Illegal immigrants, baptism & temple marriage

[Spartan117]

It's all in the phrasing, Spartan. What is immoral about an employer wanting to take whatever steps he can to have his business bring in enough money to feed the employer and his family, provided that the employees understand and consent to the terms of their employment?

Yes, the employees consent to getting paid less money, no health care options, no access to short or long term disability if they get hurt on the job, no protection under labor laws, no workers compensation, no sick days, no vacation time, no medical leave, no life insurance, the employee gets nothing. The employer, though, gets to pocket all the money that he would have spent on those benefits, even if he is required by law to provide them to his workers. He also gets a free pass on abiding by labor laws that his employee won't be protected by. As long the guy who came to this country in a boxcar doesn't mind his terms of employment, then there's no moral issue for the employer. You're right.

It's two sides of the same coin. Both sides are doing the best they can to take care of themselves and their family; and both sides are neglecting certain legal responsibilities.

Yeah, they're all victims in the same boat. I'm sure the employers don't pay themselves a living wage or carry health insurance either.

Somehow, when we get to the final judgment, I don't think God's going to be holding a copy of the federal sentencing guidelines.

Nope, He will be holding His own set guidelines. He's going to ask if we tended to the poor and the sick, fed the hungry, took in the stranger, clothed the naked, visited the sick, went to those in prison, He's going to want to know how we treated the least of us and if we loved one another as He loved us. I sure wouldn't want to be in the "poor brown people are a burden and shouldn't get medical care or an education" line.

And while you've tried to paint the anti-immigration crowd as a bunch of paranoid rednecks who are always on the verge of violence

Or you're being a drama queen.

you haven't really addressed the point that merely being in the US is not the only crime that most of these people are committing. If you're illegal, you can't get a valid SSN. If you work without an SSN, you're committing a crime. If you work with a fake SSN, you're committing a crime.

But you can still be temple worthy and hold the priesthood, isn't that funny? Maybe the First Presidency knows better than you do. Besides, I thought God won't be holding federal guidelines at the final judgement?

If you don't work, odds are you're on state assistance--and you've made some misrepresentations to get that assistance, so you've committed a crime.

Wow. You obviously don't see anything wrong with that comment. I'm embarrassed for you.

Reducing immigration debate to textual analysis of 8 USC 1325 is not helpful; because it's such a gross over-simplification and seeks to eliminate so much else from the discussion.

Okay, are you under the impression that is what I tried to do?

[Just_A_Guy]

Yes, the employees consent to getting paid less money, no health care options, no access to short or long term disability if they get hurt on the job, no protection under labor laws, no workers compensation, no sick days, no vacation time, no medical leave, no life insurance, the employee gets nothing. The employer, though, gets to pocket all the money that he would have spent on those benefits, even if he is required by law to provide them to his workers. He also gets a free pass on abiding by labor laws that his employee won't be protected by. As long the guy who came to this country in a boxcar doesn't mind his terms of employment, then there's no moral issue for the employer. You're right.

Until you've run a business and tried to make payroll while simultaneously paying for maintenance of physical facilities, rent, materials, payroll tax, unemployment insurance premiums, regulatory compliance, frivolous litigation from gold-diggers, ad infinitum, I suggest you diverge from Marxism and assume that maybe--just maybe--not all employers are out to completely shaft their employees.

Yeah, they're all victims in the same boat. I'm sure the employers don't pay themselves a living wage or carry health insurance either.

Many of them don't. The existence of some super corporations with insane payouts for the top tier doesn't change the fact that something like 80% of the jobs in this country are provided by small businesses, and a significant number of small businesses go belly-up in the first year.

Nope, He will be holding His own set guidelines. He's going to ask if we tended to the poor and the sick, fed the hungry, took in the stranger, clothed the naked, visited the sick, went to those in prison, He's going to want to know how we treated the least of us and if we loved one another as He loved us.

This may upset some people's worldviews, but it's possible to do run an LLC or (heaven forbid) a corporation and still not have the ways or means to pay employees what they think they deserve.

I sure wouldn't want to be in the "poor brown people are a burden and shouldn't get medical care or an education" line.

I don't think the Lord is going to hold it against the people who are out there with calculators, pencils, and notepads, trying to figure out how the heck you sustain an economy capable of giving everyone a living wage when a) half the world is currently living on less than $2.50 per day, and b) human nature just plain resists working hard to feed someone else's family.

But I do agree that there will be hard questions for all of us. How many "poor brown people" could you care for with the proceeds from selling your computer? How many families could be fed with the loose change I have laying around my house this very minute? We'll each have to deal with those issues as best we can, in a way we believe to be acceptable to the Lord.

Or you're being a drama queen.

If identifying and dismissing personal attacks makes me a "drama queen", I guess I'll just have to live with that label.

Did you, or did you not, indulge in a red herring about hate crimes in order to dodge the issue of additional crimes that undocumented workers tend to commit? And were you, or were you not, attempting to create a certain impression of anyone who disagreed with your position that had little to no basis in the relative merits of those persons' arguments?

But you can still be temple worthy and hold the priesthood, isn't that funny? Maybe the First Presidency knows better than you do. Besides, I thought God won't be holding federal guidelines at the final judgement?

For satire to work, you have to understand the position your counterpart has taken.

You obviously don't. Ergo, your attack fails.

Wow. You obviously don't see anything wrong with that comment. I'm embarrassed for you.

You were making a legal argument. I refuted it with a counter-assertion of federal law. If my assertion is legally incorrect, kindly point me to the appropriate statute, judicial opinion, or legal treatise.

There is a difference between legal argument, normative argument, and outright ad hominem; and discussion tends to move more smoothly when all parties keep those differences in mind.

Okay, are you under the impression that is what I tried to do?

My impression is that your underlying argument was that employing illegals is morally worse than being an illegal, and that you were using narrow interpretations of statute to support that argument.

Edited December 17, 2011 by Just_A_Guy

[annewandering]

The world has a problem with slave labor and that is what hiring illegals under the table is. Farmers routinely go to the border, meet up with their coyote and haul back a truckload of illegals to work for them.

Did we make slavery illegal a long time ago or is it ok if they came here illegally?

[Just_A_Guy]

Are there any statistics as to what proportion of illegals in the US work under such egregious conditions?

[Blocky]

Not everything that is illegal is a sin. Just because immigration is a hot topic, as shown strong opinions in this thread, doesn't mean it needs to be a hot topic during a temple recommend interview. I think a bishop would be more concerned that a family is struggling with work, health care and providing a livable situation for their children and how he can help them rather than how it matches up with how he votes.

[dahlia]

You don't "fault" someone for having a strong work ethic and good personal traits. Their citizenship is irrelevant and doesn't void someones character.

I can fault whom I please. They can have strong work ethic in their home country. Again, it is so intertwined - illegals working and employers breaking the law - that it is hard for me to separate them out. Also, there are a lot of Americans with a strong work ethic who can't get jobs in the trades anymore because of the influx of low paid illegals.

And when I say they are a burden to schools and hospital ERs, I mean that they are a financial burden, forcing some medical facilities to close their ERs, they just can't afford to pick up the tab for people who won't pay. What do you do when your child's class is so full of non-English speaking kids that your child can't get the schooling to which he is entitled because everything has to be done to bring the non-English speaking up to speed? In addition, there is little help from parents, as 1) they are afraid to have contact with governmental institutions due to their status and 2) many Mexicans and South Americans have a limited education from their own country and are illiterate in their native language. They are a burden to those communities with large numbers of illegals, you can sugar coat it all you want, that doesn't change the facts.

I will continue to assert that illegals should be unable to have a calling or get a recommend. Last time I looked, it's still a free country and I can still have my own opinion, though since I am not a bishop or Pres Monson, it really doesn't matter, does it?

[pam]

I will continue to assert that illegals should be unable to have a calling or get a recommend. Last time I looked, it's still a free country and I can still have my own opinion, though since I am not a bishop or Pres Monson, it really doesn't matter, does it?

Yes you can Dahlia and I appreciate your opinion. While I may not quite agree with it I do respect your right to have that opinion.

[Bini]

I agree that the Lord will judge the situation.

Dahlia got me thinking.. What about LDS hiring illegals? Does the church frown upon this? Or, does the church see this as acceptable, just as there is leniency with illegal immigration?

[annewandering]

I agree that the Lord will judge the situation.

Dahlia got me thinking.. What about LDS hiring illegals? Does the church frown upon this? Or, does the church see this as acceptable, just as there is leniency with illegal immigration?

If you hire illegals and pay them a lower wage than legals then I see no way it can possibly be acceptable. When you do so you are not only using them illegally in order to pay them less but you are also hurting legal workers by not hiring them.

If you hire then and pay them equally to your other workers then at least you are doing one thing right.

I dont really see how a person can hire illegals and feel good about it. Better to help them get right with the law if you are trying to help them.

[zenvis]

I got a couple questions. I may be misunderstanding how the church operates. I appreciate all responses, be it official church policy or your own personal experience.

1) Can illegal immigrants be baptized and married in the temple?

2) If not. How does the church balance encouraging illegal immigrants that are interested in the gospel but are unable to fulfill certain expectations and ordinances due to their current status? It seems a bit devastating to be welcomed with open arms, only to learn that you are unfit to be baptized or be married in the temple. What are their options? Are they to never receive a church calling? Are they to remain single, without spouse or family? It just seems that this situation prevents one from ever being able to live the fullness of the gospel.

As a former missionary I think that I can answer that question. No they cannot be baptized. We believe in honoring and sustaining the law. We cannot start our membership in sin or transgression and we cannot encourage others to do likewise or we become sinners ourselves.

When I was a missionary in California, we came across a nanny that was a citizen of Scotland. She showed a lot of interest and could not be baptized because she had let her visa expire. A light hick up that needed to be rectified but after it was taken care of, the baptism went as planned. The young member went on to become a missionary in New Jersey.

As members of the church we want people to become part of the happiness we have come to know but we want people to likewise be legal in their efforts to be good stewards of their citizenship and abide by the laws of the land they live in. Illegal aliens are encouraged to rectify the situation by returning to their homeland or talk to the representatives of the country that they reside and ask for a means to be legally in the country.

[mnn727]

Dahlia got me thinking.. What about LDS hiring illegals? Does the church frown upon this? Or, does the church see this as acceptable, just as there is leniency with illegal immigration?

Hiring illegals is a felony. The Church better frown on it or get rid of A of F 12 IMHO

Edited December 21, 2011 by mnn727

[Guest gopecon]

The world has a problem with slave labor and that is what hiring illegals under the table is. Farmers routinely go to the border, meet up with their coyote and haul back a truckload of illegals to work for them.

Did we make slavery illegal a long time ago or is it ok if they came here illegally?

Equating the hiring of illegals with slave labor is quite a stretch. The illegals are voluntarily entering agreements to work and get paid. They can leave their employment at any time. I can assure you that this was not the case in the pre-Civil War South. Are they taken advantage of and provided terrible conditions to work in? Sometimes they may be, but they are being paid and are free to leave at any time.

About the Church's policy on hiring, I'm sure the Church attempts to follow the law. As far as church members hiring illegals...I'm sure that we would be encouraged to follow the law of the land, but I wouldn't expect the Church to really investigate it deeply unless there was evidence of serious mistreatment of people. A sub-question here is what type of hiring are we talking about? A major corporation hiring (e.g. Marriot) where the owner or upper managment may have little idea of how maid are hired, a small business owner/farmer who picks up day laborers and pays in cash knowing that he can get a better price on his labor, or an individual who hires another individual for some domestic or landscaping work. I think there are different levels of both employer culpability and wrongfullness in each of these situations.

Zenvis - your experience is not the rule throughout the Church. Missionaries can and do baptize illegals. These illegals are given callings and the priesthood without regard to their immigration status. I appreciate your defense of honoring the law, but the Church clearly does not view immigration status alone in the same level as other crimes. When I am asked if I am honest in my dealings, my affirmative answer is enough. No investigation is launched to verify my tax return, or to talk with my employer, etc.

[Mahone]

Breaking the law is not the same thing as immoral behaviour - while the church would support sustaining and obeying the law of the land where possible, I'm sure most people realise that laws vary across the world and they aren't always fair or moral. I can fully understand why someone would still be allowed to obtain a temple recommend while being present in a country illegally.

If I had to illegally work in a country in order to feed my starving family - even if it did nothing good to the economy of the country I was working in - my priority at that moment would be my family. Thank goodness this has never been a choice I have had to make, or situation I have ever been in. As the general membership of this forum are from first world countries, I'd be willing to bet most people on this board have never had to make similar choices either.

[Guest]

Breaking the law is not the same thing as immoral behaviour - while the church would support sustaining and obeying the law of the land where possible, I'm sure most people realise that laws vary across the world and they aren't always fair or moral. I can fully understand why someone would still be allowed to obtain a temple recommend while being present in a country illegally.

If I had to illegally work in a country in order to feed my starving family - even if it did nothing good to the economy of the country I was working in - my priority at that moment would be my family. Thank goodness this has never been a choice I have had to make, or situation I have ever been in. As the general membership of this forum are from first world countries, I'd be willing to bet most people on this board have never had to make similar choices either.

I agree with you that breaking the law is not the same thing as immoral behavior. You don't have to go to the 3rd world to understand that concept. America's history is littered by societal change brought on by civil disobedience.

But, at the same time, Mexico's economy is not in such a state as to make illegal entry into the US the only solution to starvation. The Philippines has the same type of economy yet they survive without the means to cross the border to a 1st world country. Crossing the border is generally not to stave off starvation. It is to better one's lot in life. You can better your lot in life through the difficult legal means, or you can better your lot in life through the relatively easier illegal means. You can better your lot just slightly through the legal means, or you can better your lot a whole bunch through illegal means.

It's the same decision every American living under the poverty line makes when they wake up every morning. Should I try to get out of poverty by looking for legal work, or should I get out of poverty by selling meth out of my bathroom...

In either case, it is not the church's stand to make all illegal behavior an impediment to eternal salvation.

Edited December 22, 2011 by anatess

[JustGlenn]

Emigration of Members

Generally, members are encouraged to remain in their native lands to build up and strengthen the Church. Opportunities for Church activity and for receiving and sharing the blessings of the gospel are increasing greatly throughout the world. As members remain in their homelands and work to build the Church there, great blessings will come to them personally and to the Church. Stakes and wards throughout the world will be strengthened, making it possible to share the blessings of the gospel with an even greater number of Heavenly Father’s children.

Experience has shown that those who emigrate often encounter language, cultural, and economic challenges, resulting in disappointment and personal and family difficulties.

Missionaries should not ask their parents, relatives, or others to sponsor members who wish to emigrate to other countries.

Members who emigrate to any country should comply with applicable laws. [Article I Section 15.8 REPEL INVASIONS, Article IV Section 4 PROTECT FROM INVASION]

When coming to the United States or other countries on student or tourist visas, members should not expect to find jobs or obtain permanent visas after entering that country.

To be considered for Church employment in any country, a person must meet all conditions of immigration and naturalization laws. The Church does not sponsor immigration through Church employment.

[JustGlenn]

I got a couple questions. I may be misunderstanding how the church operates. I appreciate all responses, be it official church policy or your own personal experience.

1) Can illegal immigrants be baptised and married in the temple?

2) If not. How does the church balance encouraging illegal immigrants that are interested in the gospel but are unable to fulfill certain expectations and ordinances due to their current status? It seems a bit devastating to be welcomed with open arms, only to learn that you are unfit to be baptised or be married in the temple. What are their options? Are they to never receive a church calling? Are they to remain single, without spouse or family? It just seems that this situation prevents one from ever being able to live the fullness of the gospel.

According to the General Handbook of Instruction and Baptism form, requirements of vital statistic data

Emigration of Members

Generally, members are encouraged to remain in their native lands to build up and strengthen the Church. Opportunities for Church activity and for receiving and sharing the blessings of the gospel are increasing greatly throughout the world. As members remain in their homelands and work to build the Church there, great blessings will come to them personally and to the Church. Stakes and wards throughout the world will be strengthened, making it possible to share the blessings of the gospel with an even greater number of Heavenly Father’s children.

Experience has shown that those who emigrate often encounter language, cultural, and economic challenges, resulting in disappointment and personal and family difficulties.

Missionaries should not ask their parents, relatives, or others to sponsor members who wish to emigrate to other countries.

Members who emigrate to any country should comply with applicable laws. [Article I Section 15.8 REPEL INVASIONS, Article IV Section 4 PROTECT FROM INVASION]

When coming to the United States or other countries on student or tourist visas, members should not expect to find jobs or obtain permanent visas after entering that country.

To be considered for Church employment in any country, a person must meet all conditions of immigration and naturalization laws. The Church does not sponsor immigration through Church employment.