Doctrine on immigration?

[beefche]

Do you think that the LDS church or Book of Mormon teaches prinicples or doctrine of protecting immigrants?

[MarginOfError]

Do you think that the LDS church or Book of Mormon teaches prinicples or doctrine of protecting immigrants?

I think the Church and the Book of Mormon teach principles of compassion and service. Borders between countries are a man-made concept and weren't intended to be part of the gospel. While we "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's," so to speak, if we truly wish to fill the earth with the gospel, we have to come to understand that the principles of the gospel cannot be contained by political borders.

Is that easier said than done? Absolutely. But it's what the doctrines of the gospel teach.

[applepansy]

Beefche, what do you mean by protect immigrants?

The gospel requires we treat all people with Charity or the true love of Christ. That doesn't mean we break the laws governing immigration. As MOE said, Render under Caesar.... but do it with Charity.

[john doe]

There is a group that has come up recently claiming that LDS doctrine and writings in the Book of Mormon show that the Church is against immigration laws. They claim immigration is a 'God event', and that anyone who wants to enforce immigration laws does not follow LDS doctrine.

[MarginOfError]

There is a group that has come up recently claiming that LDS doctrine and writings in the Book of Mormon show that the Church is against immigration laws. They claim immigration is a 'God event', and that anyone who wants to enforce immigration laws does not follow LDS doctrine.

I'd say such an interpretation is every bit as silly and myopic as the interpretation of "subject to kings, presidents...." and tossing all illegal immigrant out of the country with no questions asked.

[livy111us]

The Anti-Nephi-Lehis were immigrants to the Nephite land and were treated as equals and given land.

[MarginOfError]

The Anti-Nephi-Lehis were immigrants to the Nephite land and were treated as equals and given land.

We wouldn't call the Anti-Nephi-Lehis immigrants, however. We would have called them refugees. Int he case of the Anti-Nephi-Lehis, denying them passage would have spelled certain death for them. An immigrant, on the other hand, usually won't find certain death waiting for him in his home country.

[john doe]

We wouldn't call the Anti-Nephi-Lehis immigrants, however. We would have called them refugees. Int he case of the Anti-Nephi-Lehis, denying them passage would have spelled certain death for them. An immigrant, on the other hand, usually won't find certain death waiting for him in his home country.

They are generally also granted special status if an investigation shows that there is a legitimate threat if they were to return to their home country.

I would link to the story about the group I referred to, but they are campaigning against a certain US Presidential candidate. Someone interested in them could do a search on Utah News, Sports, Weather and Classifieds | ksl.com and find it though.

[rameumptom]

The Ammonites asked permission to legally immigrate. They were not illegal trespassers.

Borders are an important thing in the Book of Mormon. Captain Moroni ensured the borders were well protected between Nephite and Lamanite lands, even pushing some Lamanites out of disputed territories and settling Nephites in the border areas.

Boundaries were very important to ancient Hebrews and Semites. God established the boundaries for the ancient lands. He showed Abraham and Moses the future boundaries for Israel. He taught them to defend their borders, and helped fight their enemies on occasion. God actually commanded Moses and Joshua to destroy others found within the borders of their new holy land.

So, I don't know if we necessarily need to follow the ancient pattern to figure out what to do today.

[askandanswer]

The Book of Mormon very clearly teaches about immigration

 

5 But, said he, notwithstanding our afflictions, we have obtained a land of promise, a land which is choice above all other lands; a land which the Lord God hathcovenanted with me should be a land for the inheritance of my seed. Yea, the Lord hath covenanted this land unto me, and to my children forever, and also all those who should be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord.

 6 Wherefore, I, Lehi, prophesy according to the workings of the Spirit which is in me, that there shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord.

[Guest]

The OP question needs to separate Legal from Illegal Immigrants.

[Just_A_Guy]

The Book of Mormon very clearly teaches about immigration

 

 6 Wherefore, I, Lehi, prophesy according to the workings of the Spirit which is in me, that there shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord.

 

So, Mohamed Atta was acting on God's behalf after all? 

[Guest]

So, Mohamed Atta was acting on God's behalf after all? 

 

Well... he was a legal immigrant. 

Edited September 24, 2015 by anatess

[omegaseamaster75]

Based on everything I can tell the church supports immigration 

[Guest]

Based on everything I can tell the church supports immigration 

 

Yes, the Church supports LEGAL immigration.  It discourages ILLEGAL immigration.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Another question is do we follow laws that are unjust.  I'm not a legal expert, but I play on on TV...just kidding.  Anyway, it's my understanding that most of are immigration laws date back to the California Gold Rush, and were created due to concerns specifically with what they considered "too many" Chinese immigrants.  

 

Before someone quotes the article of faith to me, what about polygamy.  Yes, eventually we stopped polygamy...when the Lord told them too, but until they they avoided the law, by hiding etc.  

 

If you lived in Nazi Germany would you follow the laws?  

 

Finally, we should look to counsel of our modern day leaders...and they have urged compassion.

[The Folk Prophet]

Democrats and their compassion based law theories. Bah!

 

[yjacket]

Another question is do we follow laws that are unjust.  I'm not a legal expert, but I play on on TV...just kidding.  Anyway, it's my understanding that most of are immigration laws date back to the California Gold Rush, and were created due to concerns specifically with what they considered "too many" Chinese immigrants.  

 

Before someone quotes the article of faith to me, what about polygamy.  Yes, eventually we stopped polygamy...when the Lord told them too, but until they they avoided the law, by hiding etc.  

 

If you lived in Nazi Germany would you follow the laws?  

 

Finally, we should look to counsel of our modern day leaders...and they have urged compassion.

 

I agree with compassion, but with immigration we have some serious issues, not the least of which are individuals who come to this country simply for the free benefits that we give out.

 

I knew a couple who came illegally, while she was 7 months pregnant, no insurance, had a baby at the local hospital (who are obligated by current laws to accept everyone) and didn't speak a bit of english. Now the baby is a US citizen and they will basically stay here.  The child was born in a hospital that I front the cost for (through higher insurance), the child will attend public school at no cost get reduced lunches (all on the backs of taxpayers), the child will then be eligible for all sorts of "diversity" funding at colleges, etc. whose cost is past onto the taxpayers. The parents don't make enough money that a) if they were legal they would be on SNAP, WIC, etc. and b) they are able to get fake SSNs (it's how they get driver's licences) that they end up getting freebies anyways.

 

That's not being compassionate, that's called being a sucker.  One of the major reasons for massive amounts of illegal immigration is that we have in place laws that promote sustaining the poor in their poor state.  Well poor is a relative term, poor in the US is rich in mexico.  So the poor in Mexico can come to the US and simply based on the welfare state become rich.

 

There is also the issue of "diversity", regardless of what new age philosophies might say homogeneity is actually a really good thing. The identity of a society is based on everyone having a common (i.e. homogenous) background/philosophy/understanding etc. Introducing and bringing in new and diverse blood is crucial for growth in organizations, but only in as much as the new is integrated in with the old whereby the old take the new ideas and bring them in and the new take the old and incorporate it.

 

If one has a massive amount of influx of heterogeneous entities introduced into a society-things quickly become very chaotic because what ends up happening is instead of the old taking in new ideas and the new assimilating with the old, the reverse happens and the new ends up becoming the dominating force without assimilating thereby changing the entire foundation of a society.  And that to a large extent is occurring in the US.

[Vort]

If I were living in a third-world country and could increase my income by an order of magnitude by working in a rich country to the north, I would be a fool not to do that, unknown foreign immigration laws be damned. I have great sympathy for most of the illegal alien migrant workers in the US.

 

I think we have to secure our borders. To do otherwise is suicide (which is exactly what our current US president wants -- cultural and social suicide of the US). But no one has yet sold me on why all those nasty "illegals" are a threat to life and limb. I know some are bad apples -- fifteen years ago, I had my car totalled and very nearly lost my family to a drunk illegal alien who fled the scene of the accident. (We did lose the baby my wife was pregnant with, though I don't know for sure that the accident had anything to do with it.) So I'm not blind to the criminal element. But it seems to me that the large majority of illegal migrant workers simply want to make money for their families. I don't see that as any kind of bad thing.

 

So while I'm all for securing our borders -- TODAY, if not sooner -- I'm not at all excited about the idea of "round 'em up and ship 'em out". I don't think such a policy would help anyone, us or them. I guess I'm for some sort of amnesty, though I realize that's a dirty word around many conservative parts.

[Guest]

I’m thinking about the ways we juxtapose our religion with our politics (and which one seems to dominate the other), and mock the motives of our opponents, and frame our viewpoints in terms of our compassion vs. our love for rule of law.

 

I think that from a distance an observer might laugh at how things have always worked on this planet. Those of us with the sharpest teeth and the longest talons are the ones who walk away with the meat and stake out the borders of our domains—nevermind if someone else was here before us. Then being the strongest we make the rules, the laws, and tell ourselves God gave us this land--until the next powerful group arrives and the cycle begins again.

 

I think it’s noteworthy the way we cheerfully bring in outsiders to do the work for cheap (or free) and we tolerate their presence as long as they stay quiet and don’t want more than we want them to have, and start multiplying or bringing in their relatives. As long as they live outside our neighborhoods and stay in the areas we don’t particularly want to live in anymore we can continue to use them (sometimes in ways we preach against in our churches).

 

And when their numbers increase to the tipping point like the Hebrews in Egypt, we (the white and delightsome) feel threatened and afraid some will get something we don't have, and begin fighting among ourselves with indictments against profit-mongering, and phony compassion, and who is to blame.

 

At least that how it looks to me.

[The Folk Prophet]

(the white and delightsome) 

 

You had me until here and then entirely lost me with this baloney insert.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Democrats and their compassion based law theories. Bah!

This made me laugh because it seemed to be directed at me in a good natured way.

I think of myself as Independent, but on some issues I know I am quite liberal. I'm proud to be a bleeding heart. :)

[Blackmarch]

Do you think that the LDS church or Book of Mormon teaches prinicples or doctrine of protecting immigrants?

legal migrants shouldn't be a problem. as for illegal migrants I thik the best path would be in taking whatever proper steps in assisting to help them become legal and settle.

[Guest]

So while I'm all for securing our borders -- TODAY, if not sooner -- I'm not at all excited about the idea of "round 'em up and ship 'em out". I don't think such a policy would help anyone, us or them. I guess I'm for some sort of amnesty, though I realize that's a dirty word around many conservative parts.

 

But this is over-simplifying this particular solution.  This solution is nothing new - it has been proposed before only to fall on the Congress floor because it is easy to demonize to the bleeding hearts.  Mitt Romney carried this same solution on his platform as well.  The solution doesn't end in "round 'em up and ship 'em out" (Romney's don't bother with rounding 'em up... his is to tweak the law so they'll decide to ship themselves out on their own).

 

This solution is the antithesis to amnesty.  The gist of this particular solution is this - the US promotes democracy through the rule of law.  The Law, therefore, is what makes this country a country and keeps its citizens free.  The first obligation of citizenship, therefore, is to abide by the law.  That is why, Kim Davis got put in jail because The Law trumps her religious liberty and the free exercise of her conscience.

 

An illegal immigrants' first act in US soil is to disrespect the law.  It doesn't matter the reason for doing so.  Just like Kim Davis' reason for breaking the law didn't matter either.  Therefore, an illegal immigrant, who, by law, is not under the jurisdiction of the USA, is a foreign invader.

 

Now, as Pope Francis stated in his address to Congress, we need to stop looking at these people as numbers but rather as people.  Therefore, we can't treat these foreign invaders in the same manner as enemy combatants - ship them out, lock the door, and throw away the key.  That's why there has never been a solution proposed to Congress nor promoted as a political platform by politicians running for office that ends in shipping them out (that includes Romney's and the current proposals).

 

Rather, this particular solution is always - let these people go through the LEGAL channels in their own country's US embassies.  This basically gives them a chance for a "do over" where their first act as US immigrants is knowing, respecting, and abiding by the rule of law.

 

So, this solution always comes as a 3-part process - 1.) create a defensible border; 2.) send the illegal immigrant back to their own countries; 3.) increase the efficiency of visa application in US embassies.

 

This gives all the illegal immigrants who are contributors to American society a streamlined pathway back into the country with a clear pathway to citizenship through the rule of law while keeping the criminal elements and those who have no desire to contribute to American society out of the country.

 

The other non-amnesty solution is, instead of having these people go through the current legal channel, the US will change the law to create a new legal channel that includes fines for breaking the law and have them apply for visas inside the country before getting on the pathway to citizenship.

 

The pros and cons are easy to spot - the first solution doesn't require new law, the first solution discourages illegal immigration, the first solution doesn't require different laws for criminals and non-criminals, the first solution doesn't obligate the US to supporting non-contributors, the first solution disrupts the lives of illegal immigrants, the first solution may cost more than the second solution (although some has stated it doesn't, but I haven't seen yet how they are going to fund it).  The second solution requires a new law, the second solution provides special treatment of illegal immigrants that may be seen as a reward by those who are following the legal channels so it encourages illegal immigration, the second solution requires different treatment of criminals, the second solution obligates the US to support non-contributors, the second solution doesn't disrupt the lives of illegal immigrants, the second solution may come out cheaper than the first solution (some people argue this).

 

The end result for both solutions is the same.

Edited September 25, 2015 by anatess

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

I agree with compassion, but with immigration we have some serious issues, not the least of which are individuals who come to this country simply for the free benefits that we give out.

 

I knew a couple who came illegally, while she was 7 months pregnant, no insurance, had a baby at the local hospital (who are obligated by current laws to accept everyone) and didn't speak a bit of english. 

 

I think I understand your point, but imagine that it was an illegal immigrant having a heart attack....would you have them leave him outside to die?  Your wish would be that citizenship papers are checked along with insurance because only legal people deserve to live?  

I don't mean that to sound sarcastic, or cold, I'm just wondering if you have thought that through.  

About the "freebies" I hear this argument all the time, but honestly I'm very suspicious.  How could illegal immigrants be getting all these perks if they don't have papers.  Sure some get fake ID's etc, but my guess is that most of them do not.  Does anyone have any proof either way on this issue?  I've heard that most of the people on welfare are white folks.  I'll do some digging and see if I can find that again and if it is a reasonable source I'll share it here later.