Deseret News | Bishop, Cannon back immigration bill

Reader comments
Bishop, Cannon back immigration bill

Redeye | 1:24 a.m. March 14, 2008

I applaud Reps. Chris Cannon and Rob Bishop for signing HR4088. Our federal government needs to get tough on illegal immigration, sooner rather than later. It's a travesty that our lack of enforcement means we now have an estimated 12 million illegals living in our midst. So much for Home Security. So much for protecting jobs of U.S. citizens. Cheap labor for business has been king too long, and most of us average Joes are sick of picking up the cost of that "cheap labor." Happily, our state is beginning to take steps to protects its citizens against the influx of job stealing illegals. Need I also mention the increase in crime that follows?

Jay | 5:20 a.m. March 14, 2008

So maybe it's time the Church stop sending illegals int he United States on missions from the United States. If the illegals want to go on missions, send them to home and tell them to apply there.

Problem solved.

Bob G | 5:37 a.m. March 14, 2008

Religious organizations, inlcuding the LDS, should not be exempted from any laws. The religous organizations should not be allowed to act as sanctuaries for the illegals to hide in for the sole purpose of avoiding arrest and prosecution of crimes, including illegal entry to this country. As for the missionaries, and religious leaders (bishops, priests, parsons, prophets, etc.) they are subject to the same laws as all other citizens regardless of religion or political status. It's what keeps the separation of church and state and no person is above the law.

Comments continue below

shadow | 5:41 a.m. March 14, 2008

Let me see if we have this right: the Mormon Church lobbied on this piece of legislation. But only months ago the Mormon Church said that Mitt Romney would be his own man and that the church does not interfere in politics.

Sorry. You cannot have it both ways. Perhaps the American public's rejection of Mitt in favor of John in the primaries was that they already knew this fact. The Church is supposed to be... well, you know, the church. Politics is supposed to be free from their hands. In Iran it is a called a theocracy, and obviously in Utah there are those who enjoy the thought of America in some form of a theocracy.

Scary.

The Shadow Knows.

Anonymous | 5:50 a.m. March 14, 2008

Mano dura contra los ilegales! Tough laws now and compassion later--not the other way around!

russ | 5:51 a.m. March 14, 2008

So they call up the 11 on speed dial I suppose to lay down the law, er, discuss how they should vote, er, ah ah ah let them know "concerns"...

To the rest of the world this looks like a heavy hand bordering on church tells politicians what to do. (Smacks of Iranian politics, eh) In Utah this is seen as "consulting." In my neck of the woods, it is called lobbying and a clear walk over of the line separating church and state.

No wonder Mitt didn't get by the voters. People can read and heed.

Anonymous | 7:46 a.m. March 14, 2008

Faith groups of nearly all denominations express their concerns to Congress. The LDS church is one of the least engaged faiths on Capitol Hill.

Anonymous | 7:48 a.m. March 14, 2008

Jay, or another option is the illegals could just join gangs and start killing people. Hmmm. I think I prefer they serve in their church, regardless of what faith they belong to.

My take | 8:04 a.m. March 14, 2008

The way I see it, the church has some problems on this issue and it just grows deeper with time. For example, why just 11 LDS members of Congress? Why not lobby ALL of Congress? Like an amicus, the church has a right to make a point when they are being stepped on.
Another problem is institutionalizing situational ethics. They are confusing the members when they work around immigration status to send out missionaries. We want a church that says, "We will preach the gospel in a country only if we come in through the front door."
Then they turn around and work with known illegal aliens to send them on missions. The old plan of requiring them to return home first is adequate.
The de facto position of the church on illegal aliens has raised some serious problems in the hearts of some members, including me.
As for our members of Congress, they have a serious image problem. Approval ratings indicate that the people have figured out they are dysfunctional.

Dave | 8:24 a.m. March 14, 2008

The right to petition (lobby} the government, by any person or group, is garanteed by the constitution. Would you want it any other way?

Hmmm | 8:20 a.m. March 14, 2008

Cannon supported DREAM Act (so did Hatch). Now SAVE Act is a complete opposite. Which is it Cannnon? Are you either for supporting our borders or for illegal immigrants?

Instereo | 8:36 a.m. March 14, 2008

I'm not to worried about the LDS church or any other religion speaking their opinion about how we should treat people with compassion and dignity even on a critical issue like immigration. What concerns me is politicians who wrap themselves in the flag and God who ignore what people of faith have to say. I also worry about people who obviously either don't remember their own personal history when they or their ansestors were once immigrants or are filled with hate, anger, fear, or any other number of emotions and wrap themselves in Law and Order in the name of living in a Christian Society. I'm not particually religious but I believe the LDS church and other denominations have a better handle on the immigration issues and how to treat people then most of our politicians. The real hypocrities are the politicians trying to have it both ways by claiming to be Patriotic, Conservative Christian lawmakers and then forgetting their religion.

Live the laws! | 8:41 a.m. March 14, 2008

LDS people need to live the laws of the land! No 2 ways about it! Double standards just don't roll over well with God. He will have none of it!

This behavior is entirely about money and greed.

IM | 8:59 a.m. March 14, 2008

The LDS Church is right to express its concerns with this language. And the Reps are right for listening. The Church simply represents another constituency and the Members should listen to them. I know that I would not want to see Pres Monmon and the Church dragged into court for something like this.

BajaRat | 9:25 a.m. March 14, 2008

Beached-whale Cannon only supported this in order to garner a few more votes. He must be feeling very threatened this time around. This guy is the very worst there is on this intolerable invasion, and I suspect that there must be loopholes in the bill, just like there was in the Secure Fence Act. Expecting Cannon to do anything to stop the invasion is like expecting to see millions of Mexican squatters running south for the border on Cinco de Mayo.

Paul | 9:31 a.m. March 14, 2008

The LDS Church shouldn't be dictating border controls for the US. Let illegal missionaries run the same risks as all the other illegals, if they choose to cross the border. Maybe some other members in good standing can have an SUV nearby, to help in the transfer.

Franz | 11:00 a.m. March 14, 2008

These missionaries are probably young people who came here in their parents' arms. Their home is here. There is no where to send them home to but here where they are. The LDS church has every right to express concern to LDS members in congress who would be most sympathetic to their cause.
It would take some intelligence to figure our how the DREAM act and this SAVE act are not that far apart. Both deal with securing the border.

Rights | 11:13 a.m. March 14, 2008

The LDS church, like any other religious group, has a right to petition and lobby its government. That's what makes the United States great. You can petition the government for whatever you want. Doesn't always mean you get what you want.

Question. | 12:27 p.m. March 14, 2008

Are you Honest in your dealings with your fellow men? Familiar Question?

If you are not...such as being Illegally here and breaking the laws of the land...then how can you represent the LDS Church on a mission? What about raising the Bar for missionaries? Is criminal behavior not part of that bar?

It is frustrating...I am an active LDS member but I see some potential problems with double standards. If a young Legal American stole a car, let's say, would he not be allowed on a Mission because he does not meet the "Bar".

Just a thought or two. As for me and my house...we will obey the Lord...which by the way requires me to obey the law of the land.

Don't hold one person accountable if you're not going to hold all accountable.

Remember what is good for the Goose is good for the Gander.

Stewart | 12:32 p.m. March 14, 2008

Why hasn't Rep. Matheson signed the Discharge Petition yet? He is a co-sponsor.

Apparently Rep. Cannon and the LDS Church failed to read the SAVE Act. It only applies to employers that hire illegal aliens. In order to hire someone they have to be paid, and this is the basis of the Act. Missionaries are not paid a wage. Besides I doubt that the Church brings in missionaries that do not have a religious ministry visa. Now, those that sneak back in to work on Church farms, Deseret Industries and the like are a different matter.

As for those illegal aliens living in the United States perhaps the best solution is to send them to their country of origin on missions. While there get a passport and apply for a U.S. visa and return legally. Of course if they have ever run afoul of immigration they would have a problem getting a visa. But then they could just sneak back in and be no worse off than before. Oh, how we complicate things when we decide to circumvent the laws. A good reason for honoring the LDS 12th Article of Faith.

lance | 2:26 p.m. March 14, 2008

Cannon seems to get "religion" on immigration reform once every two years. Gee, I wonder why?

I sincerely hope he's not able to bamboozle the voters of his district once again.

lance | 2:25 p.m. March 14, 2008

Instereo:

Sure there are politicians who wrap themselves up in the flag.

There are also sanctimonious politicians who wrap themselves up in God, claiming that if you don't support immigration anarchy you lack compassion.

James | 2:25 p.m. March 14, 2008

Illegals serve LDS missionaries are lawbreakers!!!!!! Conflict with LDS church teach members to follow the law of land ???? LDS church is JOKE !!!!! I am member of LDS but I start to lost to trust LDS.....

Bobby | 2:34 p.m. March 14, 2008

Chris Cannon is going to bring Utah to ruin, in more ways than the citizens of Utah can possibly imagine. Right now, there is a terrific battle going on between law enforcement in Arizona and drug smugglers. Arizona is making progress, yet it still has certain liberal Democractic type people, and some Bush Republicans ,in the populace that do not understand. They do NOT care for the children despite what they say. They have a different agenda more important than the children or the welfare of the citizenry. Don't allow people like Mr. Chris Cannon to do this to your state, because of his obligations to big business.

Bobby | 2:38 p.m. March 14, 2008

Citizens of Utah, do not allow the LDS church do to Utah, what the Catholic Church has done and is doing to California. The Church is in direct violation of existing United States Immigration Law. Title 8, Section, 1325, if you care to look it up. By aiding and abetting illegal immigration the church is violating the laws of the nation. Sounds rather medieval to me.

To Franz | 2:44 p.m. March 14, 2008

There's a complete difference between DREAM and SAVE as far as I'm concern. One giving illegals automatic entry while the other actually forces them back out.

leroy | 3:21 p.m. March 14, 2008

Funny how people excuse the Mormon org. as it lobbies. They say others do it, etc. No proof that the Lutherans, for example, have their congressmen and women on speed dial. One of the beauties of Protestant Christianity is that they usually tell the "church" to back off, politely of course. There are some fundamentalists who definitely do this, and pressure their members. But generally speaking, the mainstream Protestants like separation of church and state, founding fathers and all that history.

The Mormorn org. has its members on speed dial. How theocratic, just like Iran does it in Tehran.

American Citizen! | 3:32 p.m. March 14, 2008

THE DREAM ACT LEGALIZES ILLEGAL ALIENS UP TO 30 YEARS OLD IF THEY GO TO COLLEGE (ON OUR DIME AT INSTATE TUITION RATES FOR ATLEAST 2 YEARS) OR DO 2 YEARS IN THE MILITARY........IN OTHER WORDS...REWARDING THE ILLEGALS WHO BROUGHT THEIR CHILDREN OVER HERE ILLEGALLY.....AND ONCE THOSE "STUDENTS" (UP TO 30 YEARS OLD) ARE LEGAL THEY CAN THEN PETITION THE U.S. GOVT. TO LEGALIZE THEIR PARENTS, SIBLINGS, AND BRING THEIR EXTENDED FAMILY MEMBERS HERE FROM WHEREVER....OH, AND UP TO 90 OF THOSE RELATIVES CAN COME HERE AND BECOME LEGAL!!

Stu | 4:21 p.m. March 14, 2008

"Congress" did not pass the LDS-exemption into law in 2005. Senator Bob Bennett attached that change to the bill in the form of an earmark just before it was signed into law. Members of the House were furious to discover the terrorist friendly provision.

While most LDS missionaries will do good works during their missions. A less scrupulous religious organization might send illegal aliens out to commit terrorist acts. I think the needs of the general public outweigh supposed need of the LDS church to violate immigration law.

Besides, when was the last time we heard of any employer or other organization being charged with immigration law violations? In a sane world you would see sanctions against employers after raids or when an employee is arrested for another crime. At least under the Bush administration the priority in pursuing these cases is very low.

Actually | 9:05 p.m. March 15, 2008

Actually Stu, you are 100% wrong. Rep. Sensebrenner (then judiciary chairman) and the House GOP had to agree to Bennett's "earmark" as you call it (even though it wasnt an earmark). It had to go to conference and be signed by the President.

I have a problem with DREAM, but only because it allows people to stay. the other half of it, where it lets states decide who gets in state tuition and NOT the federal government, is a good thing.

Also, the provision in question has nothing to do with employment or anything else. In the SAVE act, it removes the immunity from religious orgs who could be busted for training and sending an illegal. Read SAVE and search "it is a defense to" and you will see.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.