That's a really good idea--keeping families together. Love the concept. So if
we are going to deport the father of the family, who is working on a stolen
Identity and destroying someones life, we should deport them all-that way we
maintain the family integrity and cut down our taxes to support them.
The Prophet who supports the Utah Compact but many LDS in Utah are choosing not
top listen to him. It is not a la carte system of what you chose to sustain the
There are three men in Salt Lake City - all Prophets of God - who could put an
end to the debate with a brief statement read from the pulpits on a Sunday
Morning.Where does the church stand? They are the only ones who are
authorized to say for sure.
D&C 134 "It is NOT JUST for religions to mingle religious
influence with civil government..."HB116 violates Federal and
State laws, contradicts the official Republican Party platform, and violates the
civil rights of true, legal Americans.
That didn't help. The four bills passed are in direct violation of the Utah
Compact by intruding on Federal rights. And the Churches initial policy of
immigrating legally and countries had a right to make bills that strengthen
their borders seems invalid now? Add to that the fact that HB 116
invites people to come here, and it's not about enforcing immigration but
encouraging illegal immigration. I'm confused.
@JohnJacobJingleHeimerSchmidtI have been unable to find any
statement from, or on behalf of, President Monson that suggests that he
personally supports the compact.I have been unable to find any statement
from, or on behalf of, President Eyring that suggests that he personally
supports the compact.I have been unable to find any statement from, or on
behalf of, President Uchtdorf that suggests that he personally supports the
compact.Where are you getting your information?
1. The 4 immigration bills dubbed the Utah solution are constitutional. The US
has power over naturalization/citizenship, not immigration. Prior to case law
beginning in 1893, Immigration was and is a State Power. The constitution wasn
changed.2. The Utah Compact states Immigration is a federal policy
issue between the U.S. government and other countries not Utah and other
countries. So the 4 bills violate The Utah Compact, not the constitution.3. There are 4 bills. One that provides enforcement HB 479, one that
provides for migrant workers HB 466, one that provides sponsoring HB 469, and
one that provides a guest worker permit HB 116. HB 116 was modified to become a
combination of others and could be deleted and the 3 bills remaining can
function and many believe would work better.4. With HB 469, you dont
need HB 116. Someone here illegally could find a sponsor, go home and come back
with permission.5. If we are going to have a line for people to come
to this country, you cant reward those that bypass the line. HB 116 violates
that. HB 469 doesnt.
Illegals should self deport with dignity.
The reason no one knows the LDS Church's position is because they are
purposefully being vague on the subject. They say they support the Utah Compact
and yet HB116 is in direct violation of it. It would be nice if the
Church could just get out of the discussion all together and take a nuetral
stance. If not they at least owe its members an explanation as to why
they seem to be supporting state legislation that on the surface appears to be
in direct violation of church teachings. One thing that would help is if
they were to direct their church owned newspaper to stop playing one side of the
fence with propaganda style reporting and to try showing the entire picture
related to illegal immigration. The Dnews has only succeeded in driving a wedge
into our communities by not showing the entire picture and impact both on
immigrants and U.S. Citizens.
The study does show that after churches, the governor, legislature, and business
voiced their opinion and try to get us to accept the Utah amnesty, the majority
(57%) still favor the laws of the land, and honesty by enforcement and self
Haven't we always been taught by our leaders as stated in the 12th Article of
faith that "We believe...in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law"
Is a person that is here illegally breaking the law. I think so. I do not
understand why people don't understand that "illegal immigration" is
ILLEGAL. I do not mind if people migrate here to the US, I just ask them to do
it LEGALLY. By the way how can a person who is here illegally be a branch
The points made here are thoughtful, reflecting the fact that most people are
aware of the sensitive nature of illegal immigration in the Church. My
understanding is that the Church statement was not a document that was signed by
any official, but rather issued from the PR office. Is that correct? If so, the
fact that it was not an instructional document, to be read from Church pulpits
across the nation, is interesting. Perhaps this is why few people understand the
official Church position on illegal immigration.
Hello Folks - it is difficult to really define what the church's position is or
has been on MANY things (both doctrinal and political) since about oh, April 6,
I have a very bull headed stubborn attitude, when I was in high school I tried
to get my seminary teacher fired, he had replaced someone that I adored. During
that time the play Jesus Christ Super Star came out and the church did offer a
statement on that and they said that because it depicts the Savior as a human,
they discouraged members to see it. So we were in class and were discussing
this, I raised my hand and said, when the Prophet speaks, the debate is over, my
teacher was getting ready to debate me and stopped in his tracks, realizing that
I was agreeing with him. I have had to let my heart change about this issue, I
still do not condone people coming here illegally, but there has to be a way to
reward those who are contributing to their areas and not taking. Deport the
jerk that raped my son in laws sister when she was 11, but don't deport the
families that work and help in their churches and communities, and this is all
religions and areas.
Karpowitz assumtion that this shows that people assume the Church agrees with
them is not really supported by his study.It appears he has not
taken into account how many people changed their views based on the position
taken by the Churh. If Quin Monson's study is anywhere near valied, 10% of the
population of Utah support the immigration bills at least in part because of the
position the Church took on the Utah compact.Yet the Utah Compact
support was not an unprecedented action by the leaders of the Church. Elder
Jensen's statement abut the need for caring in which he clearly was acting on
assignment of the First Presidency, I believe about the time President Monson
became president of the Church, but it might have been earlier, signaled to
those who wanted to know that the Church suported immigration reform that would
keep families together.Thus people who care about what the Church
says have known te Church supports immigration reform far longer than November.
Karpowitz ignores the fact that in general the people who care enough to learn
the Church's position are those who seek to live by it.
Drifter, On what grounds do we deport American citizens? Your proposals
would be inherent violations of the 14th admentment. If my sister had a
Guatamalan husband who was getting reported on a technicallity I would have to
in good conscience ask her if she was prepared to move to Guatamala. I would
probably urge it, but I can see many women not wanting to risk going to unsafe
countries where they have never lived.Your position is not a humane
one. Jesus taught that the second great commandment was to love our neighbor.
Some of your need to be told the parable of the good samaritan in modern setting
as the parable of the Good Mexican.
Walt, The statement made have been clearly authorized. To claim they are
of limited validity would just be innacurate. This is inherently deceptive. It
does not have to be signed by the First Presidency to be an official church
statement.There are reasons why they have chosen not to read this in
church meetings. This is an issue of public policy resolved currently by
deliberative sessions in the legislature. It is complexed and would not lend
itself to direct advocacy through a petition.Beyond this President
Monson, his associates and his predecessors understand that some power grows
when it is not exercised. The Church was able to influence Propostion 8 to the
level it did because it so rarely calls on Church members to act in such a way.
It was the first time since 2000 Church members in California had been
specifically asked to become involved in any initiative campaign, and even then
they limited it to a call to action only after the admendment was the live
option because of the California Supreme Court overturning Proposition 22.
The Constitution never uses the word immigration, so how is it that the rules
for immigrants, and quotas for countries, are set by the federal government and
not by the state governments? After all, as the 10th Amendment states, are the
powers not delegated to the United States held by the states, or the people?The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate
naturalization, from Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate
immigration (see, for example, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 ). It
would not make sense to allow Congress to pass laws to determine how an
immigrant becomes a naturalized resident if the Congress cannot determine how,
or even if, that immigrant can come into the country in the first place. Just
because the Constitution lacks the word immigration does not mean that it lacks
the concept of immigration.
There is also an argument that immigration is an implied power of any sovereign
nation, and as such, the federal government has the power to regulate
immigration because the United States is a sovereign nation. While it is true
that the United States is a sovereign nation, and it may be true that all
sovereign nations have some powers inherent in that status, it is not necessary
to determine if immigration is such a power that does not even require
constitutional mention, because the Naturalization Clause handles the power.Thanks to Jason Potkanski for the idea, and Stephen Lush for some
The way the Church handled the Prop 8 situation in California was wrong and
received a fine for it. The way it was done was sneaky. Yes, I am an active
member but that's what really happened. Asking local Church leaders to select a
few members of each Stake that they felt could afford to donate money, but to
approach it as "the Church is not asking you to do this", was wrong.
Church leaders, although they are prophets, are still human and do make mistakes
To In Arizona, you are factually wrong about what happened in California. To the
rest of you, parsel the words of the LDS Church all you want, but no amount of
pharasitical maneuvering changes the fact that the church supports HB116 and a
"humane" approach to the immigration issue.
I disagree with the Church's position on this subject. Pure and simple.
The bottom line is that people should look to their own conscience and not the
Church for their opinions. Faith isn't a dogmatic practice, instead a
thoughtful one. I parted ways with the Church when it begin the Prop 8
political movement. I will choose to belong to a PAC if I want but it won't be
one that calls itself a religious organization. Back to this story:Immigration is allowed in certain situations. If the movement of people into
this country is done legally I am for it. If done illegally then the choices
made should have the appropriate consequences. We don't want people in this
country who show through their immigration status that they are willing to break
the laws of this country when they don't agree with them. We have enough
natural-born citizens that already do that.
To TMR: I am factually correct because I was actively involved in it. Local
leaders asked specific members to donate money. It was done that way in
California and Arizona, don't know about other States, but you cannot tell me I
am not correct when I was involved in it.
To In Arizona: I have no idea what was done in Arizona, but the fine you refer
to in California was a $5,000 fine that the Church incurred for failing to
report daily in-kind donations. The Church had reported it at a later date.
This infraction is considered minor and the Church readily agreed with the Fair
Political Practices Commission to pay the fine. The fine had nothing to do with
your assertion that "local leaders asked specific members to donate
I don't agree with this article at all. The pure and simple facts are the
illegals are causing a drain on the taxpayers pockets. I further believe that if
people marry an illegal they are breaking the law, also if the LDS church backs
the HB116 they are breaking the law and I was always taught that you don't do
it. Families are an important part of it, but lets get real. I believe if a
person marries an illegal and then worries what if my husband or wife gets
deported sorry so, but you broke this law so don't cry about it.