sparks discussion, fear - Salt Lake Tribune

'The arrest of an undocumented immigrant returning last week from his LDS mission has sparked discussion at the highest levels of the church about how to limit such exposure in the future.

"With the known realization that those risks exist, then we want to do better, or at least learn more," LDS apostle Jeffrey R. Holland, said Friday during an interview with The Salt Lake Tribune . "We want to be more precise, if we can, about how to help, how to make [a mission] the calmest, most spiritually rewarding experience for everybody." '

I was shocked when I saw this article yesterday, it seems that the church leaders are sending illegal immigrants on missions within the U.S. in order to try to prevent them from being detected as such if they attempt to travel abroad for their missions..

Could somebody please explain this, how it can be justified?

You appear to be taking a single instance and using it to make a lot of assumptions. Case in point: Just because the Catholic Church had problems with pedophile priests does not mean they overtly advocate child molestation. It means that the Catholic Church made some poor choices in how they dealt with priests who were known pedophiles.

I'm surprised that this individual managed to fall through the cracks. Typically, you have to have everything in order -- Passport, Visa, etc -- in order to serve in a foreign country. So how did the United States Customs office screw that up??

I've know of cases where the "illegal" was perfectly legal. The very first legal case involving DNA testing was exactly that sort of thing. So if a person says they are here legally, then the Church is going to take their word for it. If a Bishop and/or Stake President knowingly let it slide by, then they were in the wrong for doing so. That does not mean that the Church has a policy of advocating illegal activity.

[john doe]

I dunno. I grew up on stories of missionaries from the US overstaying their visas in foreign countries, only to be found out on their way home. Typically the story goes on to say the foreign officials were not amused as they made sure the missionary got on his plane out of their jurisdiction. There are also stories of missionaries who were expelled from countries only to be reassigned to another country for the remainder of their missions. In those scenarios, I believe it was made clear to the missionary after his initial visa was issued, that he was ultimately responsible for ensuring his legal status in that country, but in some areas it was not encouraged to apply for an extension on a visa because of the likelihood that it would be denied. I don't have any references for that other than anecdotal statements, but that is my understanding of what went on. I think that in recent years the church has been working more closely with officials of countries to avoid that kind of thing, but I can see how it could happen. I don't know how to reconcile this with what is going on now with illegals in the US, but it seems to me that honesty in our dealings with our fellow man should rule the day if possible.

[hordak]

You appear to be taking a single instance and using it to make a lot of assumptions. Case in point: Just because the Catholic Church had problems with pedophile priests does not mean they overtly advocate child molestation. It means that the Catholic Church made some poor choices in how they dealt with priests who were known pedophiles.

I'm surprised that this individual managed to fall through the cracks. Typically, you have to have everything in order -- Passport, Visa, etc -- in order to serve in a foreign country. So how did the United States Customs office screw that up??

I've know of cases where the "illegal" was perfectly legal. The very first legal case involving DNA testing was exactly that sort of thing. So if a person says they are here legally, then the Church is going to take their word for it. If a Bishop and/or Stake President knowingly let it slide by, then they were in the wrong for doing so. That does not mean that the Church has a policy of advocating illegal activity.

Did you read the whole article?

"The travel department of the church has to rethink everything. Things have changed, and they need a whole new policy," said a local church official who was aware of the situation. "With ICE [immigration and Customs Enforcement] hitting them at the bus terminals and airports, this opens a whole new discussion. I don't know how many undocumented immigrants we have serving missions, but I'm sure this is going to repeat itself."

LDS Church leaders have had evolving policies on how to keep undocumented missionaries safe. But this is the first time Holland has heard of a missionary being arrested by immigration officials while serving.

"There's been an ongoing discussion of this for 15 years. These kind of incidents, or anything like it, would continue that discussion," said Holland, who is a member of the Missionary Executive Council. "We're always trying to do, always and forever, exactly what's legal, and in the spirit of that, be fair to everyone on the religious side, on the spiritual side, to have the spiritual benefits of [serving a mission]." '

'Church leaders do make certain accommodations for undocumented missionaries, including calling them only to missions within the United States. But leaders acknowledge the missionaries' potential legal jeopardy.'

This isn't an isolated event, or one who slipped through the cracks but an on going thing. This is just the first time they got caught.

[Faded]

Sounds to me like the Salt Lake Tribune is continuing to be what the Salt Lake Tribune has often tended to be: a sounding board for Anti-Mormon sentiments.

The Salt Lake Tribune - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After being purchased by three men from Kansas in 1873, the paper became known as an anti-Mormon organ which consistently backed the local Liberal Party. Sometimes vitriolic, the Tribune held particular antipathy for Latter-day Saints President Brigham Young. In the edition announcing Young's death, the Tribune wrote,

He was illiterate and he has made frequent boast that he never saw the inside of a school house. His habit of mind was singularly illogical and his public addresses the greatest farrago of nonsense that ever was put in print. He prided himself on being a great financer, and yet all of his commercial speculations have been conspicuous failures. He was blarophant, and pretended to be in daily intercourse with the Almighty, and yet he was groveling in his ideas, and the system of religion he formulated was well nigh Satanic. — The Salt Lake Tribune, August 30, 1877

So yes I read the whole article. I kept my many grains of salt handy whilst doing so. You can count on the Salt Lake Tribune to put a negative spin on any story. I'm betting they did their best to pick apart the actual statement by Holland to make it sound as bad as they possibly could, but not quite so much as to make Anti-Mormon bias obvious.

Edited April 28, 2009 by Faded

[YellowLight]

Sounds to me like the Salt Lake Tribune is continuing to be what the Salt Lake Tribune has often tended to be: a sounding board for Anti-Mormon sentiments.

The Salt Lake Tribune - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So yes I read the whole article. I kept my many grains of salt handy whilst doing so. You can count on the Salt Lake Tribune to put a negative spin on any story. I'm betting they did their best to pick apart the actual statement by Holland to make it sound as bad as they possibly could, but not quite so much as to make Anti-Mormon bias obvious.

Why is it that anything that contradicts people's perfect view of the church immediately gets labeled as anti-mormon? Take off your rose colored glasses and see things from an outside perspective and you may see both sides of the picture. I am saying, examine both sides before jumping to conclusions.

[Moksha]

Sounds to me like the Salt Lake Tribune is continuing to be what the Salt Lake Tribune has often tended to be: a sounding board for Anti-Mormon sentiments.

The Salt Lake Tribune - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Perhaps when they are the bearer of bad news it is easy to blame them. I know there are many days I would like to bury my head under the covers to avoid hearing depressing news - but the news is still there when I get out of bed.

.

[Maxel]

Why is it that anything that contradicts people's perfect view of the church immediately gets labeled as anti-mormon? Take off your rose colored glasses and see things from an outside perspective and you may see both sides of the picture. I am saying, examine both sides before jumping to conclusions.

Or maybe you should take off your black-colored glasses and take some of your own medicine? There is only one side of the story presented thus far- currently, it is impossible to examine both sides.

Perhaps when they are the bearer of bad news it is easy to blame them. I know there are many days I would like to bury my head under the covers to avoid hearing depressing news - but the news is still there when I get out of bed.

I dunno... I think demonstrably proving a bias in a news source is plenty reason to hold off from accepting all of the 'facts' presented in said new source until more information is revealed.

Traveler, in his explanation of the precedence of illegal immigration cases, has a very good point. I'd like to see more information about this before coming to a final decision.