Comments on: Conference Report (Immigration)

By: JoshuaM

JoshuaM — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 02:40:18 +0000

I have often found myself wondering why we so many LDS are opposed to “illegal” immigration. Apart from the obvious; our own ancestors immigration to the US, it seems that the very concept of borders and frankly nationalism is not some divine system or something that we should be so quick to support. Is it not our duty to reach out to those less fortunate, free the captives, in essence live the gospel of Christ? It seems that the concerns over immigration are mainly from xenophobic or racist views. Nationalism has been the bane of most of the past century. As LDS we have a church composed of members throughout the world. For most of us we speak of this in pride. For many we have even lived among these people, yet it all too often seems that while we are glad to have a worldwide faith, we want to make sure people stay put. Heaven forbid they might actually want to live next door to me. Our allegiance is not to the US, not to any government.

By: GeorgeD

GeorgeD — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 03:17:52 +0000

Why don’t we argue for completely open borders? No INS (or its successor organization) at all. If you get here you can stay here.

If you cannot accept that then where do you draw the line?

By: DKL

DKL — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 21:30:26 +0000

LOL. That’s outstanding.

By: Amri Brown

Amri Brown — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 20:54:06 +0000

We should have a rally. Make signs Mormons against Miller Lite. I think they’d feel the heat.

By: DKL

DKL — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 20:03:47 +0000

Miller Light ain’t the kind of beer that you need an extra good reason to avoid. I mean, I wouldn’t drink the stuff if it were free (if I drank beer, that is).

But a boycott? Sure. That sounds great. I get to do the same thing I’d do anyway, only now I get to feel righteous!

By: Amri Brown

Amri Brown — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 19:47:09 +0000

It turns Miller Lite Beer has given a great deal of money to James Sensenbrenner (WI-R)the author of the bill to kick undocumented, illegal immigrants back to their countries. I’m going to boycott. Who’s with me?

By: Coltakashi

Coltakashi — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 18:11:32 +0000

I scanned through the comments but did not see anyone referring to the Book of Mormon and its message that the Americas really do belong to the descendants of the more ancient immigrants, like Lehi and Mulek and their parties. While the founding of the US and its Constitution were explicitly divinely influenced events, we can hardly make any claim of divine sanction for other US government actions, such as the imprisonment without trial, and without a crime, of 100,000 Japanese-Americans during World War II. The immigration laws that limit the number of legal alien workers are not based on any divine decree, but are simply based on arbitrary numbers that were agreed to in a congressional committee. There was no scientific analysis addressing the costs versus benefits of immigration, or of the impacts of various levels of immigration of people from various language groups and socioeconomic levels. Violating the immigration laws (meaning entry without a visa) is very much a crime that is malum prohibitum rather than malum in se. America has not been willing to put a lot of money and blood into enforcing the arbitrary limits because everyone knows they are arbitrary. They were not ordained by God, and changing them is not a sin.

The current situation actually works to the advantage of criminals who smuggle people and goods across the border, and to the advantage of employers who exploit the illegal status of workers who cannot openly complain about mistreatment. In broad swaths of the US (such as Marin County, California, where I used to live), richer people delight in the savings that come to them from being able to have illegals do their yardwork and babysit their kids. Changing the system to allow a moderated amount of additional temporary worker immigration will hurt the wallets of all these groups.

Of course, we need to have real border controls, to stop the willy-nilly immigration of criminals from outside the US, as well as potential terrorists. Providing a legal method of entrance for workers who are needed will reduce the burden of the Border Patrol, and allow them to concentrate on real illegal border crossing.

At the same time, those who complain about the cultural impact of poor immigrants should be supportive of outsourcing some lower paying jobs to Mexico and other poor nations. They can live well in their native countries on wages that are survival level in the US.

At the lowest level of the jobs that illegals do on farms, I just cannot picture a lot of inner city teenagers wanting to take those jobs on, even if they paid twice as much. Anyone in the US who has even basic skills can earn more than a farm worker for far less effort. The reason that there is unemployment among American natives is an unwillingness to work that hard for that little pay.

Most illegal workers are not evil per se. We need to remember that they are precisely the people to whom the Book of Mormon promises are made, and that when it talks about the fulfillment of the prophecies of Isaiah that the Gentiles will be their nursing fathers and mothers, we should be looking for ways to fulfill that injunction.

By: Marcus

Marcus — Thu, 06 Apr 2006 01:59:06 +0000

Seth (#43 commenting on #37), I hope I don’t mean sound rude. RU analogy-challenged, or do you mean to suggest there is a better civil parallel for heaven?
Citizenship=highest civil benefits, you can vote, serve on jury, receive a U.S. passport, work in any job, move without restriction, you have certain U.S. consulate protections in foreign countries, etc.

Categories of non-citizens with increasingly lower levels of civil benefits: permanent resident (has permission to work any job), temporary resident (permission to work in any job or a specific job, depending on your visa), student visa holder (permission to work on campus only) tourist or other visa holder without permission to work, illegal immigrant with no permission to work, etc.

By: Stirling

Stirling — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 23:27:46 +0000

Keeping in mind the categorizations from #42, todayâ€™s Washington Post has an article, â€œLetter on Immigration Deepens Split Among Evangelicals,â€ on how faith communities are responding to the immigration issue. this article states that, â€œMore than 50 evangelical Christian leaders and organizations voiced their support yesterday for an immigration bill that would allow illegal immigrants to become U.S. citizens without returning to their native countriesâ€¦.But most of the nation's large, politically influential evangelical organizations either back rival legislation that focuses on border enforcement and the deportation of illegal immigrants, or have been silent on the issue. Hispanic evangelical leaders said yesterday that they have received support from Roman Catholic, Jewish and Muslim groups, but have been bitterly disappointed by the response of most of their fellow evangelicals, both white and black. â€¦Polls show that about two-thirds of white evangelicals consider new immigrants a burden on society, compared with about half of all Americans who hold that view."

By: Seth R.

Seth R. — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 23:22:11 +0000

Stirling,

American citizenship = entrance into Celestial Kingdom

Uh huh. Right …