48 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback |
Matt - I can only hope you are right. That is great to hear that the First Presidency is making a stand on this issue. The number of bigoted statements I hear about it is disgusting. Perhaps there is room for mercy here. |
I’m glad to hear this. It is a step in the right direction and away from some of the awful policies that some Americans want. I think this should drive a stake into the heart of “American exceptionalism.” |
Similar debates are going on in most state legislatures this year, but most members outside of Utah will never hear about Elder Jensen’s address unless it is highlighted in the Ensign or something. Any hope of that? |
I wish the Church would ask Elder Jensen to comment on other issues as well. He’s the best. |
LL - true. I wonder if there might not be something in the Ensign or the Church News at some point. After reflecting a bit more on this, I’m reminded of how hard an issue this is for the Church. A relative of mine is bishop of a Spanish-speaking ward; he’s walking a tightrope between serving his congregation and the INS just about every day. |
Somewhere along the line the Church is going to get in trouble with this. Compare President Hinckley’s comments on polygamy:
|
Good post. In addition to being humane, having open borders brings us economic benefit. We should not restrict the labor market. |
CC, The Church is not arguing for open borders, they are arguing against enforcing U.S. immigration law in any way that might seriously inconvenience the violators. That policy would be far more convincing if it was accompanied by a statement that the Church advises illegal immigrant members to comply with the law by returning home and applying to immigrate legally. Otherwise the Church gives the appearance of endorsing the violation of laws by its members whenever it is convenient for them to do so. |
I love it. Thanks for the update Matt B. I would much rather have Mormonism be thought of as overly compassionate than not compassionate enough. (The right wing anti-immigration zealots in the church will surely gnash their teeth at this kind of shift.) |
CC (Yes, I know I said I wouldn’t respond to you again; I was wrong), But the Church is saying that none of that calculation matters, because they are not, ultimately, economic ends. Rather, they are our brothers and sisters, children of our same Heavenly Father, as deserving of our love and compassion as our several-generations-deep neighbors, |
I have to say that I think Elder Jensen said nothing earth-shattering. He simply said that we need to proceed with legislation cautiously, remember that the people in question are children of God, and that Jesus would act compassionately. Does this just seem like nothing new to me because it jives with my personal opinions? Someone in the article was quoted as saying this was “earth-shattering” to which I have to say: you must be a Republican. I think many many many church members have confused politically conservative stances on policy with their religion or “what is right.” [parenthetically, while I consider myself very soft on immigration (work with illegal aliens on a regular basis), it has surprised me that the Church seems to officially look the other way--if I were the Chruch policy maker, I think I would at least host a healthy debate on how being an illegal alien goes with "obeying the laws of the land" as far as temple reccomends go--do I sound mean?] |
@Mark D. When the Stamp Act and the Townshend Act were passed in Colonial times, the real heroes responded by dumping tea into the Boston harbor. It’s time for a similar revolution. Sometimes laws are flawed. @Sam B. In a free market, there will be winners and losers in the short run. If you and I both opened hot dog carts on a street corner but your Frankfurters tasted better and cost less, I’d be out of business soon. But that would be a net benefit to society. I would be forced to go find something that I was good at. |
@ESO Sometimes the law of the land is so flawed it should be ignored. Ever heard of the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act of 1862? A lot of Mormons still did temple work after violating that law. |
ESO - I find the way the argument was presented more interesting than its substance, actually. He’s closing the gap between faith and politics here by arguing that seemingly secular policies actually reflect upon the spiritual, and that, further, our economic/social/foreign policy should be made contingent upon our understanding of moral law. As you note, the church already works this way in practice; on occasion, illegal immigrants are given temple recommends. Thus, Mark, I would disagree with your ‘convenience’ argument. Both it and CC’s free marketeering seem to place other ways of judging the good above that provided by faith. |
The Church is … arguing against enforcing U.S. immigration law in any way that might seriously inconvenience the violators. The Church is doing nothing of the sort. Enforcement of immigration laws is a federal responsibility and nothing Elder Jensen said can be construed to suggest that the INS should not enforce existing law. Any action the state of Utah might take would not constitute “enforcing U.S. immigration law.” It would just be making life more difficult for people it wishes would go away. That is what the Church is arguing against. |
Matt B., I do not have any problem arguing for a compassionate approach to enforcing the law, as long as one recognizes the practical necessity of enforcing or changing it (lest the whole idea of obeying the law come into disrepute). I have a problem with the perception that the Twelfth Article of Faith is strictly a matter of convenience. The Church could dispel this impression by making a public statement that members who immigrate illegally are acting contrary to the teachings of the Church and that the Church condemns the practice. |
Last Lemming, That is a spurious distinction. United States immigration law was established and is upheld by a democratic process. It is a perfectly rational position to maintain that the public interest is best served when Utah’s laws are consistent with the objectives of federal law on this matter. |
CC re: “sometimes the law of the land is so flawed it should be ignored…”–would you say that over the pulpit and who gets to decide? Matt B–you are right that the presentation was interesting, but it makes me a bit queasy because I can easily forsee situations in which I would not agree with the politics the Church has decided to talk about as a moral issue. I am with them in this instance, but what if they decide to get active in a way I think is wrong? And I don’t think the give temple recommends to illegal aliens “on occassion”–I think it is general practice. |
I wonder if this will change Romney’s rhetoric if he runs in 2012? |
As you note, the church already works this way in practice; on occasion, illegal immigrants are given temple recommends. Since when did providing proof of immigration status become part of the standard temple recommend interview? |
dpc–do you not think being illegally in a country falls somehwat short of “being honest in all your dealings”? |
ESO: do you not think being illegally in a country falls somewhat short of “being honest in all your dealings”? No, I don’t think you can fault an otherwise innocent person from engaging in gainful employment to support themselves and their loved ones. A lot of people who are here illegally don’t think that they are doing anything wrong. Any wrong-doing they are engaging in is not because it is immoral, it is because it has been made illegal by government fiat. |
ESO, There’s a long history of disobeying unjust laws, though. For instance, many church members lied outright to Federal prosecutors who tried to enforce anti-polygamy laws. Current immigration laws are also anti-family and unjust, and they deserve the same amount of respect that we gave the Edmunds Act, the Edmunds-Tucker Act, and their various bastard cousins. |
@ Kaimi (23) Amen. Finally a voice of reason. Not only are immigration restrictions anti-family, but they are also inimical to the economy. |
dpc and Kaimi– Interesting responses. I really am uncomfroatble in the bad cop position as I am very very sympathetic to many illegal aliens in this country. I have personal experience with the mechanics of immigrating here and some requirements are just plain madness. Also, as mentioned, I frequently service illegal aliens (I teach English), even in the face of threatened felony charges. Nevertheless, I have a by the books personality and I know that being here illegally puts you in a very vulnerable position (target for all sorts of crimes, fear of police, fear to seek medical help, etc) and it is downright dangerous. Personally, I favor radical legal changes which would at least make migration here from Mexico and elsewhere legally feasible. But I think I would stop short of ignoring someone’s legal status if such a decision as judgeing a person’s honesty were in my hands. Feed them, clothe them, I don’t care if you employ them, help them get legal, but tell them that what they are doing is a-ok? I’m not so sure…. |
Personally, I favor radical legal changes which would at least make migration here from Mexico and elsewhere legally feasible. I think a good guest-worker program would work best. The US already has one, but the annual numerical limits are so small (around 80,000 per year, I believe) that it is functionally useless. A lot of people (especially from Mexico) just want to work here for a few years and go back home. Given the choice, I’m sure a lot of Mexicans would rather not come at all, if it were not for compelling economic reasons. A good guest worker program would allow employers the ability to bring in temporary workers, while reassuring Americans that their cultural identity would not be compromised. |
What’s this supposed to mean? That Mexican culture shouldn’t be a part of the US? |
What’s this supposed to mean? That Mexican culture shouldn’t be a part of the US? Not at all. A large group of guest workers from Mexico would almost guarantee that Mexican culture would be imported in the United States. Part of the current anti-immigration sentiment is based, in part, on what I call call ‘culteralism’ (as opposed to racism). If 8 million, white, English-speaking Canadians were here illegally, I doubt that many of the nativists would be so opposed to amnesty. A guest worker program would help assuage the fear of nativists that current American culture would be completely ‘hispanicized’. If anything, my own personal preference would be for immigrant workers to reflect a greater diversity of locales other than Mexico. One thing I miss about Canada is the broad array of people from all over the world (not to mention the numerous restaurants full of delicious food that cater to them and us native Canadians!!) |
Reading the SLTrib forums is entertaining. Usually they are full of Mormons ranting about immigrants, or non-Mormons ranting about Mormons. This time there are Mormons that hate (illegal) immigration that are now conflicted because of what a GA has said to the point where they can’t acknowledge that he said he was speaking at the request of the First Presidency. Then there are the antis who can now attack on two fronts. Either attack the Church for interfering in politics or attack the anti-immigration nuts who suddenly don’t want to listen to the Church. Fun stuff! |
What’s wrong with Mexicans? |
I can’t get enough of their delicious food? |
do you not think being illegally in a country falls somehwat short of “being honest in all your dealings”? ESO, fyi, a few years ago, priesthood leaders got a letter from the First Presidency which emphasized that bishops and SPs should not interpret an immigrant’s illegal status as being in violation of that part of the recommend interview. |
I don’t have the time right now to read all the comments, but yesterday, as we were driving home through town, we passed an SUV being driven by a Hispanic lady with I don’t know how many people inside. She looked a little nervous, maybe, intent could be a better word, the wind was very bad. I didn’t get any bad vibe, any illegal vibe, I just instantly had this vision in my mind of what her life might be like here vs. life in Mexico and the slogan on the Statue of Liberty went through my mind, what is it now, I forget exactly (in fact, I was surprised that I even knew it yesterday :)–something about your masses yearning to be free. I didn’t have any deep profound revelation, but I share Elder Jensen’s concern because I’ve met some illegals here who are clearly simply seeking a better life. I’ve seen the bad side, also. If this situation takes the wisdom of someone like Solomon and a genearal authority advises caution, I’m on his side. |
Mark IV–I know and I disagree. |
I’m sure I sound very hard-nosed. I want to be clear that I am PRO immigration. Give them money, education, medical care, food, clothing, shelter, jobs, and dignity. For heaven’s sake, work REALLY hard to change the laws and the messed up state department which currently has a 14 year wait time for potential immigrants from Mexico to have their papers examined. But don’t, as a Church and arbiter of morality, tell them that violating laws (and putting themselves and their families in grave danger) is honest. It simply is not. |
Matt B., On topic- I do think we can expect more from the first presidency. I think the church has matured a lot and finds itself as a voice of arguably sound judgment in cases of lives and souls. Although I expect more, I would say that it will be rare. Immigration is a lives and souls issue. The worth is great, right? |
After reading the comments following the Trib article, I have concluded that it is a good thing the 10th Article of Faith was not revealed until after the American revolution. Or perhaps those good folks would argue (as I have heard done in church with a perfectly straight face) that the colonists managed to win their independence without violating British law. |
#7 California Condor, define open borders. Do most other countries have open borders? I’m asking, I do not know. It’s harder to get into Mexico and Canada now, I know that much. But what is customary? For other countries. Australia, say, they’re pretty laid back bunch, what do they do? #20 & 21, I’m with ESO, because I know how I would answer those questions if I were illegal. I couldn’t lie. If I converted to our church and that way of life, and I were illegal, I would choose between a recommend or being illegal. I would not lie. |
The Church is more concerned with the eternal salvation of man, than it is concerned with immigration law. Were it not so, the Church wouldn’t have created measures designed to help illegal immigrants remain active in the Church. |
Maybe I heard differently during the Worldwide Training last weekend, but it sounded like certain apostles are more concerned with a gospel culture infiltrating the home than the preservation of one’s “native” culture… |
“That policy would be far more convincing if it was accompanied by a statement that the Church advises illegal immigrant members to comply with the law by returning home and applying to immigrate legally. Otherwise the Church gives the appearance of endorsing the violation of laws by its members whenever it is convenient for them to do so.z” I like your thought here. We should look for a letter from the pulpit or something printed on a church website to gauge our actions. The church has always acted on the side of compassion. The church is also not in support of breaking the laws of the land. So there has to be a compassionate set of actions that resolves the bigger picture. No? |
Re: No. 35 and 29 I don’t think the church is telling its illegal immigrant members that violating immigration laws is honest. I tend to think that that immigration laws are malum prohibitum, that is they are wrong because the law says so, as opposed to malum in se, or inherently wrong. The Pew Hispanic Center says that 40-50% of hispanic persons entered the country legally and have overstayed their visas. Kind of like how I go over the speed limit 5-10 mph. Are we to confess our parking tickets, speeding violations, and refused a temple recommend as a consequence? (Because I’d be needing some serious repentance). ARJ: You should the Deseret News Forum. Commenters there are unequivocally saying that obeying the laws of the land trumps compassion and now don’t know what to teach their children! Others are saying Elder Jensen and President Monson are wrong for making the statement and they will write letters to them telling them so. No confusion, but out and out disavowal/dismissal. |
If I may Double Dip… Elder Jensen’s words reminded me of an article Elder Morrison wrote entitled “No More Strangers” and a speech Elder Morrison gave at the BYU law school in 2004-2005 where he said the greatest problem facing the world today is tribalism, the “us vs. them” mentality, and referenced various international conflicts, genocides and immigration issues. I think the Ensign article has some salient points to consider as our lawmakers work to improve the broken immigration system for all persons involved, native and foreign, legal and illegal. |
Boy, it’d be great if Elder Jensen were the next apostle. I know I’ve said I was hoping for a Latino, but I’d set that aside if Elder Jensen were the pick. Half of Utah might apostatize (we can only dream). Of course, the Lord gets to pick, but I think it would be great if Elder Jensen were it… |
But don’t, as a Church and arbiter of morality, tell them that violating laws (and putting themselves and their families in grave danger) is honest. It simply is not. And I guess that’s the one of the key points — the Church isn’t really taking an honest/dishonest stand. You can join the Church in America, get a temple recommend, serve in a bishopric … and not have to even know any English. The Church leadership supports this. They are more interested in the worth of the soul, no matter where he came from. |
Queuno, I think Elder Jensen might just be the next Apostle. Seeing as how the First Presidency sends him out to do this sort of thing, which is completely outside his responsibility as Church Historian. Look at what happened to Elder (now Pres.) Eyring a month after he was sent to speak at the Mountain Meadows memorial in September. I think that they probably decided ahead of time but don’t tell the rest of us til conference. It isn’t much to go on, I know… |
My thoughts exactly, AHLDuke. I still have my heart set on a latino apostle, but Jensen would be just awesome. Given how decimated Church history has been in recent years, though, it would be a loss in that respect. |
I’m very pro-immigration, and it’s good to hear church leaders take a view like this. I think that many Mormons can be reflexively anti-immigration just because it’s the predominant Republican point of view. Personally, I worry for an America with closed borders. I don’t see America continuing to be a great nation unless we continue to lift the lamp beside the golden door through with the world sends from teeming shores its homeless, its tempest-tost, its tired, its poor huddled masses yearning to breathe free. |