66 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback |
| Wednesday, June 19, 2013 |
|
- A Bird's Eye View
- A Motley Vision
- Adventures in Mormonism
- Blognitive Dissonance
- Book of Mormon Blog
- By Common Consent
- Ethesis
- Face of the Other
- Faith Promoting Rumor
- Feminist Mormon Housewives
- Flooding the Earth With the Book of Mormon
- Golden Road to Samarqand
- Head Life
- Just Sayin'
- Juvenile Instructor
- Messanger & Advocate
- Millennial Star
- Mormon Matters
- Mormon Mommy Wars
- New Cool Thang
- Nine Moons
- Old Testament Blog
- Our Mother's Keeper
- Proud Daughter of Eve
- Segullah
- Sunstone Blog
- Times & Seasons
- Wheat and Tares
- Zelophehad's Daughters
As to your point about conservative viewpoints — I think that there is a feeling amongst certain members that if the Church is trending “liberal” on a topic, that it must be called to repentance. Whereas, if *members* are trending “liberal” on a topic, that’s just them being them. |
(The idea being that conservative members are more prone to speak up if they feel the Church is moving away from them. Liberal members usually feel that the Church is immovable in its stances.) |
I think in a ward is reflective of the bigger society. If we can’t manage civil discourse in our government, it will be tough to do it within a ward. |
If you have charity will you feel slighted when a charitable solution is implemented? |
It simply depends on how your congregation leans. If you are in a politically conservative congregation, there are more people who are willing to say something more conservative than the church’s stance. However, if you are a bunch of politically liberal church members, then liberals feel more open to state their opinions and expect a sympathetic audience. |
Paul had a few crackpot ideas of his own in that epistle that I glossed over when I taught it in Gospel Doctrine a few weeks ago. But I agree with your approach: when Paul is on, he’s spot on. I had a similar experience visiting my in-laws ward in eastern Utah over the summer. The elders quorum president presented a very radical interpretation of Article of Faith No. 12 that I’d never heard before, or even considered, but made it dovetail nicely with some Tea Party constitutionalist dogma. Also, they announced an upcoming Elders Quorum fireside, hosted by a stake member who was an “expert” in the Constitution, who did a reenactment as a Patriot at the Utah Tea Party demonstration (complete with tri-cornered hat) and had a dedicated room in his house called the “constitution room.” The whole thing made me feel really uncomfortable, as a Mormon, as a lawyer and as a Republican. |
I was in a similar situation during Prop 8, but remained silent other than saying I wouldn’t be able to volunteer to make phone calls. No good can come from bringing up politics in church, there have been times that our attendance has dropped because my wife and I just weren’t interested in sitting through a meeting that started with fifteen minutes of Obama bashing or homosexual bashing. It does make me a little happy when the anti-immigration folks say things that at any other time they’d be calling people apostate for. I love it that people who said I should lose my temple recommend for going against the prophet are now basically doing exactly what I did, but in a more vocal way. |
The sentiment of this post is gold, arJ. |
Yes, it is, J. My ward is mostly adamantly conservative–hard to speak up without getting your face ripped off (women STILL are not asked to give the opening prayer in our meetings). But I’m reading Cheiko Okazaki’s last book and she said she feels it’s our duty to speak up. She said she’s made people mad, but feels it’s what the Lord expects of us. |
Shoulda never recommended that book to me. Probably created a monster. |
What surprises me the most is that the instructor stated, “I agree with you,” and that no one else (apparently) raised their voice to support the church. To have disagreement in church about a topic is one thing. To have the only opinion voiced at church be an opinion that goes directly against the church’s stance is something else entirely. |
Tim, but the instructor was ambiguous about exactly what part of what the commenter said that he was agreeing with. Here could have been agreeing only with the statement that “The Church has made a statement on it and a lot of us don’t like it.” By agreeing with that statement, here’s merely agreeing that: a) the church _has_ made a statement He is NOT agreeing with the church’s statement itself, he is only acknowledging that the church _made_ a statement; and he’s NOT agreeing with the members who don’t like it, he’s merely acknowledging that there are some who don’t like it. Sounds like he was being very diplomatic. (PS to annegb: either you or your internet provider has me on their blacklist, and is bouncing my email.) |
I’ll clarify that my impression of the instructor’s, “I agree with you,” was simply an acknowledgement that there is disagreement over the issue and a signal that we were going to move on in the lesson. Whether he intended to endorse everything that had just been said was ambiguous, but he didn’t seem to want to dive into the topic so I assume that whatever his feelings he didn’t feel as strongly. |
I think we should be able to talk about things like this at church. It rately happens, in my experience, because people are afraid of alienating others or being alienated if the majority doesn’t agree with them. Some people have an extreme prejudice against any political issue being brought up in church, but I think that’s short-sighted. We need to be able to discuss these things, and while church meetings may not be the ideal time, we shouldn’t be afraid of bringing up important issues there. I like the application of 1 Corinthians to this problem. I think arJ is right that if we had charity, then discussing these issues would not be a problem, but isn’t that a little like saying “when we are perfect, we won’t have all these problems with sin”? Obviously true, but not really helpful in the here and now. arJ is also correct that in most wards (at least that I have been a part of) conservative members feel more comfortable bringing up political points than liberal members do. Liberal members are usually quite conscious of the fact that they are likely to be deeply in the minority, and so they are more careful about voicing political opinions. I am probably more liberal than about 90% of the members of my ward, which is funny because in any other random group in any other location I would probably be thought very conservative. I am careful not to get too opinionated in meetings because I think my opinions would probably make some people uncomfortable or even hostile, and like arJ is saying, we shouldn’t have contention in our meetings. On the other hand, if voicing my opinions would really cause contention, then yes, there is a problem in our wards. |
I think the issue of immigration is a good example, because it is an issue where (oddly, in my opinion) conservatives seem to have left the track of rationality and gone chugging off into the weeds of insanity. My understanding of the Church’s position is that it has simply said that illegal immigrants are people too, and many of them are church members and, as sons and daughters of God, they deserve our compassion, and that this idea should inform any discussion of immigration law and policy. The Church has emphatically avoided endorsing any specific policy or proposed law. With that in mind, how is it possible for even the most conservative members to be upset by this statement? Are they really arguing against compassion and restraint? I find that bizarre. |
MCQ, The church is actually more specific than that. They’ve stated that illegal immigrants should be able to stay and work in the U.S. They have published a number of statements at the Church Newsroom–very interesting reading. I guess what disappoints me the most about the example is that not a single person spoke up and defended the church’s position. I wouldn’t expect a visitor to speak up–believe me, I’ve been a visitor before and realize that disagreeing with the way a conversation is going is better left to ward members. But someone in that meeting should have spoken up and stated, “Wait a minute…” instead of the vague “I agree.” |
You can get in big trouble speaking up in church. I seldom go to Relief Society or Sunday School because every time I do, I get so irritated by that “be perfect so you can go to heaven” dialogue I can’t keep my mouth shut and it brings the spirit of contention into the room. So, even though I remind everybody about Jesus (Hello!), I’m mad when I do it and it defeats the purpose. |
As someone who’s politically further left than most Church members, I usually don’t care to get into political issues during class or quorum discussions, because that’s not the purpose of the Church nor of the curriculum. But there have been times I’ve said something like this: “I think it’s important to point out that this is something the Church has not taken a position on, and that in fact there are faithful members who do advocate such-and-such.” That’s usually enough to end the suggestions that only a certain view can be held by legitimate members. I’d also point out to MCQ (as Tim also suggested) that the Church actually has been mildly specific in its statements on immigration. It has, in effect, endorsed what some Republicans would label as amnesty. |
The first statement said this: “•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. Our focus during the legislative session was to encourage laws that incorporated these principles. The Church did not dictate what kinds of bills should be proposed. Like many others on Capitol Hill, Church officials voiced their views and trusted the state’s elected officials to do their job. We consider the comprehensive package passed by lawmakers to be a responsible approach to a very complicated issue. Bishop Burton was invited, along with other community leaders, to witness the signing of a series of immigration bills by Utah Governor Gary Herbert and to show support for the diligent efforts of lawmakers in this area. We expect that our country will continue to struggle with this complicated issue, which the federal government will have to address. Our hope is that good people everywhere will strive for principle-based solutions that balance the rule of law with the need for compassion.” Then the Church responded to inquiries with this: “The Church has spoken a number of times about the issue of immigration. Specifically, it has spoken in support of the Utah Compact and has described the package of bills passed by the Utah Legislature, taken together, as “a responsible approach” to the difficult question of immigration reform. The Church’s position is based on three basic principles: Then the Church issued a new statement: “Around the world, debate on the immigration question has become intense. That is especially so in the United States. Most Americans agree that the federal government of the United States should secure its borders and sharply reduce or eliminate the flow of undocumented immigrants. Unchecked and unregulated, such a flow may destabilize society and ultimately become unsustainable. As a matter of policy, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints discourages its members from entering any country without legal documentation, and from deliberately overstaying legal travel visas. What to do with the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants now residing in various states within the United States is the biggest challenge in the immigration debate. The bedrock moral issue for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is how we treat each other as children of God. The history of mass expulsion or mistreatment of individuals or families is cause for concern especially where race, culture, or religion are involved. This should give pause to any policy that contemplates targeting any one group, particularly if that group comes mostly from one heritage. As those on all sides of the immigration debate in the United States have noted, this issue is one that must ultimately be resolved by the federal government. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is concerned that any state legislation that only contains enforcement provisions is likely to fall short of the high moral standard of treating each other as children of God. The Church supports an approach where undocumented immigrants are allowed to square themselves with the law and continue to work without this necessarily leading to citizenship. In furtherance of needed immigration reform in the United States, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints supports a balanced and civil approach to a challenging problem, fully consistent with its tradition of compassion, its reverence for family, and its commitment to law.” The second to last paragraph of that last statement is what you are talking about, I think, Tim. I see it as relatively uncontroversial, given the fact that many of those people have been in the country a long time and have children born here or are now otherwise functioning members of our society. The idea of expelling all of those people without regard for these facts is advocated by almost no one in any position of responsibility, but somehow it remains the solution favored by the right-wing crackpots. It flies in the face of the Church’s doctrine, basic Christian philosophy, reasonable public policy and basic common sense. But apparently those are not barriers that many conservatives are willing to recognize. |
“It has, in effect, endorsed what some Republicans would label as amnesty.” That depends on what you mean by “in effect” Eric. The Church has not endorsed any particular solution (other than generally favoring the Utah Compact) but has articulated principle with which it agrees. To some extent, those principles are in conflict (specifically, “respect for law” conflicts with allowing illegal immigrants to “continue to work”). If you think amnesty means any regime under which any illegal workers get to continue to stay in the country, then yes, the Church has endorsed some measure of amnesty. But the Church has not said that it favors amnesty for all illegal immigrants or anything like that, so it would be a mistake to say that the Church has come out in favor of amnesty generally. It simply has not said that. |
I agree with Eric–I have heard many Republicans state that anything that allows illegal immigrants to stay and work here is amnesty. I think that’s a stupid and extreme position, and that’s not how I’d define amnesty, but it is how many on the right have defined it. So it should come as no surprise that many on the right oppose the church’s stance. It’s been interesting to see political and xenophobic extremists in the church approach this issue. They’re all over the place–the church is wrong, or it didn’t actually come from a General Conference talk or the prophet’s mouth so it doesn’t matter, or the Church Newsroom has gone apostate, or the church isn’t really saying illegal immigrants should be able to stay and work…A lot of the far-right members are in flat-out denial, and others are heading towards apostasy. I see three honest approaches for someone who disagrees with the church’s stance on immigration. First, admit that you disagree with the church much like many members disagreed with the whole Prop. 8 thing, and stay loyal to the church despite your disagreement–but realize and acknowledge that you are at odds with the church on the point (so it might not be a great idea to argue about it in a formal meeting such as Sunday School). Second, decide to change your approach on immigration because of the church’s stance. Or third, leave the church. I really don’t see any other honest option. I am still thrilled that the church took as specific of a stance as it did on the issue. I kept on hoping for more statements, and they kept on coming. I think the church kept on making statements because members (and specifically, conservative members) just weren’t getting it. Some of them still aren’t, but hoping for yet another statement would just be greedy. |
“A lot of the far-right members are in flat-out denial, and others are heading towards apostasy.” Exactly right. And your three options are right on too. The problem is that most of these right wing members are not well-traveled and are pretty insular. They have been spoiled by years of Church actions or inactions which have led to conservatives believing that the Church will always automatically be on the conservative side of every issue. But the Church can’t be conservative on this issue. This is a global Church, not just an American Church anymore. Many members are either from the areas where a great many illegals come from, or they are related to illegals, or they employ illegals or they are are illegal themselves. Many missionaries have found themselves, through intentional actions or negligent inaction or benign neglect, on the wrong side of immigration laws in this country and others. There is no way, given these circumstances, that the Church can take a hard-line conservative approach to this issue. Conservatives don’t bother to try to understand this issue from the Church’s POV, they just see it as a law and order problem. They are becoming increasingly out of step with the international nature of the Church, and it’s only going to get worse. |
When I disagree with some aspect of church teachings or policy, as I’m sure everyone occasionally does, I like to remind myself that if the prophets only teach me things I already agree with, then what do I need them for? It’s not that they can never be “wrong” about anything, but it’s humbling and it’s a blessing to have to say, “maybe there is another way to look at it, maybe there is something I’m missing.” I don’t see that attitude much coming from the anti-immigration people or the pro gay marriage people. We all want God (and the prophets, and the Church) to be in our image. |
The reason that I support the Church’s position on immigration is the “family values” part of the equation plus the realpolitic implications for future church growth. Its simply wrong to seperate parents from children. Sure you can argue that Dad or Mom violated some type of law to get here. But the 12 year old and the 9 year old kids did nothing and stand to lose a lot. I am very conservative and have actually had my opinion changed by the newsroom article. |
bbell, I’m impressed that you have changed your opinion, and that you’d announce it. Good on you! |
Ditto. Glad you have an open mind, bbell. It gives me hope for America. |
bbell–I have long thought that we would all benefit from more togetherness in an immigrant population. Not only the children being with parents, but also simply allowing men to live with their families–I just think people tend to make better long-term decisions with daily interaction with a family than as a young, single male with nothing to lose in a hostile country. Thanks for being open to that perspective–I think it would appeal to many conservatives if they could drop their grudge long enough to think about it. |
Plus, the BoM states (well, depending on how you interpret it) that the Lamanites are going to kick the gentiles’ (or non-Lamaites’, us basically) butts here in “this land”. |
I don’t have a problem with the church’s position but I’m over the Mexicans who’ve ruined an entire heographical part of our community and plant fields of marijuana and truck through here with tons of drugs. I have Hispanic friends and I’m cordial to the Mexican families I run into in Wal-Mart (giving them the benefit of the doubt, maybe they’re here to grow the church), but I keep my emotional distance from this group. Because hell, they trash neighborhoods. And bring crime. As a group. Individuals can be wonderful, but what’s up with Mexicans not being able to have a clean street? Channeling my inner Archie Bunker here. Knock yourselves out calling me a racist. I think I’m honest. |
This isn’t about denial, but I choose to “ignore the Church” with this one. Despite what Tim has said, this is the main approach that anti-amnesty conservatives have taken. You just don’t hear from them for obvious reasons. I will not state the LDS Church is wrong, speak up in church about the issue, or otherwise make it a religious conversation. This is for me and many a political discussion. Besides, we are not longer under any obligation to gather together in a particular physical location for Zion, but to remain where we are and build it up so the whole world can be leavened. Therefore, me and others will do whatever is possible using the legal and democratic system to secure the borders and send back any and all illegal immigrants and their families to where they belong. The best way to keep families from splitting up is to take them with you (with the realization that some might not be considered citizens of the other country. If that is the case, then hopefully others will learn from them and be more careful and law abiding when forming relationships). If they want to remain citizens then they need to do what is legally necessary to come back into the United States. If they feel that returning will be physically dangerous, then there are legal alternatives for that as well. The point is, we as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints need to be more responsible for our actions both morally and legally. This issue might be the least worry in the Kingdom of Heaven, but what did Jesus say about our taking care of the least matters in our lives? That it will show we can take care of the greatest things. |
Jettboy, You’ll forcibly deport citizens of the US because they have family members that aren’t citizens? |
Legally, you can’t deport the kids. That’s part of the problem we face is that those kids are US citizens, so they can’t be deported and if the parents get deported, the kids are orphans. No one wants that. |
As usual, Jettboy’s head is planted firmly where the sun don’t shine. |
At least Jettboy is clear that he is “ignor(ing) the Church” on this one. In other words, he knows what the church’s stance is, admits he disagrees with it, and is staying loyal to the church even if he disagrees with it and is working against it–quite similar to members who publicly opposed the church’s involvement with Proposition 8. That’s a lot better than those idiots out there who refuse to even acknowledge the church’s stance on immigration. |
MCQ, It seems that jetty wants exactly that. He’s going to answer illegal immigration with illegal deportation. In his mind two wrongs make a right. |
Becoming a citizen merely by being born in the country to ILLEGAL immigrants is a construct of the 1970′s, due to a court decision. That was not how it was interpretted prior. Prior to that, it was intended as meaning slaves were citizens. No one ever thought to apply it to children born to parents who are here illegally. The key phrase is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. The anti-illegals say that means that since illegals have not made themselves “subject” to the jurisdiction of the US, then their babies are not citizens. The pro-illegals say that’s not what it means, and agree with the judge(s) back in 1972 or so, who said it now applied to the babies of illegals. A test would be to examine how it would work if an American couple illegally crossed the border into Mexico, and had their baby there. Would Mexico consider the baby to be a citizen of Mexico? Would Mexico then allow the parents to stay in Mexico merely because their baby was born there? Would that be how it would work in Canada too? Of course it would not work that way in Canada and Mexico. Therefore the whole idea of an “anchor baby” is absurd. We need to go back to the pre-1972 interpretation. |
I’m with jettboy, Tim and Book. |
annegb, I’m not entirely sure you’re with me. I fully support the church’s stance, including granting illegal immigrants what many on the right consider “amnesty.” I also think immigrants, both historically and today, enrich our country, and those I have met (mostly fellow church members or neighbors) I welcome with open arms. I want to raise my children in a diverse neighborhood and a diverse ward, and I want immigrants (including, quite possibly, illegal immigrants) to be part of that diversity. In my last ward I helped immigrants (illegal and probably legal) find housing and dispute landlord/tenant disputes. I welcomed illegal immigrants as they joined the church and my ward. I think immigrants are discriminated against enough as it is, and I don’t want to see people born and raised in the U.S. deported just because their parents weren’t here legally. The church, of course, doesn’t want to see illegal immigrants deported period (again, “amnesty”). I support the Dream Act, and believe people who have known no home other than the U.S. should not be deported to some foreign country they’ve never known. I was living in Cincinnati when one of Cincinnati’s missionaries got deported as he was leaving for home after serving an honorable full-time mission–I feel deporting people like him, who lived their childhood in the U.S. and was an honorable contributing member of society, is just plain silly. I struggle to understand the mentality of Mormons who want this missionary deported. If you’re still with me, great. If not, I’m sure Bookslinger and Jettboy are great people; I have a lot of LDS friends, people I respect, who share their political views. But when discussing immigration I’d prefer not to be grouped with them. |
Bookslinger, sorry, you are wrong. There was never any official interpretation of the constitution that said that children born in this country to illegal aliens were not citizens. They have always been treated as citizens because of the 14th Amendment. Canada and Mexico do not have the 14th Amendment, nor do they have many other US laws, so comparing that situation to a person born in the US is ludicrous. Here’s the law: US Constitution: AMENDMENT XIV Section 1. In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth, by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment, if that person is: In reaching this conclusion, the court stated: “By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.” Quoting Lord Chief Justice Cockburn. Also, the Court said: ‘Natural-born British subject’ means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.’ ‘Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject. This rule contains the leading principle of English law on the subject of British nationality.” The exceptions afterwards mentioned by Mr. Dicey are only these two: “1. Any person who (his father being an alien enemy) is born in a part of the British dominions, which at the time of such person’s birth is in hostile occupation, is an alien.” “2. Any person whose father (being an alien) is at the time of such person’s birth an ambassador or other diplomatic agent accredited to the Crown by the Sovereign of a foreign State is (though born within the British dominions) an alien.” These quotes show that the idea that a child born to foreign nationals who were visiting or residing in the country was a citizen of England, not just of the US, and that this idea was continued in the language of the 14th Amendment. Those who enshrine “original intent” as a means of interpreting the Constitution should take note! Additionally, Title 8 of the U.S. Code Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth: •Anyone born inside the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction of it’s laws The idea that “subject to the jurisdiction” means that children born to illegal aliens are not citizens is not a reasonable or honest interpretation of that phrase. As the above court opinion shows, that language was always meant to exclude only foreign diplomats or other agents of foreign governments who are immune from US laws. If illegal aliens were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US laws, then they could not be arrested and charged with crimes or serve jail time. Obviously, since they can be arrested, charged with crimes and jailed, then they are in fact “subject to the jurisdiction” of the laws of the US. Again, it is inconsistent and ironic in the extreme that any conservative would attempt to argue that illegal aliens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US. They clearly are, and if you want them arrested, you better not argue otherwise. |
“At least Jettboy is clear that he is “ignor(ing) the Church” on this one. In other words, he knows what the church’s stance is, admits he disagrees with it, and is staying loyal to the church even if he disagrees with it and is working against it–quite similar to members who publicly opposed the church’s involvement with Proposition 8. That’s a lot better than those idiots out there who refuse to even acknowledge the church’s stance on immigration.” This is where I’m with you, Tim. I haven’t thought a lot about the church’s position. I’m a Libra and I have a lot of ambivalence on a lot of things. I’m not ambivalent on illegal immigration–I think anyone coming to America should come legally. However, I guess I stop short of Jettboy’s open opposition. If push came to shove, I’d go along with the church’s position, but not like it. But—think about it: a man and woman sneak into Mexico, have children. The guy breaks the law; Mexico is going to kick the whole family out! My disgruntled attitude comes from the degradation to a formerly nice neighborhood, the drug influx in my community, and the crimes that seem to be committed disporportionately. In that way, it’s all personal. I’m remembering the other side of the arguments we’ve had here, though. But, what do Mexicans have against obeying the law of our country; that makes them feel like they should be the exception? |
Anyone would revoke someone’s constitutionally granted citizenship or advocates forcibly deporting US citizens is so far removed from what is legal that my head spins. Advocating illegal solutions to the immigration problem means you are advocating law breaking and criminality, exactly what you accuse the immigrants and their supporters of. Additionally, I fail to see how such a solution embodies any principle of charity, which was the whole point of this post. I’ll just point out that when Brigham Young & Co. showed up in the Salt Lake Valley it was Mexico. I doubt that we were legal immigrants. |
No, and that wasn’t the last time that members of the Church have been illegal immigrants either. It has happened very, very frequently in our history and is happening currently. I had a companion from New Zealand who could not get a visa renewal during his mission. He became an illegal alien the day his first visa expired, about halfway through his mission. He asked the mission president what to do, and the president told him to just keep working and not to worry about it. That was standard practice then and probably still is. This is why members of the church who advocate wholesale deportation of illegal immigrants are not only unrealistic, they’re hypocrites. |
Mexicans, as a people, don’t have anything against obeying the law of our country, and they don’t believe they should be the exception. If you talk to any one of them about this issue, for the most part, they will tell you that they’re just trying to live the best they can and care for their families the best they know how. Most of them are here only because there was terrible poverty, hopeless job prospects and violence in their home country, and they came because it was the only opportunity they could see for having a job and paying bills and having any kind of life. The fact that many illegals are successful at making a life for themselves in America just encourages more to try it. They don’t want to be illegal. They would come legally if there was any hope of doing so, but there is not. The legal immigration process is a gigantic mess. Years of delay, disorganization, arbitrary decision-making, unfairness, corruption, all of these things are rampant in the legal immigration process. Unless you are wealthy, sponsored by someone in the US (who is wealthy), or coming from a recognized (there’s an arbitrary term) war-torn region, you can forget it. One of the ways we could reduce ilegal immigration dramatically is to fix legal immigration. If there was any kind of reasonable chance for people to come here legally, most of the illegals would jump at it. But that’s not going to happen, because most conservatives don’t want legal immigration to be available. They don’t want to fix the problem, they just want to keep people out. The Statue of Liberty should be torn down and sent back to France. We don’t believe what it says anymore. |
I don’t really buy the idea that the early saints were illegal immigrants in Utah. You can’t take modern descriptions of immigration and use them to describe historical events. The Mexican government had no control over the territory. It was Mexico on paper only. The thought that somehow we should be supporting as LDS folks wholesale deportations of families with mixed citizenship status is repugnant to me. Jesus would not forcibly breakup families or send 19 year olds whose parents brought them here as toddlers into a foreign land. You want to see Spanish wards in the US and 60 years of work in Latin America go “poof”. Go ahead and be the only church in the world that is not treating folks right. Also PH leaders literally go the mat trying to defend, protect, and aid LDS folks caught up in the results of immigration enforcement. That is what they are supposed to do as PH leaders. Its really easy to be super personally “send them all home” types unless you have folks in your ward or stake that you know who have immigration issues and get caught up in enforcement actions |
Amen, bbell. Kinda like how it’s really easy to be “ban gay marriage” types unless you have folks in your ward or stake that love each other and have children together but are not allowed to be married. One minor point: Saying it was “Mexico on paper only” doesn’t change the fact that the immigration of Americans into the region that is now Utah was unauthorized and illegal. Law and order types can’t have it both ways. They can’t condemn the illgal immigrants today for walking out of Mexico and into the US to escape drug violence and not condemn the illegal immigrants of 1847 for walking out of the US and into Mexico to escape mob violence. |
Mcq, what Mexican would say “no, I don’t intend to obey your law, I’m already breaking the law by being here and I have a ton of cocaine in my car right now, plus I’ll be bringing in my cousins illegally next month?” Of course they all say that they’re law-abiding! And I bet most of them mean it. But those who don’t, they’re doing some damage here. And I resent it. But, you know, bottom line, God is in His heaven; He is in control and ultimately it’s going to work out. I’m not panicking, I’m resenting….and trying to repent of it. |
If it was Mexico on paper only why did we go to war to take it? The same could be said for large swaths of Mexico today which the government doesn’t control. Anybody want to go set up shop there illegally? You can justify anything you want, but I don’t see a huge difference between the situations. The pioneers crossed an undefended border and took land they didn’t own. Modern illegals generally aren’t squatters, so they’re one up on the pioneers in that regard. I will make an exception for the people setting up pot grows on federal land. They’re clearly worse than the pioneers. |
I think we can safely exclude druglords and dealers from the set of illegal aliens that we are willing to be compassionate about. But most Mexicans do not have a ton of cocaine in their car or a pot growing operation. Those that do should be arrested and prosecuted. We’re not talking about them. |
And while we’re at it, let’s stop pretending that Mexican nationals are the only ones involved in the drug trade. There are plenty of Americans involved in it at every level, as well as people of every other nationality. |
I’m talkiing about them. I think the police found three–count ‘em—three marijuana fields around Cedar City in the last couple of months. Kind of off the subject, but I read somewhere (I know, it’s lame brain, mcq, but I really did) that a lot of middle east terrorists are setting up shop in south and central America. So there’s that, also. Today, I went to renew my driver license. I took my birth certificate, my social security card and my passport. Back to the people you’re talking about, mcq, why, even if they’re sweet little families looking for a better life, should they be excused from the law? Just because? I couldn’t take my sweet little family over the border and live there. Why is it too much to ask for these people to simply obey our laws? Why do they think they should be the exception? When my great-great grandma came to the US, she did so legally. I can see political asylum but not this. I really can’t. I think it would be really funny if a bunch of American families went over the border and just started building homes in Mexico and living there. |
MCQ, I was simply saying that there are some parallels between people coming to the US to set up illegal farms and the Mormon pioneers. Not claiming that there is an equivalence or anything close to that. My point is that most immigrants are not squatting illegally, which is something you could argue that the pioneers did do. annegb, You are certainly welcome to try to live in Mexico. I don’t think that anybody is claiming that there is reciprocity in the laws between the two countries. Mexico actually has a problem with illegals from Guatemala. |
annegb, are you saying that all the pot fields around Cedar City are being operated by illegal aliens from Mexico? Cuz I doubt it. There are pot fields found all the time around the Tooele area and other places in N.Utah too, but most of them are being operated by Americans.
I didn’t say they should be excused from the law. But the law does not specify penalties, those are generally decided by a court. It’s the penalties we are talking about here. When you find an illegal alien in the US, by all means arrest him or her. But then, in deciding what penalty to apply, consider that if this person has been in the country for years, is working productively at a job, and/or has children born in this country (and because of that, those children are now (yes, they are) US citizens) then please think twice about taking that person away from his or her children by depoirting him or her and making the children wards of the state. The law does not allow you to deport the kids, so what are you going to do? I say make him or her pay a fine, get him on track to get a green card, make him pay taxes on his income and generally make him behave as a resonsible person. That doesn’t mean you have to make him a citizen. He can become a resident alien and still be required to pay taxes. That is much better than throwing him or her out of the country just because of the immigration violation. BTW, this idea that THEY ARE BREAKING THE LAW, THROW THE BUMS OUT OF THE COUNTRY!!! is really ridiculous. We all break the law all the time. We break the speed limit and fail to register our businesses properly and fail to pay use tax and pay our nannies and yard workers under the table and fail to withhold the proper amount on our quarterly estimated taxes. Next time you get caught violating the law, are you going to stand up and scream that you are a lawbreaker and therefore deserve the maximum penalty allowed? Somehow, I doubt it. My ancestors came to this country legally too. At that time, that meant they got on a boat in Newry, Ireland and showed up here pretty much penniless. I suspect your grandma was pretty similar. The law is different now. You can’t get here legally like that anymore. The legal routes for immigration are few and the waiting time is long. If you took your family and tried to live in Mexico, you would probably have very few problems with immigration laws. Mexico is only too glad to have you and your money in their country. |
I’m just glad arj posted. |
Plus you guys are probably right and I’m over-reacting and exaggerating. |
[...] booted out). Dominionists, apparently, have their own mysterious and disturbing in-group language. Politics plays a big role, even for liberal denominations, and are secularists getting into the [...] |
MCQ (#39), A reasonable case may be made that Wong Kim Ark was wrongly decided. And even if it wasn’t wrongly decided, the facts of Wong Kim Ark’s case and that of a child born to parents who are here illegally are different, and that may affect the outcome. For example, no one would suggest that children born to personnel of an invading army would be natural born citizens of the invaded country, even though theoretically an invading army is subject to the law of the invaded country while within its bounds. Rather “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was consistently used to refer to that country which the parents owed allegiance to. For example, the Court stated in Elk v. Wilkins (1884):
I have no idea how the Court would rule if presented with the question again, but it seems far from an open and shut case to me. And whether it would be good public policy to deny automatic citizenship to children of those owing allegiance to a foreign power, here legally or otherwise, is of course an independent question. |
Mark D., Indian reservations are another issue entirely. The court in Elk v. Wilkins calls them “alien nations.” The case involved a Native American who was born on a reservation and later moved to Omaha and wished to vote in Omaha. So Elk v. Wilkins is pretty narrow in scope, and concerns only those born in “alien nations,” or, in other words, reservations, who later move to somewhere within the U.S. that is not a reservation–these people were considered immigrants of a sort, and were not allowed to vote outside the reservation. The case has nothing to do with the children of illegal immigrants born in the U.S. |
Mark D:
Stating the obvious here aren’t you?
Actually that’s exactly wrong. The example of a soldier in an invading army is one of the classic examples (one of two, the other being a foreign diplomat) of a person who is explicitly NOT considered subject to the law of the country he is located in (while engaged in the invasion). He is, in fact, wearing his allegiance to a foreign power on his sleeve in a very literal sense, and is therefore, even more than a foreign diplomat, making his allegiance to a foreign power explicit and not subject to dispute. This is pointed out in Wong Kim Ark in the material I quoted. |
Again, wrong. The country the parents owe allegiance to only matters when the parents are “ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.” The material you quoted from Elk v. Wilkins demonstrates this, and is not actually arguing in favor of the point you are making. The court is saying that members of indian tribes are similar to “ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations” because they are in a situation where they are “owing immediate allegiance” to an alien power. I assume this case is talking about native americans born on tribal lands (which happen to be located within the territory of the US), because otherwise I think the analogy to foreign diplomats breaks down. It’s not a strong case anyway, because unless the parents of the native american child are leaders or other officials of the tribe, the child is much more analogous to a child of any foreigner, rather than the child of a diplomat or other foreign agent. |
If illegal immigrants can be arrested and held by the feds, doesn’t that in itself make them “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States? |
Left Field, that’s part of what I said in #39. And to add to the debate over Wong Kim Ark, it’s important to note that the case was decided over 110 years ago. Any precedent that old that has not been overruled by now ought to be well-settled law. At this time of day, arguing that it was wrongly decided is not something anyone should take seriously. |
MCQ, Allow me to quote from the dissent in Wong Kim Ark:
In support of this position, Justice Fuller cites the Court’s ruling in the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873), referring to the text of the Fourteenth Amendment:
So don’t tell me that is some sort of open and shut case when a learned Justice of the Supreme Court can go on for pages and pages explaining why the majority decision of the Court was wrong in this case, and cite multiple authorities in support, including prior rulings of the Court itself. Justice Miller only has to go back a few years to find ample support for his position. Justice Gray, writing for the majority, however, is soon appealing to the rulings of English courts made in 1608, rulings in a common law tradition that was rejected by the United States on this point, indeed the very dispute that caused the American Revolution in the first place, namely that of whether a person owed allegiance to a sovereign nation solely in fact of being born within its territory. The Declaration of Independence rejected that position in its very first sentence:
And yet here the majority is using the aspect of British common law that the founders of the nation rejected by shedding of blood as justification for abrogating the will of the Congress. That seems like pretty dubious reasoning to me. |
Mark D., I’ve got some windmills over here if you need a bit more practice. |
Mark D, you’ve got to be kidding me. That’t the worst argument I’ve ever heard. Once again, the authorities you cite in support of your point don’s support what you are saying. The Declaration of Independence, for example, severed political ties between England and the American colonies. It absolutely did not, however, reject the authority of British legal precedent. American courts continued to cite that precedent for many years, not because it was binding upon American courts but because it shows how we got our laws. in this case, where the question is one of interpreting the intent of the language of the constitution, it helps to know the history of how that language came about. The citizenship practices and policies of England unquestionably inform our understanding of the intent of early American legal documents and it always has. This is the point that the Court was making in it’s majority opinion. You can quote the dissenting opinion all you want, but that argument was a loser over 110 years ago and it’s still a loser today. |
mcq, I’m going to call you when I need a lawyer. Really. |
[...] Article FROM http://www.mormonmentality.org/2011/09/12/the-elephants-in-this-room.htm Sponsor- Bible Island at BibleIslands.com is your home for Kids Bible Stories told through the [...] |
