In one area of Guatemala, during my mission, I came into contact with a lot of people who dreamed of living in the United States as well as some people who were in the middle of their journey to go there. I remember one man on a bus pulling cash out of his sock, as a demonstration of the money he had earned to make the trip.

One person I spoke with said his dream was to purchase his own car and drive it. I asked him what kind of car and he waved his hand, dismissing the question by saying “with four tires – as long as it drives.” I happened to know that this fellow was doing back-breaking work (sometimes with a machete) in bean and coffee fields. He was earning at most a few dollars a day.

These experiences (with good people) make it difficult for me to have any hard feelings towards Latin American immigrants (legal or not) to this country. If I were in their shoes, I’d probably have the same desires and incentives to make my way into the U.S. – legally or not.

My concerns are based on security and the economy.

Along with the people who come to the United States just wanting to work and earn a fair day’s wage, there are criminals and perhaps a few terrorists who also want to make their way into the country.

Additionally, let’s face it. Some communities, schools and health-care systems are inundated with illegal immigrants and consequently these communities have to deal with very practical every-day questions that are difficult to answer. Should the schools still teach in English? Should hospitals provide services to people who may not be able to pay? Etc. and etc.

Mormon conservatives and Republicans gush over their demi-god, Ronald Reagan. Let’s see what he had to say about immigration:

I . . . have thought of America as a place in the divine scheme of things that was set aside as a promised land . . . [A]nd the price of admission was very simple . . . Any place in the world and any person from these places; any person with the courage, with the desire to tear up their roots, to strive for freedom, to attempt and dare to live in a strange and foreign place, to travel halfway across the world was welcome here . . . I believe that God in shedding his grace on this country has always in this divine scheme of things kept an eye on our land and guided it as a promised land for these people. (emphasis added).

Cannon, pg. 119.

and

I’ve spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don’t know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. (emphasis added)

As Ilya Somin writes for the Volokh Conspiracy from where I get those quotes:

The fact that Reagan supported something does not by itself prove that it is right, or even that it is the right position for conservatives. Reagan certainly made his share of mistakes, such as the extremely grave error of trading arms for hostages with Iran. But as Cannon notes, Reagan’s positive attitude towards immigration was not just an isolated issue position, but was integrally linked to his generally optimistic and open vision of America. I would add that it also drew on his understanding that America is not a zero-sum game between immigrants and natives – just as he also recognized that it is not a zero-sum game between the rich and the poor. Immigration could promote prosperity and advancement for both groups in much the same way that free trade benefits both Americans and foreigners. Reagan probably did not have a detailed understanding of the economics of comparative advantage which underpins this conclusion. But he surely understood it intuitively. Those who reject Reagan’s position on immigration must, if they are to be consistent, also reject much of the rest of his approach to economic and social policy. Today’s conservatives can argue for immigration restrictions if they so choose. But they should not claim the mantle of Reagan in doing so.

It’s funny to watch Republicans try to scream louder that they are the next Ronald Reagan, and that they will carry Reagan’s legacy on. Well? Was Reagan right on immigration?

Dan,

I like those Reagan quotes.

I liked Reagan then and I still like him now.

This doesn’t support my point about Reagan or the quotes you offer, but it’s interesting in this context to contemplate this verse:

And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance. (2 Nephi 1:8)

We needed a labor force, and people came.

Go figure.

Danithew – that is the quandry – how do you ferret out the criminals from the good people. Of course this extends far beyond the illegals to Americans as a whole. There have been far more crimes and terrorist acts perpetrated by legal aliens and American citizens than by illegals.
Dan – great quotes – I am not a fan of Reagan, but I like those quotes.

DKL – Jesus would have been deported today as someone who incited violence and he was from the Middle East…

Chino – that is exactly the type of prejudice comment I have heard from many Mormons. Maybe I would feel differently if I lived in Arizona, but I just think that the national security threat posed by illegal aliens is blown way out of context. There are plenty of immigrants here in Boston – some bad apples exist, but let’s clean up our house of all criminals – I really don’t care where they come from.

Dan,

I definitely don’t want to use that verse to support harsh immigration policies. Rather, I just find it interesting that it tells us that people are going to want to come to the Americas – to such an extent that there is even a danger of it being “overrun.”

Devyn,

Gilbert-(AZ)-born. Dad got out. Both of us did missions in South America. Ask us if we miss Maricopa County. Please.

perhaps helping the mexican economy improve to the point that many of it’s citizens don’t HAVE to leave their families and homes behind is one possible solution to the immigration problem.

we are willing to “help” many nations, why not help our neighbors to the south? seems like a win/win.

by the way, how many of you are 1st generation United Statians? I am. I wonder if that has anything to do with my opinions?

ps. i heart devyns!

mmmm scanners. I love them. so much that I married one!

I think there are many aspects of the immigration debate that are not too well understood.

For one thing, some wonder why Mexicans don’t assimilate into American culture as once immigrants did from other places. Some have brought up the Italian migration of the early 1900s as an example.

The thing is that things have drastically changed since the early 1900s. If you wanted to leave Italy in 1905 and move your whole family to the United States (or even just yourself), you were looking at a several month long journey by boat and by train. You were dirt poor with little chance of ever going back to your homeland. Assimilation into the American culture was of higher value because, well, once you got here you were stuck here.

Today, in regards at least to Mexicans, the ease and simplicity of travel to and fro significantly alters the issue of culture. Why should Mexicans give up their culture and assimilate with the Americans when they can so easily travel back to their home land? Further, the advent of the television allows for their culture to be constantly displayed within their homes, keeping their ties to their Mexican culture alive and well. Just how would an Italian from the early 1900s keep their ties to Italy? Well, through their families and other Italians. The assimilation of Italians into American culture took a long time, in actuality. In fact, it fused itself with American culture where now we have fun with Italian eccentricities.

American culture will survive just fine with a strong infusion of Mexicans. In fact, it will only get better and stronger. The strength of America’s culture is not its homogeneity, but rather that it is so heterogeneous.

I see two separate issues here. The first is very simple: Do we believe in obeying and sustaining the law? Do we take seriously the professions of D&C 134 and the AOF? If the answer to those questions is “no” then Mormonism opens itself up to a whole litany of problems. If the answer is “yes” then we need to stop baptizing and endowing illegal immigrants.

The second issue is more complicated and revolves around what sort of policy decisions need to be taken with respect to immigration covering those illegals already here and those on their way. I’m personally very pro-immigration but I would like to see all future comers documented fully so that they have access to legal protections. To facilitate that I support very tight security on our borders (yes, build a very long sturdy fence and keep the no-good Canadians out too). For those currently here I would like to see some way to “normalize” their residence to secure for them the same legal protections.

As far as obeying the law goes…I know enough illegal immigrants that were baptized in this country, and several close friends who were sealed in this country while their immigration status in this country were negligible at best, that I really wonder what stance the church will take in a couple of years. I also wonder if the church is already quietly taking a stance already.
Either way, its going to be interesting to see what happens.

If the answer is “yes” then we need to stop baptizing and endowing illegal immigrants.

Forget Matthew 5, it’s all about Passport Control :-)

Chino Blanco, if you know of any statements by Asian organizations like the one below by the National Council if La Raza, let us know. I don’t think there are any, but not because Asians are less self-interested than Hispanics, but because they see a modification of the visa allotments working better for their group.

“However, NCLR expressed concern with some of the provisions included in the Senate bill. These include dramatically changing the legal immigration system by eliminating visa categories which allow U.S. citizens to petition for their families; a point system which would for the first time in nearly a century make visas available to anyone in the world based on educational attainment and English-language ability; and a proposed new temporary worker program.”

http://www.nclr.org/content/news/detail/45947/

Because now the shoe is on the other foot. It is traditional to say that immigration restrictionists are selfish people who only care about their group, even if they have to close opportunity to other groups. It looks like that charge fits NCRL just as well.

John – My take on the response was that overall pro-immigration groups liked the bill, but that the concern was it would be much more difficult for them to bring their families over once they are established here due to the provision mentioned. In addition, I can see the concerns with the point system. It biases for educated, English speaking persons, which is not what the vast majority of our service workers are.

John,

For what it’s worth, I think we’re all “immigration restrictionists” in the sense that I’ve never heard anyone suggest that we just fling open the borders and take all comers (although perhaps you feel that’s the status quo?).

Whatever your position might be, and whatever position you might think I support, I think we all agree that the system is broken. I’m not sure what poking fun at those adversely affected by potential new legislation accomplishes. Regardless of whatever the final legislation looks like, it won’t be good news for everybody.

Lines must be drawn and policies implemented and enforced. We all know that. Like I said, I support Bush’s efforts. Anything is better than what we’re doing now, but there are plenty of solutions better than just laughing at others’ misfortune. What exactly are you suggesting we should do.

re: 23 I fail to see the connection between a person’s immigration status and their worthiness to make eternal covenants. Does God really care about borders? I don’t think so. And, with all due respect, it’s silly to conflate the two issues. Why stop with immigration status for potential converts? Why not ask about child support payments for divorced converts? Why not just require INS forms, tax forms and a criminal background check before baptizing or endowing someone or, in the case of the rest of us, renewing our temple recommends?

What if someone, like me for example, is a habitual speeder (with high insurance rates and threatening letters from the DMV to prove it)? I violate the law every single day when I drive to work, and sometimes intentionally so. Even when I have my children in the car with me, I speed, just not as fast. Per D&C 134 and the AOF, should I join my illegal immigrant brethren and surrender my temple recommend until I stop speeding.

A better solution would be to baptize them and then let the government do what it’s going to do with them-preferably send them back from whence they came. After they are returned to their country of origin, they can try and follow the applicable rules to gain re-entry to the US.

It must be tough to work for the INS and be in a church leadership position in some areas of the church. That would take tremendous faith and courage to do the right thing in rendering unto Ceasar and God.

Nick – that is a great scripture. I am fascinated by the anti-immigration crowd as all of us or our ancestors were immigrants at some time in the past.

AG – the problem with your wall solution is that it will not work. It may stop some, but realistically we cannot build and maintain a wall that covers thousands of miles. It is way too expensive and impractical. So what do we do then? How do illegal immigrants lower our standard of living? I would argue that they oftentimes contribute to the economy even if they dont always pay taxes. I would take an illegal immigrant anyday over some of the welfare sucking vampires we have in my town (and ward) – people who have been on welfare for years because they “can’t” work (although there are many legitimate persons on welfare). You also bring up an interesting point on God’s displeasure for breaking laws – I wonder if God really cares if I break a civil law like speeding? Does it impact my eternal salvation? There are obviously moral laws that are important not to break, but with certain laws I am not sure God really cares that much – of course, I have no idea what God really thinks or cares, just my supposition…

DevynS, “…oftentimes contribute to the economy even if they don’t always pay taxes.” I think I share your general sentiment, but I have a question: How much is lost in taxes, anyway? I’m picturing a group of people who get paid very little—near or below poverty, mostly—so their owed taxes are probably insignificant. (If, in fact, they would actually have to pay, instead of qualifying for EIC or complete refund.)

If the answer is “yes” then we need to stop baptizing and endowing illegal immigrants.

The church does have a stance. They have decided that illegal immigration is not an issue that matters with regard to baptism, endowment, worthiness, etc. And frankly why should it?

re: 41 Their tax contributions are only part of the story. The other side of the coin is the drain on resources they and their families have become vis-a-vis emergency room visits, welfare benefits, car accidents when they are not insured, and the occasional criminal activity (apart from their underlying crime of entering and staying illegally). Those costs are quite significant, especially in communities where illegal aliens are concentrated.

And, even if their tax liability is small, why should they get a pass from paying? Legal Americans aren’t exempt from their tax obligations, no matter the amount, and illegal aliens should be no different. The provision in the recent compromise bill that exempts them from paying back taxes is probably the poison pill. If it stays in, I may stop paying my taxes for the next couple of years and then simply register as an illegal alien, pay my fine and enjoy my amnesty. I am against amnesty, but if there is going to be amnesty, they should be treated like everyone else: welcome to America and pay your taxes, including back taxes. If that’s too much to ask, then they can simply return to their country of origin.

re: 44 A wall to protect the integrity of our borders and our way of life is a far cry from a bunker.

#44 rb- how are these costs any different from the welfare people in my city who use all of those facilities on my dime as well? At least the illegals have jobs and are putting something into the economy instead of sucking it dry. I would agree that if amnesty is granted then they should pay taxes. However, you make it seem so black and white – “just send them home” Many of these people have children here who are US citizens – what do you do in those cases? Who takes the myriad of service jobs performed by illegals? Sending them home would actually do significant damage to our economy driving wages up and inflation up.

We tried amnesty back in the 1980′s (during the Reagan years.) We thought it was going to solve the problem. It didn’t.

The result was a huge INCREASE in the flow of illegal aliens.

If you reward something, you get MORE of it.

Thanks Chino,
Anonymous – what would you propose? The status quo certainly does not work.

I got this link on Mormons and immigration from the BCC sidebar. Their right sidebar, the autogenerated one.

I think that you and I are in 100% agreement about immigration policy, Devyn. It’s one of the more insane aspects of American domestic policy. It’s especially important in the high-tech area.

Eventually, Indians and Chinese are going to end up creating most of the world’s technology solutions no matter what we do. The only question is whether they do it in the US or in India or China. India and China graduate millions of students in technology each year, and America need to grab as many of them as possible.

Thanks ARJ – Not very flattering. It makes me sick when politicians bring their religion into issues like this, particularly quoting scriptures and Church leaders to justify their racist behavior. It is sad.