Church releases new statements about immigration

[NeuroTypical]

LDS.org: Immigration: Church Issues New Statement

LDS.org: Responsibility of Church Members: Avoiding Being Judgmental

What I got out of it:

* You shouldn't come here illegally.

* If you're here illegally, you can still be worthy to go to the temple.

* This is a problem that needs fixing, and there are a whole lot of horrible ways to fix it, so be careful.

* Don't be judging the worthiness of your fellow churchmembers who may be here illegally.

Thoughts?

[skippy740]

I'm having trouble avoiding being judgmental about these statements.

I've always believed in honoring and sustaining the law - "being honest in my dealings with my fellow man" fit within this.

However, if someone is here illegally, but they are contributing members of society (as shown through active church service and paying tithes) and NOT a drain on society's resources, I suppose I would have no problem with granting such a person a temple recommend - knowing that they would be good citizens the US would want to keep here anyway.

Just my babbling... while I talk and write this out at the same time.

I also think that there could be other illegals who are church members who may not ask for help from church leaders because they could be afraid of being reported? The church does need to be a safe haven - everywhere the church is established.

I also think the Church is saying "we aren't going to fix or regulate a federal problem" through church policy. That's probably a very good thing.

It takes some examining to see where you can stand. Knowing the type of people who DO receive temple recommends... I would have no problem with this policy. (It's not like we have a bunch of drug-selling, murdering gang members who are forming a line to get into the temple.)

[Dravin]

I've always believed in honoring and sustaining the law - "being honest in my dealings with my fellow man" fit within this.

I've concluded it comes down to how important you think the immigration laws are. If you think of it as some sort of normal low level (still not made right though) violation such as not wearing your seat belt or speeding then the conflict isn't so shocking. If you think of it as something more more significant then the conflict raises it's head.

That seems to be where the divide lands in my experience. People who think of illegal entry into the country as a rather significant violation of the law, and those who tend to agree that while it's illegal it's not really a big thing once everything is considered.

Edited June 14, 2011 by Dravin

[Vort]

Then there are those of us who see illegal entry as a huge deal indeed, but do not necessarily put much blame on many of the "illegals". For the most part, these are people seeking to make an honest living, not villains intent on destroying our way of life through drugs and gangs. The onus is on us to secure our borders, not on destitute people to refuse to cross an imaginary line because someone else thinks their honor depends upon it.

[skippy740]

You're both right.

I'm just looking for ways to sustain the church instead of finding reasons not to. (Not that you're doing it, but I've got to get it right in my own mind.)

[MarginOfError]

I pretty regularly fall back on the dilemma of "Stay in Mexico and watch my family struggle and starve" vs. "Illegally emigrate to the United States and give myself a decent chance of providing for my family."

That's a decision that, for me, would make it very hard to honor the law of the land.

By Common Consent had an interesting analysis about these statement. In one of the comments, a contributor stated:

The bottom line for me is that I’ve never been able to understand why I should treat someone born a few hundred miles to the east of me in Nevada/Arizona differently than someone born a few hundred miles to the south of me in Mexico. It seems so arbitrary and man-made that enforcing or enabling laws to treat those people differently strikes my senses as immoral.

So, what it boils down to for me is this: should people come to the US illegally? No. Do I understand why they do? Yes. Is it my business how or why they came? Not really. Will I do what I can to inspire those I come in contact with to seek Christ and build a better life for themselves and their children? Absolutely. And hopefully, just maybe someday we can figure out how to solve our problems and start working on Mexico's too.

[lizzy16]

We had an illegal immigrant in my ward. He got baptized but eventually got sent back to Mexico.

He's now on a mission and the bishop reads his letters to him over the pulpit. (translated.).

He was the nicest guy :)

[KrazyKay]

I live near Houston where there are many illegal Mexicans... not sure how many right off. I have no problems with Mexicans who come here illegally but are trying to work honestly and trying to help their families back in Mexico. It's the ones who come here illegally (or legally) and just live off the state's welfare system that I have problems with.

[rubondfan2]

This one statement in the article pretty much summed it up for me:

"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. "

Sounds like a pretty stinging indictment of Arizona's landmark legislation. (I'm from Arizona, so I can dog them all I want and I think they were wrong, wrong, wrong on this one.)

This is an emotionally charged subject for me and my family. We are Americans who live in Guatemala most of the time and when we are in the states we always attend a spanish ward if one is available wherever we happen to be. We love the latino culture, the language, the food, the work ethic, the family centeredness, the humility and the many other good and positive elements their culture displays. We love our very dear and life-long (perhaps even eternal?) latino friends... a good percentage of which are here on expired visas. A VERY small percentage of our friends crossed the border illegally. ALL of them pay taxes, tithing and work their butts off to a far greater degree than most of the anglo friends we have.

I agree with the Church's stance that immigration status should not be made a part of determining temple worthiness. I find that debate here on this board and in other LDS circles to be offensive and despicable. Any Bishop or Stake President attempting to take on the business of immigration enforcement from their seat as an ecclesiastical leader should be released, in my opinion.

[Vort]

As one who has long sympathized with the immigrants and abhorred much of the overreaction of the "Anglos", I could hardly disagree more with your post, rubondfan2. In it, you appear to partake in that very same spirit of which you disapprove.

Only a fool or a traitor (or a non-American who hates the US) could dispute that the US should police its borders far better than it does. Porous border == national security issue. People of goodwill can hold opinions that illegal immigrants should be deported, and that doesn't make them evil people.

[rubondfan2]

As one who has long sympathized with the immigrants and abhorred much of the overreaction of the "Anglos", I could hardly disagree more with your post, rubondfan2. In it, you appear to partake in that very same spirit of which you disapprove.

Only a fool or a traitor (or a non-American who hates the US) could dispute that the US should police its borders far better than it does. Porous border == national security issue. People of goodwill can hold opinions that illegal immigrants should be deported, and that doesn't make them evil people.

I have no idea what you're talking about, Vort. You're going to have to narrow down for me which statements you feel "partake in that very same spirit of which disapprove". I would further appreciate your pointing out where in my post I made any sort of implication that the US should not be policing it's borders better than it does. And finally, I would appreciate your pointing out what verbiage in my post gives you the impression that I believe people holding "opinions that illegal immigrants should be deported" are "evil people".

My mouth is so full of the words you just put in them that I can hardly breathe. :)

[Vort]

I have no idea what you're talking about, Vort. You're going to have to narrow down for me which statements you feel "partake in that very same spirit of which disapprove". I would further appreciate your pointing out where in my post I made any sort of implication that the US should not be policing it's borders better than it does. And finally, I would appreciate your pointing out what verbiage in my post gives you the impression that I believe people holding "opinions that illegal immigrants should be deported" are "evil people".

My mouth is so full of the words you just put in them that I can hardly breathe. :)

If I have put words in your mouth, I apologize. Let me point out what you wrote that I was talking about:

"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. "

Sounds like a pretty stinging indictment of Arizona's landmark legislation. (I'm from Arizona, so I can dog them all I want and I think they were wrong, wrong, wrong on this one.)

I don't think it sounds like an indictment of the legislation at all. The statement did not say that enforcement provisions were inappropriate; rather, it said that legislation that only contained enforcement provisions was "likely to fall short of the high moral standard" referenced. That doesn't mean the legislation was bad, only incomplete.

You stated your opinion that the legislators were "wrong, wrong wrong" in their efforts, quoting the Church's statement as support of your opinion. But it does not support your opinion.

This is an emotionally charged subject for me and my family. We are Americans who live in Guatemala most of the time and when we are in the states we always attend a spanish ward if one is available wherever we happen to be.

Apropos of nothing: Why?

We love the latino culture, the language, the food, the work ethic, the family centeredness, the humility and the many other good and positive elements their culture displays. We love our very dear and life-long (perhaps even eternal?) latino friends... a good percentage of which are here on expired visas. A VERY small percentage of our friends crossed the border illegally. ALL of them pay taxes, tithing and work their butts off to a far greater degree than most of the anglo friends we have.

How would you know this? Are you sure your "anglo friends" are really that much more lazy and undeserving than your latino friends?

I agree with the Church's stance that immigration status should not be made a part of determining temple worthiness. I find that debate here on this board and in other LDS circles to be offensive and despicable.

You find debate on a discussion board to be despicable?

Do you see a problem with this?

Any Bishop or Stake President attempting to take on the business of immigration enforcement from their seat as an ecclesiastical leader should be released, in my opinion.

It is not at all obvious where one's duties as a citizen end and as a Church official begin. You object to those who question the Church's stance on immigration status vs. temple worthiness to be "offensive and despicable", yet feel free to call on the Church to release those called of God to serve, merely because you don't like their political opinions or actions. To me, this seems contradictory. Your stance seems to partake of the very attitude you so despise.

[NeuroTypical]

Hi folks,

Friendly reminder - not pointed at anyone in particular at all:

Site rule #3. Personal attacks, name calling, flaming, and judgments against other members will not be tolerated.

Site rule #4. No bickering and nit-picking toward others. Realize that sometimes it is very difficult to be able to express how one feels through written words. Please be courteous and ask for a further explanation, rather then trying to attack and find holes in someone else's post.

This issue is as important as it is divisive. There's lots of passion involved. Let's make sure we're spending our energies arguing the points, and not trying to prove the other guy is a blankety-blank so-and-so.

:)

[rubondfan2]

If I have put words in your mouth, I apologize. Let me point out what you wrote that I was talking about:

I don't think it sounds like an indictment of the legislation at all. The statement did not say that enforcement provisions were inappropriate; rather, it said that legislation that only contained enforcement provisions was "likely to fall short of the high moral standard" referenced. That doesn't mean the legislation was bad, only incomplete.

I agree with your analysis. I disagree with Arizona's law as being "incomplete", as you suggest. And I support the Church's stance as they stated and as I stated in my original post.

You stated your opinion that the legislators were "wrong, wrong wrong" in their efforts, quoting the Church's statement as support of your opinion. But it does not support your opinion.

Arizona's law does fall short of the standard which the Church's position outlines. I have believed this since the very beginning and am happy the Church has taken a general position on this. It is my personal dot to dot connection that I use to bring up the subject of Arizona. You may disagree with me, and that is fine, but I do believe the Church's stance does support my personal position, and vice versa.

I'll also take a moment to disagree with you to a certain degree with the statement you made earlier... something about "porous borders = national security issue". Meh, I'm not entirely on board with that statement... especially as it pertains to latino immigrants, illegal or otherwise. I would suggest that we have more than enough "national security" issues right here within our own borders and the people legally residing within them than to get all hung up on latinos. Our porous borders are more of an economic and social issue than a national security one, in my opinion.

Apropos of nothing: Why?

I don't even know what this means. I'll guess that you are asking why I stated my emotional perspective on this issue? If so, then I'll state that in the general scope of the immigration issue, I have emotional investments given my attachments to the latino culture. I become dismayed at the lack of understanding and compassion that many display toward "illegals" as they banter back and forth about the problem, perceived or real, and the potential solutions. My personal and family experiences have largely shaped my ideologies as well as my own personal political preferences.

How would you know this? Are you sure your "anglo friends" are really that much more lazy and undeserving than your latino friends?

Hmm... I feel some words roaming around in my mouth that I did not put there. I "know" from my own personal experiences, interactions and relationships with (my) personal latino and anglo friends. In no way have I implied that anglos in general are more lazy and less deserving than latinos. Be careful with your characterizations and extrapolations of my words, Vort.

You find debate on a discussion board to be despicable?

Do you see a problem with this?

No, I don't. I hold this opinion. It is my opinion and mine alone... though others may share it and that would be their prerogative as well. I suppose, however, that I can agree with your very specific challenge of my use of the word "debate". The debate itself is healthy. Certain viewpoints arising from that debate, however, I do find despicable at times.

It is not at all obvious where one's duties as a citizen end and as a Church official begin. You object to those who question the Church's stance on immigration status vs. temple worthiness to be "offensive and despicable", yet feel free to call on the Church to release those called of God to serve, merely because you don't like their political opinions or actions. To me, this seems contradictory. Your stance seems to partake of the very attitude you so despise.

Oops, a couple of more words in between my teeth that I must have missed earlier when cleaning out the others that I didn't put there...

Rather than restate my words regarding ecclesiastical leaders from my original posting, I will restate another way: Those leaders (Bishop's/Stake Presidents) who take it as their place to attempt to encourage or enforce current immigration laws by denying a temple recommend to an illegal immigrant should be released (after having been counseled against doing so and subsequently ignoring said counsel, of course). The Church has a position on this matter and has had one for quite some time; namely, temple recommend worthiness is not impacted by immigration status (unless the individual him/herself feels they are unworthy because of it, which of course, is a personal issue). I believe the leader has no right to bring their political opinions to bear in a temple recommend interview setting. Doctrine and church policy are what apply in that setting (along with a good bit of discernment surrounding the specific worthiness questions posed in the interview).

The question isn't "Do I as a S.P. or Bishop find you worthy to enter the temple", it's "do YOU (meaning the interviewee) find yourself worthy to enter". Aside from the specific questions asked in the interview, it is the person being interviewed who is ultimately accountable for determining their own worthiness and in entering the temple worthily or not. (Sorry, this is really stepping into a new area of debate not wholeheartedly germane to this thread... I'm just trying to make my opinion clearer).

I also do hear your reference to leaders being "called of God", and I agree with you wholeheartedly that they are and I sustain my leaders. I have, however, heard some pretty messed up stuff come out of their mouths from time to time (both in person and by reference through posts on this forum) that is not in any way supported by church policy or gospel doctrine. When that happens, I'll be the first one to step up and say something. A mistake can certainly be made at times, but using an ecclesiastical office to prove a political point, well, that's a whole other matter and one that I believe needs stern correction.

[NeuroTypical]

something about "porous borders = national security issue". Meh, I'm not entirely on board with that statement... especially as it pertains to latino immigrants, illegal or otherwise. I would suggest that we have more than enough "national security" issues right here within our own borders and the people legally residing within them than to get all hung up on latinos. Our porous borders are more of an economic and social issue than a national security one, in my opinion.

Perhaps, but just because something is an economic/social issue, does not mean it can't also be a security issue. Consider:

Fred wants to enter the US in order to work mayhem. For all intents and purposes, it doesn't matter what nationality Fred is. It doesn't matter what religion, or skin color. It doesn't matter that his real name isn't Fred. Maybe he's a Los Zetas, looking to send a message to US law enforcement. Maybe he's Al Qaeda, wishing to help with the grassroots uprising. But basically, he wishes to kill people and break things in our country, and he is currently outside our borders.

Currently, it's pretty easy for the Freds of the world to enter the United States. Whether it's through faked credentials, or hiring a Coyote guide down south, or boating across Lake Ontario - he has many options. This is a reality - no matter what the current status of the national debate on legal/illegal immigration is, this is our current reality for Fred. He has so many options open to him, it's worrisome.

You want to see someone's head shake with agape disbelief, travel with an Israeli into the US. He will be so incredibly unimpressed with security, he might refuse to believe that you're actually taking him into the world's strongest nation and only superpower.

I'm not playing any 'my-issue-is-bigger-than-your-issue' games. I'm not advocating any action based on this situation. I'm just saying that it is a real issue.

[Just_A_Guy]

A couple of thoughts:

1) Short of militarizing the border--which we have neither the political will nor (possibly) the resources to do--you aren't going to secure the border. I agree that we should try; but ultimately the only way you're going to make a major dent in illegal immigration is to make life harder for illegals in the US than it would be in their home countries and hope they quit coming/self-deport when their individual American Dream dies. And I don't think that's very likely, either.

2) There is zero point in enforcing laws if we also declare that there will be no ill consequences for the violation of those laws. I have a difficult time understanding how someone can assert respect for the law as-written while simultaneously demanding "humanity" (read, at least in most cases: full pardons) for those who flout it.

3) For those who have (I think valid) concerns about the preservation of American culture in the face of a massive demographic shift: I think the only way to preserve some semblance of that, would be to openly glorify those virtues that the US does, and has historically, possess. Unfortunately, that's not very likely either. Imagine what would happen if someone had made a post similar to rubondfan2's initial post to this thread, but glorifying the virtues of anglo culture?

It would seem that the social conservatives on this issue (among whom I count myself), are very neatly boxed in.

Edited June 14, 2011 by Just_A_Guy

[PrinceofLight2000]

I think the more important question here is whether or not breaking the law qualifies as not meeting the "are you honest in all your dealings with your fellow men?" qualification.

[Dravin]

I think the more important question here is whether or not breaking the law qualifies as not meeting the "are you honest in all your dealings with your fellow men?" qualification.

The second of LM's links would say no:

The First Presidency has for many years taught that undocumented status should not by itself prevent an otherwise worthy Church member from entering the temple or being ordained to the priesthood.

At least not in regards to the law(s) pertaining to being undocumented. Of course I'm assuming answering no to that question disqualifies one from a temple recommend and thus prevents you from entering the temple.

Edited June 14, 2011 by Dravin

[Traveler]

I am becoming more convinced over time that the best solution is to annex Mexico. I realize that annexation is horrible and the dumbest and most internationally illegal thing we could do - that is excepting everything else we have tried up to now.

The Traveler

[marshac]

I think the more important question here is whether or not breaking the law qualifies as not meeting the "are you honest in all your dealings with your fellow men?" qualification.

How does using a "borrowed" ID fit into that? A hispanic friend of mine had his ID stolen... not only did it mess up his social security history and created a problem when applying for a job, but he also found out that he had an arrest warrant out for "him" in a state he had never been to before.

In my side of the state, we have pretty large communities of central/south american immigrants which have totally displaced/supplanted the existing "culture", language, etc with their own. Here's an example- downtown Pasco WA

From what I understand, this transformation began in the late 70s and progressed to where it is today- needless to say that some of the long-time residents are a bit resentful over what has happened around them. Personally, I don't mind the Spanish so much as I mind the latino gangs and the machismo aspect of latino culture... put those two together and you have some fun summer nights...

I was going to include some youtube videos so you could get a sense of the local flavor, but the lyrics are crude and thus against the site's rules. However if you took it upon yourself to search youtube for "LIL BLUE-yakima county FT spike!!norteno diss" or "509 NORTENOS 14 N NORTENAS 21" you'll find some videos made by some of the more computer literate gang members that live around me... I just shake my head as I watch these and count the days until I can move.

What is happening over here is quite a bit different than what you find in western Washington- there are a lot of immigrants in the Seattle area, but they're from all over the place- Russian, Japanese, Chinese, Mexico, Indonesian, Afghanistan, etc- so rather than simply displacing existing communities and establishing their own, they become members of the larger community and everyone benefits...none of this "La Raza" ('the race') or MEChA crud I see all the time around here.

[rubondfan2]

I am becoming more convinced over time that the best solution is to annex Mexico. I realize that annexation is horrible and the dumbest and most internationally illegal thing we could do - that is excepting everything else we have tried up to now.

The Traveler

Depending upon how much or little one subscribes to the NWO conspiracy theories, this idea may not be too far off from the realm of possibility. It's long been known of attempts to create a unified currency between Canada, Mexico and the United States... the timing just hasn't been right yet. A total devaluation of the US dollar might be enough to trigger it, and I dare say that we're not too far off from that event. A unified currency is certainly a step in the direction of unified borders.

So... perhaps annexation will happen after all... but probably not in the way any of us envision it or even dreamed it.

This would certainly change the entire landscape of the immigration debate, I would think.

[NeuroTypical]

My basic understanding:

Early 1800's - everyone was racing to take bits of the new world and make it theirs. We made deals or fought over the good bits (coastal areas with good waterways like New Orleans, good farmland plains states, important geographic locations like Texas). The Louisiana Purchase in 1803, and the Mexican-American war in the 1840's, settled borders. But the US now had borders around a bunch of area that didn't have much in the way of people or resources (Utah, New Mexico, Arizona). Mexico had surplus people, the US had bought or won new borders that needed peopling, but the shooting was over. Illegal immigration was supposedly illegal, but not illegal enough to solve. Because ending it might have taken another war, and besides, the US needed the people.

We've been reaping the consequences from those decisions for the last 160 years. This state of affairs is not new. This state of affairs absolutely belongs to the federal government - borders and other nations and stuff, is a big reason why the states created the federal government in the first place. The system was built broken on purpose ("the US won, Mexico lost - no illegal immigration here, *wink-wink*"). We have a broken system.

LM's first rule of dealing with bureaucracy: Moral people can, and sometimes should, go against stupid, broken, or evil policy.

It would seem that church leaders are thinking along similar lines.

[HoosierGuy]

Drive around looking for Mexicans that look like they are working. Find the person employing them. Arrest the employer and sentence him to prison for a few months to a few years. You do that from the granddad who hires Mexicans to cut his grass to the factories that hire Mexicans and you will see a change in migration. But you've got to find these people who are hiring them and send them to prison.

[Just_A_Guy]

Randomly stopping Mexicans and demanding proof of citizenship, is what got Arizona into trouble.