I'll just open a potential can of worms... Can ICE enter temples?

[Backroads]

I have mixed feelings over the immigration hoopla. Find most of the hoopla overblown at this point.

But this hypothetical had me curious.

[HaggisShuu]

I suppose with a warrant anything is possible. 

[HaggisShuu]

The church is planning to build a temple in mainland China. If this project is to succeed the Church will need to radically rethink how it operates temples. They aren't just going to be able to stop a glorious CCP official from entering, otherwise it'll get shut down and people arrested. I think the 12th Article of faith needs to be remembered, while the temple is the most sacred building on earth, it is still just a building, subject to the government, and can be rededicated should it be desecrated. 
 

So I would say hypothetically yes. 

[estradling75]

If ICE jumped though all the legal hoops then yes they could and the Church would have to allow it and deal with things after words.   That being said the legal landscape can be a bit murky and the Church could use legal channels to push back, but that would most likely be after the fact.   The bigger question would be why would ICE be trying to enter the Temple?  They would be looking for undocumented/illegal people.  Now such members might indeed be going to the the Temples or even working there... but how would ICE know to plan a raid? 

ICE is more likely to be able to gather enough information about residences/and places of work, more then they are Temple attendance.  So that is the logical place for them to focus.

 

[Manners Matter]

Frankly, ICE *should* have no reason to. I don't see how an illegal can answer some of the temple rec questions in the affirmative and thus wouldn't be there in the first place.

[NeuroTypical]

We humans have a long and fascinating history about houses of worship being used as safe refuge against the state.  Sanctuary, right of asylum, make it into the monastery and the King's men can't get you, that sort of thing.  4th through 17th century Europe mostly.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary#Legal_sanctuary

As things stand now, that's not really a practice in the US.  Not with LDS or any other faith.   So as things stand now, if Ice wants someone and knows they're in one of our meetinghouses or churches, they might wait until the person comes outside.  Warrants take time, and temples have operating hours.

Also, as things stand now, most of the deporting is focusing on people with criminal histories above and beyond just the status of being in the country illegally, many of them already incarcerated.  Not a lot of drug dealers or wife beaters or serial burglars with temple recommends. 

59 minutes ago, Manners Matter said:

I don't see how an illegal can answer some of the temple rec questions in the affirmative and thus wouldn't be there in the first place.

Which questions are you referring to?   "Do you strive to be honest in all that you do?" is about all I can find that would apply.  I can see endless ways someone might be in the country illegally and believe they were justified in answering "yes".  It doesn't demand perfection, and an awful lot of politics revolves around granting legal or pseudo-legal status to folks who have entered the country in violation of some of the laws.

Edited January 25 by NeuroTypical

[zil2]

42 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Which questions are you referring to?   "Do you strive to be honest in all that you do?" is about all I can find that would apply.  I can see endless ways someone might be in the country illegally and believe they were justified in answering "yes".  It doesn't demand perfection, and an awful lot of politics revolves around granting legal or pseudo-legal status to folks who have entered the country in violation of some of the laws.

I started down this path with links to the questions and the 5 laws specifically mentioned in the endowment, but it didn't take longer than typing a paragraph to realize that yes, illegally entering a country is contrary to the gospel just as breaking any other law (until they make a law that requires violating God's law, which overrules man's).  One of our covenants is to obey God, and I can find several places where God tells us to obey the law.

I can imagine folks justifying themselves in this just as many justify only keeping the [what not to consume] portions of the Word of Wisdom (as opposed to the [eat only this healthy stuff] portion), and every Utahn doesn't think twice about how unChristlike they are while driving...  So, yeah, we're all works in progress.

I have less concern with an illegal being in the temple than I have with them being in the country.  And I have less concern with an illegal who is otherwise temple-worthy being in the country than with the types of criminals who came in under Biden.  (Any who aren't concerned about those haven't done enough research about them - these were criminals before coming, and some of the behaviors described sound exactly like the days leading up to the final destruction of the Nephites.)

[Traveler]

@mirkwood may be a better source but it is my understanding that government agents that are not members of the Church can enter the temples during emergencies and other official conditions.  I am aware that first responders have on occasion entered temples.  Heart attacks are not all that unusual at temples.  As I understand, first responders will be escorted while performing their legal functions.

I have also heard stories of individuals that have broken into temples and the authorities are notified.  That police have made arrests in temples without the necessity of a warrant.

Having been in China – having a temple there is not as likely to have the problems some have suggested.  Local cities are more likely to be intrusive than the central governments.  If the church has central approval there should not be significant problems.

 

The Traveler

[NeuroTypical]

1 hour ago, zil2 said:

yes, illegally entering a country is contrary to the gospel just as breaking any other law (until they make a law that requires violating God's law, which overrules man's).  One of our covenants is to obey God, and I can find several places where God tells us to obey the law.

Agreed with all of that.   Here - let me change a single phrase:

yes, driving in the passing lane when you're not passing someone is contrary to the gospel just as breaking any other law (until they make a law that requires violating God's law, which overrules man's).  One of our covenants is to obey God, and I can find several places where God tells us to obey the law.

So, questions for you:
- I got a speeding ticket a few years ago.  Was I supposed to hand in my temple recommend, or would you consider it sufficient to just not attend?   For how long?
- Is actually getting a ticket required, or is it enough if I just camped in the passing lane and nobody saw it?  I assume you'd agree that breaking the law is breaking the law even if you don't get caught, right?
- Which question, specifically, do you believe applies to illegal immigrants?   You mention covenants and plenty of unambiguous scriptures, but wouldn't that also apply to other things like holding callings or even attending church?

Full transparency: I have opinions about when someone should and shouldn't have temple recommends.  But I also know the difference between righteous and unrighteous judgment - with one criteria being 'is this any of my business in the first place?'  

Edited January 25 by NeuroTypical

[zil2]

10 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

yes, driving in the passing lane when you're not passing someone is contrary to the gospel just as breaking any other law (until they make a law that requires violating God's law, which overrules man's).  One of our covenants is to obey God, and I can find several places where God tells us to obey the law.

So, questions for you:

Did you miss this part?

1 hour ago, zil2 said:

and every Utahn doesn't think twice about how unChristlike they are while driving

Not only are Utahns jerks, they consider the speed limit a starting point, think tailgating constitutes good communication, and wouldn't know a turn signal if it smacked them upside the head.

12 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Full transparency: I have opinions about when someone should and shouldn't have temple recommends.  But I also know the difference between righteous and unrighteous judgment - with one criteria being 'is this any of my business in the first place?'  

I was just pointing out that once you start down the road, you start running into the issue of "there are plenty of sins that are violating that covenant to obey God" - whether they're enough to prevent you from going to the temple is another matter.  That would be an individual matter to be discussed under whether you keep the covenants you made in the temple, and addressed in that final question of whether you consider yourself to be worthy of attending the temple. (Current official wording of questions. The five laws we covenant to obey in the endowment.)  It's interesting to me which questions include "striving" and which don't.  At the end of the day, we all get to make something of a judgement call on whether we're worthy and what exactly we should say in answer to each question.  (And yes, we judge ourselves, not each other.)

[estradling75]

My mother is a resident alien...  She has her green card and everything.

I have no problem with immigration and those that want to come here and make a better life for themself.

I also know that our current system for legal immigration is a horrible mess of a bureaucratic nightmare which needs a massive overhaul.  So I have a great deal of sympathy for those that more or less just skip it out of frustration/confusion or what ever.  I understand the the basic drive of a choice between a of hard, cumbersome, expensive, legal way vs cheap, easy, fast, illegal way.

Now I hear a lot about fixing the second option  aka make it harder (walls, cameras, guards, more ICE enforcement etc.)  which I generally support but I hear nothing from either party about fixing the first option.  That is where I think we need to be focusing.  If we make the legal option more viable, more attractive, more doable...  Then the second option start losing its appeal to the people we want immigrating.  We will still need to make the second option harder because that will still be the only option for criminals/terrorists but if the first option is improved it makes it harder for them to hide among the good people that we want.

 

 

[zil2]

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

I also know that our current system for legal immigration is a horrible mess of a bureaucratic nightmare which needs a massive overhaul.  So I have a great deal of sympathy for those that more or less just skip it out of frustration/confusion or what ever.  I understand the the basic drive of a choice between a of hard, cumbersome, expensive, legal way vs cheap, easy, fast, illegal way.

Yes, this was my understanding as some ward members described the process they continued to go through for years and years - both absurd and corrupt come to mind.

 

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

I hear nothing from either party about fixing the first option.  That is where I think we need to be focusing.  If we make the legal option more viable, more attractive, more doable...  Then the second option start losing its appeal to the people we want immigrating. 

I absolutely agree!

[mirkwood]

On 1/25/2025 at 7:39 AM, Manners Matter said:

Frankly, ICE *should* have no reason to. I don't see how an illegal can answer some of the temple rec questions in the affirmative and thus wouldn't be there in the first place.

 

Do you really think there are people who do not lie to get their TR?

[mirkwood]

21 hours ago, Traveler said:

@mirkwood may be a better source but it is my understanding that government agents that are not members of the Church can enter the temples during emergencies and other official conditions.  I am aware that first responders have on occasion entered temples.  Heart attacks are not all that unusual at temples.  As I understand, first responders will be escorted while performing their legal functions.

I have also heard stories of individuals that have broken into temples and the authorities are notified.  That police have made arrests in temples without the necessity of a warrant.

Having been in China – having a temple there is not as likely to have the problems some have suggested.  Local cities are more likely to be intrusive than the central governments.  If the church has central approval there should not be significant problems.

 

The Traveler

 

I have never entered a temple while working.  I know of a few instances where that has happened (police and fire.)  I have entered "secure" locations while on duty that I would not normally have access to in the course of my duties.

[mirkwood]

3 hours ago, estradling75 said:

My mother is a resident alien...  She has her green card and everything.

I have no problem with immigration and those that want to come here and make a better life for themself.

I also know that our current system for legal immigration is a horrible mess of a bureaucratic nightmare which needs a massive overhaul.  So I have a great deal of sympathy for those that more or less just skip it out of frustration/confusion or what ever.  I understand the the basic drive of a choice between a of hard, cumbersome, expensive, legal way vs cheap, easy, fast, illegal way.

Now I hear a lot about fixing the second option  aka make it harder (walls, cameras, guards, more ICE enforcement etc.)  which I generally support but I hear nothing from either party about fixing the first option.  That is where I think we need to be focusing.  If we make the legal option more viable, more attractive, more doable...  Then the second option start losing its appeal to the people we want immigrating.  We will still need to make the second option harder because that will still be the only option for criminals/terrorists but if the first option is improved it makes it harder for them to hide among the good people that we want.

 

 

 

It took my dad's wife 8 years.  She did it legally.  I have no tolerance for those who "skip the line."  Do I think we should streamline the process?  Yes.  That still does not make it okay for those who just choose to ignore the rules.

[mirkwood]

@NeuroTypical Traffic is a poor example, it is an infraction for almost EVERY traffic violation.  Big difference to illegally entering and staying in the US.

[Backroads]

22 hours ago, zil2 said:

On 1/25/2025 at 9:22 AM, zil2 said:

and every Utahn doesn't think twice about how unChristlike they are while driving

Not only are Utahns jerks, they consider the speed limit a starting point, think tailgating constitutes good communication, and wouldn't know a turn signal if it smacked them upside the head.

I don't know if you were bring hyperbolic, but I have met many people, including my sister, who insisted the law said tailgating is the correct way to signal a change of pace in mass speed. They will swear up and down they read it or learned it in drivers Ed.

Sister was sent to drivers school lieu of a ticket and was shocked to learn otherwise.

[Backroads]

5 hours ago, estradling75 said:

My mother is a resident alien...  She has her green card and everything.

I have no problem with immigration and those that want to come here and make a better life for themself.

I also know that our current system for legal immigration is a horrible mess of a bureaucratic nightmare which needs a massive overhaul.  So I have a great deal of sympathy for those that more or less just skip it out of frustration/confusion or what ever.  I understand the the basic drive of a choice between a of hard, cumbersome, expensive, legal way vs cheap, easy, fast, illegal way.

Now I hear a lot about fixing the second option  aka make it harder (walls, cameras, guards, more ICE enforcement etc.)  which I generally support but I hear nothing from either party about fixing the first option.  That is where I think we need to be focusing.  If we make the legal option more viable, more attractive, more doable...  Then the second option start losing its appeal to the people we want immigrating.  We will still need to make the second option harder because that will still be the only option for criminals/terrorists but if the first option is improved it makes it harder for them to hide among the good people that we want.

 

 

I hate to say "let's have a computer handle all this" but with today's communication and even AI tech, surely we can update a few procedures.

[NeuroTypical]

Gotta admit, Vance is good at this stuff.  

[Carborendum]

Before I give my story, keep in mind that my sister and I were minors and really didn't know anything about immigration laws and whatnot.  My father OTOH should have known better. 

When I was adopted, my parents thought that the adoption process automatically made me a citizen.  We found out the hard way that this was not correct.

When we took a vacation to Mexico in my teen years, my sister and I had trouble getting back into the US.  All we had was our Korean passports that were barely within expiration date.  And they had our Korean names on them.  A US passport costs money.  And he was not exactly rolling in it.

We got shifted over to an office instead of being allowed back into the US.

We explained about the adoption.  Since we didn't bring adoption papers with us, that wasn't verifiable.  So, they looked on their computer for ANYthing that could prove we were actually adopted.  Nothing.

I don't remember all the stuff he looked up, but he finally settled on the question of our arrival in the US almost a decade earlier.  The problem was that the flight manifests were all weird. 

• One plane had my name on it.  I was not there.
• Another plane had my sister's name on it.  She was not there.
• Another plane had both our names on it.  Neither of us was there.
• A fourth plane was the last flight from Korea for a whole day.  Our names were not on the manifests.  But we were there with our escort.

Back at the Mexican border: An interesting quirk was that he had trouble finding my sister's name because he was searching for Korean citizens.  For some reason, one of the flights had her as an Israeli citizen.  I formed a theory that it was because of our Korean names.  The "middle name" (if you can call it that) is very similar to "jew".  So, I'm thinking the Korean side forgot to enter the citizenship.  And someone simply changed the citizenship to Israeli because of the word "jew" on there.

We were kinda worried for about an hour or two.  But we eventually made it back home.

We immediately began the procedure to become citizens.  We got a green card fairly quickly.  Then we had to wait the mandatory 1 yr waiting period.  We were told that this experience was a blessing in disguise.  If we had continued without citizenship until we were 18, we would have gotten deported.

Edited January 27 by Carborendum

[NeuroTypical]

Ok, @Carborendum's story beats my wife's "Just got married and almost missed our honeymoon flight to Disneyworld because last name on tickets and Drivers License didn't match" story.

Sheesh. 

For folks wanting a taste of such things, I'd recommend:

- Cheech Marin's 1987 movie Born in East LA: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092690/

- That King of the Hill episode where Hank, Dale, and Khan got caught on the wrong side of the Mexican border and had to break the law to get back home.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtiAGPV7nro

 

[Carborendum]

On 1/26/2025 at 6:09 AM, estradling75 said:

If we make the legal option more viable, more attractive, more doable...  Then the second option start losing its appeal to the people we want immigrating.  We will still need to make the second option harder because that will still be the only option for criminals/terrorists but if the first option is improved it makes it harder for them to hide among the good people that we want.

There will always be a problem because of a third point that you didn't mention.

Cultural momentum.  We don't just want "good people" to immigrate.  We want good people to continue respecting American culture -- specifically honoring the Declaration and the Constitution.

We have enough citizens in America already who are either ignorant of or willfully rebellious against that culture. We don't need more people who are ignorant of it or worse, rebellious against it.

The citizenship test is specifically written to try to ensure that they at least aren't ignorant.  I don't know if it is a good test.  But it is at least something along that road.

BTW, I got two questions wrong. 

• I couldn't remember the number of representatives in the House. 
• I said we live in a republic, not a democracy.  The test was set to accept "democracy" as the right answer.

So, bottom line, I want more immigration of people who will help support that culture and weed out those who are against it.

Example: Fareed Zakaria

He was naturalized.  Yet he said in an interview that he believed that the Constitution was not such a good governance document and really could learn a thing or two from the Qur'an and other legal systems. (Yes, he was raised Muslim, not Hindu).

Why the heck are you even here, then?  If the US is such a terrible place, why did you move here and apply for citizenship?

Edited January 28 by Carborendum

[Carborendum]

On 1/25/2025 at 12:23 PM, zil2 said:

Not only are Utahns jerks, they consider the speed limit a starting point, think tailgating constitutes good communication, and wouldn't know a turn signal if it smacked them upside the head.

Sounds like Texas.

[NeuroTypical]

On 1/25/2025 at 11:23 AM, zil2 said:

Not only are Utahns jerks, they consider the speed limit a starting point

When we were in our early '20's, my buddy always voiced what he had learned from his mission president: "Elder, we don't have limits, we have goals.  And we exceed our goals."

[LDSGator]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Sounds like Texas.

I think it sounds like Boston, NYC, DC, Atlanta, Tampa, Connecticut….