Church backs "amnesty" bill?

[Mahonri]

In this article, it says that "the Church" backs what many are calling the Utah amnesty bill

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/51439 ... csp?page=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[cayenne]

I don't understand this at all. I don't get the gay thing either. Giving gays rights in Salt Lake while hurting innocent people of Israel? Giving illegals a break and hurting citizens, this is like telling someone it is ok you broke the law, the constitutional law that God said to uphold.

Just does not make sense to me, and I know there will be plenty of justification, but still......What confuses me is that the NWO wants the same things right? They want no borders, one world law of not liberty, and they love gays. What am I missing? I know this is God's church, but what the hek?

[clarkkent14]

Double thread: http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopi ... 20&t=16657" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Tiger04]

Looks like many will have to change their opinion.

So?

The main goal is to keep families together. We have to craft & champion legislation that helps keep these families together.

[patriotsaint]

I don't understand this at all. I don't get the gay thing either. Giving gays rights in Salt Lake while hurting innocent people of Israel? Giving illegals a break and hurting citizens, this is like telling someone it is ok you broke the law, the constitutional law that God said to uphold.

Just does not make sense to me, and I know there will be plenty of justification, but still......What confuses me is that the NWO wants the same things right? They want no borders, one world law of not liberty, and they love gays. What am I missing? I know this is God's church, but what the hek?

Nephi killing Laban seemed to be contrary to law as well. We just need to trust that these things are done for a wise purpose that the Lord comprehends, but we don't.

[Original_Intent]

I agree with patriotsaint. I personally have always opposed amnesty, but if the church supports it, I must believe that there is some wise purpose that the Lord has for this being done.

[edzachary]

I agree with patriotsaint. I personally have always opposed amnesty, but if the church supports it, I must believe that there is some wise purpose that the Lord has for this being done.

Not only is there a wise purpose there is a practical purpose as well.

Before anyone goes off half-cocked realize this situation wasn't necessarily all the creation of those immigrants who came here illegally. It was also caused by a Federal Government that basically looked the other way and failed to live up to its own laws. That is a moral failure as great as someone breaking the law to come here in the first place. There is additional culpability here, too. After all, amnesty was done once before (Reagan) and they PROMISED they were serious about enforcing the law after it was passed. It didn't happen, of course, another moral failure.

So here we are years and 12 to 20 million illegal immigants later and what do we do? Send them all back?

To some, that is a moral absolute. Yes, they say, send them back for they broke the law. That is moral, to them.

But when you look at the human side of the story it isn't so easy -- or so moral. A single illegal immigrant who came here 20 years ago likely married here and had children here. So you send him back but keep is family here? Or do you send them all back/ Is that moral? What about making him legal somehow, after all these years? Wouldn't that be moral too?

Illegal immigration is an ugly issue. So many absolute "morals" on so many sides of this issue.

I think the Utah solution needs strong study and consideration. Compassion is, after all, a moral too.

[cayenne]

Ok, that all makes enough sense I suppose. But what about the gay issue? Yes this thread is not about gays, but to many I know it seems like another compromise that does not fit god. What do I tell these people?

[pjbrownie]

Just heard a few statistics. Most of the immigrants from Mexico that are illegal have already left their families in Mexico. They're likely up here starting another family. So the breaking up of family thing doesn't resonate with me very well.

Plus I certainly hope we stop breaking up families and sending people to prison who commit identity fraud. That's not fair to the family. 75% of illegal Mexicans are shopping social security cards and violating identity laws.

This is why the attempts to be tolerant to our immigrant neighbors stinks to high heaven, because its not just that the laws aren't being followed, but the justice for breaking these laws are arbitrary and capricious, meaning that if you are an illegal immigrant, you pay a $2,500 fine, but if you are an American citizen, you serve felonious prison time.

The next problem of course, if the economic slavery these immigrants serve under.

Finally, the big elephant in the room is the taxing scheme that socks these people so they skirt the laws to get in. It used to be you came to Ellis Island, signed your name, paid a little bit of money, took and oath, and away you went as a shiny new citizen. Nowadays you gotta pay Uncle Sam, so you CAN'T come here legally unless you've got money.

[ChelC]

There are few moral absolutes when dealing with a corrupt government. When we were adopting through the church internationally, we were flat out told in our church sponsored adoption prep classes to bring bribe money to pay off corrupt cops that might cause problems, and to pinch our babies if gov't officials tried to harass us (to make a scene).

I've changed my mind a lot over the years about right and wrong where the government is involved.

It's wrong for them to come here illegally. As a mother living in Mexico though, if I couldn't do it legally... I'd find it to be a moral obligation to get my kids out of dodge and I think that would outweigh my hesitance to sneak into a country with open pockets and a blind eye.

It's a bit like leaving a candy machine open for a few years, pretending not to see the theft, continuing to fill it up and one day acting upset that you were being robbed and cracking down.

[cayenne]

Pj my thoughts exactly

It is confusing to me because on the one hand we are taught our leaders never do wrong but then issues like immigration and gays throws me off. God is truth and black and white right? God does not change I thought. I cannot reconcile this easily. Isn't it ok to say the leaders maybe caved a little bit? Or does that Make me apostate? Cannot I think for me? Or has the thinking been done?

It seems there is always justify. But how is this right? How can illegals and gays be favored? We need to send the illegals home to do it right. We need gays to never be able to take away christians rights

[edzachary]

Ok, that all makes enough sense I suppose. But what about the gay issue? Yes this thread is not about gays, but to many I know it seems like another compromise that does not fit god. What do I tell these people?

Easy. The Church does not support gay discrimination. In fact, the Church supports legislation that gives gay couples (or any non-married couple, could be a brother & sister) equal rights on issues like health care, taxes, etc).

What the Church opposes is calling "marriage" something it clearly is not and cannot be. It too, is strictly a moral issue. Marriage is ordained of God and God has plainly stated that same-sex is wrong, immoral, an abomination. To "support" marriage for gays would be immoral. But that doesn't mean the Church supports discrimination or abuse of any people.

The passage of gay marriage "rights" implies societal approval of gay lifestyles. Just as the argument for abortion centers on the "right" of a mother to terminate a pregnancy because it is "her" body the issue is still wrong and immoral. And like abortion adoption of gay "marriage" will lead to confusion in moral areas and generations and generations of misery that will come from it.

Wickedness never was happiness. And gay marriage is just plain wrong. It is also just plain obvious. Trying to make a "marriage" of a gay couple is like trying to turn an apple into a water buffalo. Insist as you must but just saying so doesn't actually make them "Married".

[bobhenstra]

Its simple, concerning all Children of the most High (82nd Psalms), the Lord's Church is based on compassion for all mankind. It was the government not the Church who let the illegals in. Since they are here we practice compassion!

We send help where ever it is needed, anywhere in the world based on the rules of the government in charge.

When pologamy was outlawed in the U.S. our people who practiced pologamy went to Mexico and Canada rather than leave a wife and children stranded without a husband and father of the house. Mexico and Canada accepted our people, they had the compassion our own government didn't have.

We're a compassionate church and people, or at least---we should be, in all aspects of our lives, including politics! We also believe in defending ourselves when necessary, and obeying the laws of the land. No matter what country we live in, when we're called to defend or fight we do so, according to the laws of that country.

We obey the laws of the land, and expect all others to do so, if it doest happen we have compassion with the victims of the laws ignored.
Bob

[armedtotheteeth]

+1 on PJs remarks.
It was hard work and a lot of money to have my wife come into the country legally so we could get married. I always swore if some type of amnesty went thru I would write Uncle Sam a letter requesting a refund for the thousands my wife and I have spent and will spend. I find this disappointing, but must make sense of it, as it must be God’s will.

[edzachary]

+1 on PJs remarks.
It was hard work and a lot of money to have my wife come into the country legally so we could get married. I always swore if some type of amnesty went thru I would write Uncle Sam a letter requesting a refund for the thousands my wife and I have spent and will spend.

Great perspective and good point. Thanks.

I find this disappointing, but must make sense of it, as it must be God’s will.

Interesting comment. I wonder if this is how those who were first asked to accept plural marriage felt? Not that there is any comparing these two things, there isn't. I just mean the attitude. Very interesting. Is the Church's stand on illegal immigration God's will?

[edzachary]

The difference here is that Plural Marriage was introduced to the church because it was one of God's laws, and church members were commanded to live it. Taking a position on illegal immigration is not doctrinal, it is the stance the Church has decided to take as a response to pressure from church members screaming about various sides of the issue, and demanding that the church TAKE a position.

Really? I never heard the Church ask me about immigration. They've been clear on other political issues -- liquor, gay marriage, abortion, etc. But not on all. In fact, I think they've taken a look at this one and have seen a doctrinal issue -- and this one, I believe, is firmly directed at the members of the Church specifically in Utah.

Polls here have consistently shown Utah populations to be some of the hardest right leaning proponents of strict illegal immigration measures. In other words, the debate was placing all blame for the issue on the illegal immigrants.

The Church sees these people as people and I think their stand on this is a message to Church membership in Utah to bear that in mind and show them some humanity. If we round up 15 million or so illegals -- if such a thing could be done anyway -- and send them back to Mexico we would be guilty of a terrible human crime. It's not moral. (And it just isn't possible). Besides, while there are many amongst them who traffic in identity theft, murder, drugs and other crimes the vast, vast majority of them are peaceable, mostly law-abiding people with families here and there. I believe that is the over-riding element.

The sad thing to me is that Utah and other states have to take control of what clearly should be a federal issue. But the Feds won't keep the laws they've enacted on this. So the states have to devise their own. How do they do this to the satisfaction of every group? it just can't be done. The Church stepping in sends the message that while it is hard, yes, it can and should be done.

Take for example, the fact that the Hispanic community overall is very upset over this. And why? Because they know Utah is going to try to do what the Feds have never done -- hold illegals accountable from this point forward. They organized their campaign to not shop anywhere but in Hispanic businesses to "prove" how much a part of the economy they are (did anyone notice or has it happened yet?). Why would they do such a thing? Because they want things to stay they way they are because it gives them power. The Church has taken a moral stand against them too.

I think the Church is in a clear "damned if you do, damned if you don't" position with this. And I think they've staked a moral position throughout where they've had to.

Now, as to the whole "the Church is a corporation" idea I'm still yet to get any reconciling with this. Thinking purely along these lines I fail to see where the Church benefits in staking a moral position that antagonizes **all** their customers. (Sheesh, now I feel cheap and dirty for referring to the Church in such a fashion).

[HeirofNumenor]

Great post edzachary - I saw yours as I was about to post mine - I hope I don't offend, though I likely will... :-ss

And then there is the reality of the situation...and I hate to lay it out this way (and yes I am taking this to the extreme)...BUT.....

Face it, Hispanics are here to stay...mainly Mexicans...(at least let's be honest about who we are talking about/angry at/vilifying/defending/whatever)

In terms of numbers, they are too many over here, too many over there (and more coming here), we conquered half of their nation 20 years after they expelled the country that conquered and occupied them for 300 years (Spain - and they/Mexican elites and academics STILL resent us for that)...and they breed a lot more than the Anglo-Americans do nowadays...

IF the government and the American people had the heart and stomach for it, we'd have to bring back many of our soldiers from overseas (either all out Europe, S. Korea, or Afghanistan or Iraq - empty the numerical equivalent of one those theaters), station them along the border - regular combat soldiers, not weekend national guard - train them fully including Spanish language fluency, and above all, be willing to use deadly force on those trying to enter our country - which unfortunately may mean shooting at families.

Or we could at least rebuild the Berlin Wall completely, from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico, over hills, mountains, and deserts -including no man's land, minefields, electric fences, concrete barriers, flood lights, watch towers with machine gun nests, snipers, German Shepherds, etc....our southern border will look like a maximum-security prison perimeter! (and then we can look north as well...)

See the public relations nightmare?

As for our Federal Government (not forgetting the Business and corporations that want cheap labor):
The blame lies on:
A) Sen Ted Kennedy who authored the 1965 immigration reform bill - which brought vastly larger numbers of non-European people in, while destroying the requirements that they have useful skills, have a sponsor here to take be accountable for them, etc.;
B) the Federal government who wants a lot more people dependent on government and socialism (many more democratic voters)
C) and the PTB/secret combinations that want to destroy American, this Constitution, and political & economic freedoms (along with Christianity) altogether - only to replace it with a one-world government of elites(ultra-wealthy & their top stooges -vanguard of the proletariat), the Party members to administer the UN New World Order, and the rest of us as the proletariat peasants, to be perpetually working as serfs, kept amused with Bread & Circuses and frequent festivals (Machiavelli), and plied with cheap entertainment of booze, violence, and sex - with spiritually enforced by a brutal New Age or else conformity. (Welcome to the new Feudal system.)

BUT I DIGRESS...

If you REALLY want to send them back where they came from, then you will need to have to have our entire country covered in something horrible like plague or a new Ice Age (The Day After Tomorrow) OR

You will have to become a brutally tyrannical authoritarian regime such as the ancient empires - able and willing to round up all who look Hispanic (or Arabic, Haitian, Somali - whatever is the threat), and either send them in lock down prison ships (Amistad) or airplanes (Con-Air) and send them back where they came from even though their home governments will refuse them to be repatriated; or we can lock them all away in concentration camps; or execute them all.

Vlad the Impaler of Transylvania and Tamerlane of India were the last ones to get away with this type of mass bloodshed and not be overthrown or conquered - and they were 600 years ago...

There is a reason why democracies, democratic republics, and Constitutional republics never do this...beliefs in the rights of mankind, the rule of law, national self-determination, presumably the laws of God, etc...

[BroJones]

From email from a friend -- with reference-link at the end.

Missouri I hear you calling me
Missouri has no illegals; go figure...won't be too difficult......

Missouri's approach to the problem of illegal immigration appears to be more advanced, sophisticated, strict and effective than anything to date in Arizona.

Do the loonies in San Francisco, or the White House, appreciate what Missouri has done? When are our fearless President and his dynamic Attorney General going to take action to require Missouri start accepting illegal immigrants once again? So, why doesn't Missouri receive attention?

Answer: There are no illegal Mexicans in Missouri to demonstrate.

The "Show Me" state has once again shown us how it should be done. There needs to be more publicity and exposure regarding what Missouri has done.

In 2007, Missouri placed on the ballot a proposed constitutional amendment designating English as the official language of Missouri. In November, 2008, nearly 90% voted in favor! Thus, English became the official language for ALL governmental activity in Missouri. No individual has the right to demand government services in a language OTHER than English.

In 2008, a measure was passed that required the Missouri Highway Patrol and other law enforcement officials to verify the immigration status of any person arrested, and inform federal authorities if the person is found to be in Missouri illegally. Missouri law enforcement officers receive specific training with respect to enforcement of federal immigration laws.

In Missouri, illegal immigrants do NOT have access to taxpayers’ benefits such as food stamps and health care through Missouri HealthNET.

In 2009, a measure was passed that ensures Missouri's public institutions of higher education do NOT award financial aid to individuals who are illegally in the United States.

In Missouri, all post-secondary institutions of higher education are required to annually certify to the Missouri Dept. of Higher Education that they have NOT knowingly awarded financial aid to students who are unlawfully present in the United States.

So, while Arizona has made national news for its new law, it is important to remember, Missouri has been far more proactive in addressing this horrific problem. Missouri has made it clear that illegal immigrants are NOT welcome in the state and they will certainly NOT receive public benefits at the expense of Missouri taxpayers.

DON'T JUST DELETE THIS AMERICA... KEEP IT GOING UNTIL WE GET ALL 50 STATES TO COMPLY!!!

Taken from: "The Ozarks Sentinel" Editorial - Nita Jane Ayres, May 13, 2010. If the link does not work, just type in "The Ozarks Sentinel - Nita Jane Ayres" in Google. Here is the link to confirm: Be sure to read the reader comments too.

http://www.ozarkssentinel.com/missouri- ... -p1034.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Teancum-Old]

Are we jumping ahead of ourselves? Did the First Presidency officially endorse this immigration move by Utah? The article states that official Church endorsement is not yet had.

Arturo Morales-LLan, head of Legal Immigrants for Immigration Law Enforcement, supports the enforcement-only bill by Rep. Stephen Sandstrom, R-Orem.

He said he won’t believe that the church supports these reform efforts until he sees an official statement from the LDS First Presidency itself.

“David Burton has a right to be present or to be involved in any affairs concerning the faith,” Morales-LLan said, “but he does not speak for the First Presidency.”

The Latino activist said he met with Herbert shortly after the signing ceremony and that the governor assured him that Burton was there as an invited guest and the church had “no involvement” in the bills.

Seems to me we should wait and see. Either way, immigration is extremely complex, as has been mentioned by most on this thread. Its not a simple black and white issue. So much gray. And the Church has been baptizing illegal immigrants left and right for the last decade or so at least.

I attended a Spanish ward several years ago and my wife was raised in a Spanish branch. There are many illegals in the Church. Many in leadership positions, at least at the local level (I have to admit I never seen illegals in the Bishoprics or higher though). But what is the Church to do? Not preach the Gospel to Spanish-speaking investigators? Not help Spanish members when in need? If they committed crimes (aside from breaking immigration laws), I know the leaders of the Church counsel them appropriately. I never knew an illegal member of the Church who was blatantly committing crimes and local leaders excusing it. Those illegals who join the Church are honestly trying to change their lives for the better.

There was a time however, in southern California, where the Church made a move to break up all the Spanish congregations (branches only back then since there was no Spanish wards yet here). The Spanish members of the Church were told that their Districts were going to be dissolved and all of them would have to move into English-speaking wards. It was attempted. Faithful Spanish-speaking members of the Church moved to English wards. Some felt there was discrimination involved in the decision. A few may have left the Church. It was not easy. The faithful members followed the counsel and did it. A few assimilated but many did not. Testimonies were definitely impacted.

Today, my father-in-law, a faithful Mexican convert of 30+ years, still recalls this episode and struggles to understand the logic. He struggles to discuss the event objectively, as his personal feelings get the best of him. Instead he seems to prefer to ignore the whole thing. I understand that he actually stood up during the meeting where the break up was announced and respectfully stated it was akin to discrimination. He continues in the Church today, testimony definitely impacted somewhat, but still attends Church regularly and accept callings. But his testimony does not seem to shine as it once did. He is currently serving as a Ward Missionary, helping to keep up the baptismal rate. Their ward has had at least one baptism every week for the last couple years. The ward split off a branch about a year ago. That new branch recently converted to a ward.

Eventually, each Stake down here established its own Spanish branch (no longer District branches but Stake branches). Now all the Spanish branches have converted to wards and some of these wards have split off their own branches due to all the baptisms. There is talk that an all Spanish stake will be created down here within the next few years if more of these Spanish branches are converted to wards. I understand that the Saints in Tijuana, Baja California are growing tremendously as well. Pretty soon, southern California will likely have a large Spanish-speaking LDS population, larger than that of English-speaking Saints! In a situation like this, what is the Church to do?

It does appear that the Church is in a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" position. It is a very difficult position. My own family, of Mexican decent, is divided on the issue. I for one have been on the enforcement side of the argument for the past few years but over that time I have seen so many lives impacted by the immigration issue that I now hope for somekind of solution to result where both sides of the issue can be satisfied. My view now is basically that amnesty would not be so bad if we could only keep out the criminals, cheats, scum, and leeches... somehow. Those who come to work and improve their station in life should be allowed in.

[edzachary]

Are we jumping ahead of ourselves? Did the First Presidency officially endorse this immigration move by Utah? The article states that official Church endorsement is not yet had.

This was the official statement from the Church:

As a worldwide church dealing with many complex issues across the globe, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints promotes broad, foundational principles that have worldwide application. The Church regards the declaration of the Utah Compact as a responsible approach to the urgent challenge of immigration reform. It is consistent with important principles for which we stand:

We follow Jesus Christ by loving our neighbors. The Savior taught that the meaning of “neighbor” includes all of God’s children, in all places, at all times.

We recognize an ever-present need to strengthen families. Families are meant to be together. Forced separation of working parents from their children weakens families and damages society.

We acknowledge that every nation has the right to enforce its laws and secure its borders. All persons subject to a nation’s laws are accountable for their acts in relation to them.

Public officials should create and administer laws that reflect the best of our aspirations as a just and caring society. Such laws will properly balance love for neighbors, family cohesion, and the observance of just and enforceable laws.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

I don't see the issue. I fully support opening our borders to easy immigration from anywhere so long as the people swear an oath and meet minimum requirements. The caps are evil and old. I don't think the bill goes far enough. I do not support amnesty, but I do support easy legal immigration for all who want it.

[Teancum-Old]

I don't see the issue. I fully support opening our borders to easy immigration from anywhere so long as the people swear an oath and meet minimum requirements. The caps are evil and old. I don't think the bill goes far enough. I do not support amnesty, but I do support easy legal immigration for all who want it.

I would be perfectly fine with easing our legal immigration (not wide open borders though) as long as the following conditions are met:

1. Welfare must be overhauled. Only the elderly or handicapped should even be eligible. I have seen to many people abuse welfare, including illegals. Abusers should be sought out and punished.
2. Criminals should be punished and incarcerated as appropriate. The countries that these criminals call home should pay for the incarceration of their criminals. How? Cut off their foriegn aid. If that has been done already, then deport the criminals to their homelands. Deporting requires controlled borders or else the criminals will be right back in America.
3. All immigrants should be screened for transferable diseases prior to being immigrated. Hepatitus has been on the rise and has been linked to immigration.
4. Hospitals have shut down in souther California due to providing for the uninsured (a large number of whom are illegal). Hospitals must not be required to provide care for non-emergency cases. Just because someone is in the emergency waiting room does not necessarily mean they are having life-threatening emergency.

Sorry SwissMrs&Pitchfire, this is a huge and complex issue. The Church officially agrees (see the Newsroom http://newsroom.lds.org/article/a-princ ... mmigration) stating that this is:

a very complicated issue... We expect that our country will continue to struggle with this complicated issue, which the federal government will have to address.

It would be great if everyone coming into our country were honest, hardworking, and only looking to progress and help other do the same in what we call the "Promised Land," but this is simply not the case.

I don't think I have a problem with the Church on this. I do have to look at Utah Compact a little more carefully, but it does appear that the Church is simply calling for:

good people everywhere [to] strive for principle-based solutions that balance the rule of law with the need for compassion.

This makes complete sense to me. It would definitely not be compassionate to simply build a wall between us and Mexico and allow zero immigration.

I don't think the points I laid out above are harsh since they are only aimed at criminals who have chosen to suffer certain consequences and those with transferable diseases (just as the Lepers were required to live outside the city in the Bible). Once these criminals have repented (shown to be trustworthy for a given period of time) they should be allowed to re-apply for immigration and those that have been pronounced clean (by a medical doctor or have been deemed uncontagious) should be allowed to apply as well. Most others should basically be allowed to immigrate as long as they follow appropriate appplication procedures. Our nation would not be a "house of order" if we simply let anyone and everyone into it without some sort of application process. This all seems to "balance the rule of law with the need for compassion" to me.