Quantcast
Utah

LDS Church repeats call for 'civil discourse' on immigration

Comments

Return To Article
  • The Atheist
    July 22, 2010 10:53 p.m.

    all of god's children? How is that relevant? This is a political issue. Elected representatives do not represent "god's children" - they represent the legal citizens of the U.S. and their interests. They do NOT represent illegal aliens who are NOT citizens and who do not have the right to vote nor any of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. They are not under the Constitution. They are outside it. The rights guaranteed by the Constitution are not guaranteed to anyone but legal citizens of the United States.

  • LDS Liberal
    July 22, 2010 8:45 p.m.

    UtahBlueDevil | 2:31 p.m.
    ============

    Sweet!
    Thanks.
    Now I have it saved for furture reference.

    Like I've posted before - I'm not a bible-bashing-Mormon. I read the scriptures, I think I understand them, I just can't seem to be able to quote chapter and verse to these guys (letter of the law, vs. Spirit of the law-types).

    You said it Bro.
    That's what I'm talking about!!

    Jesus said what he meant to say,
    and these guys keep wanting more and more petty little rules to follow and then run around buggy whipping those who don't conform.

    It's not the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
    I will follow His example, not a bunch of culture based rules.

    Thanks again.

    Peace, out!

  • midwestreader
    July 22, 2010 8:19 p.m.

    Nice to see some more midwest readers outside of the Utah bubble that have commented so eloquently on this issue. It is not a black and white issue, and anyone who has left the borders of the state know that well. The first presidency was very wise in their wording of this very touchy issue. It would be wise to heed their comments.

  • UtahBlueDevil
    July 22, 2010 2:31 p.m.

    Resident, you asked Liberal Dude about social justice. These are from the book of James.

    1: 22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.

    25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.

    26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his atongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain.

    27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

    2: 8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt alove thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:

    2:15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,

    2:16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?

    I think Christ was pretty clear on whats expected.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan
    July 22, 2010 1:48 p.m.

    "We have a U.S. citizen who cannot have his wife here," says state Sen. Luz Robles, D-Salt Lake. "That is an atrocity."

    This couple has been married for five years. This is no sham marriage to avoid immigration laws. The lady fled to the US in 1992 from the raping death squads of the central American wars.

    The only reason she could not get refugee status then is because the US government supported these death squads because they said they were "fighting communists" and back then if someone claimed to fight communists we threw money and resources to support them.

    Obviously we could not accept refugees from this "freedom fighting" government, it would cause unwanted questions.

    I was beganing to wonder if my references to the death squads raping women were a blast from the past, but now I see that the past is still with us, especially since the view that all violence is done in Central America is false, and the war in Guatamala did not realistically end until at least 1995.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan
    July 22, 2010 1:36 p.m.

    No one dislikes the far right-reactionary more than a true conservative. My example of this has always been John Engler stating he hoped that the Republican nominee for congress in the Michigan 10th district in 1996, Donald Lobsinger, would get only 2 votes.

    John Engler was the Republican governor of Michigan at the time, backed by Right-to-Life and many other conservative movements, but he had no love for Lobsinger's attempts to prevent the deportation of Nazi war criminals.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan
    July 22, 2010 1:24 p.m.

    The claim that all Liberals hate the LDS Church is false.

    It is hard to desribe Marlin K. Jensen as other than a liberal. However, no one would question his being LDS.

    The culture of people in a ward and the Church itself are not the same thing.

    I had multiple professors at BYU who were devote members of the Church and political liberals.

    It is impossible to be a devote member of the Church and what Dr. Midgley calls as "Liberal Mormon". However, Liberal Mormons could be Libertarians politically, and thus on many issues agree with Cleon Skousen, Glen Beck and company. "Liberal Mormons" use the term because they have been "liberated" from the Church, and have embraced liberal methods in theology, like disconting the historical reality of text, or starting with the assumption "you don't get gold plates from angles".

    I know people who find it extremely hard to understand why any believing member voted for Pat Buchanan in 2000, and I am not sure I understand how you can read the New Testament and still hate your fellow man.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan
    July 22, 2010 1:13 p.m.

    JBrady,
    If you love them that love you, do ye well. The publicans do the same. I say unto you love them that hate you, bless than that despitefully use you.

    If your brotherhood is so limited that it only extends to "those I chose" than you are not following the teachings of the Lord.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan
    July 22, 2010 12:55 p.m.

    To Bryan C. Robinson,
    While some of your statments are true, the claim that "The very constitution did not count a black person as a full citizen" is false. Neither slavery nor blackness are mentioned in the constitution, only "Indians not taxed".

    The constitution no more denied men and women of Afircan descent citizenship than it requires abortion be legal. Both ideas were discovered by activist judges who read into the constitution things that were not there.

    The 3/5th compromise technically refered to slaves, but it did so with the phrase "all other people" after listing free citizens and Indians not taxed. Massachusetts gave abult males the right to vote without regard to race, and some other New England states followed this example. Nothing in the constitution justified the claim that those of African descent lacked any rights, thus making Dred Scott v. Stanford the ultimate in judicial activism gone overboard.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan
    July 22, 2010 12:42 p.m.

    To frelsi,
    And how exactly is Revolution a better instance of "honoring, obeying and sustaining the law" than illegal immigration?

    Revolution involves the direct defiance of law, leads to many deaths and often many rapes and other crimes, disruption and destruction. Whether the good it brings is worth the cost is a good discussion.

    Illegally entering a foriegn contry is clearly less of a sin than is murder, and murder is an invariable part of revolution.

    You need to consider the broader implications of your arguments.

    If killing oppressors of the people is acceptable under certain conditions, then how does a hard and immovable position about documents for immigration even make a little bit of sense?

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan
    July 22, 2010 12:36 p.m.

    To eagle at 7:38,
    How do you know this? Do you even know que es su opinion sobre la cuestion de la migracion? OK, I probably slaughtered the Spanish, but the point is that you are ignoring the large number of Hispanic Latter-day Saints in both Utah and Arizona.

    Just because the most politically vocal people who are Latter-day Saints favor tearing apart families, and mass deportations that override any consideration for the rights of 15-year-old US citizens, and treat people whose only crime was being carried across the border as a two-month-old as if they are hardened criminals, does not mean a "majority" of people in the Church hold this opinion.

    From Chris Cannon to Jerry Johnston to many others there is another view.

    I at least hold out hope that most Church members have not been overcome with hate, but my hope is dwindling.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan
    July 22, 2010 12:27 p.m.

    Amnesty does not violate the 12th article of faith. What, do we go around claiming that any governor who commutes a death sentance to life-in-prison has violated the honoring of the law? Do we claim that same about governors or presidents who issue pardons?

    At times the only way to sustain the law is to alter it. How are we upholding the family if we deprive fathers of a chance to work.

    Instead of going after people who take second and third jobs, all at low wages, to make enough money to feed their families, maybe we should go after those who "oppress the higherling in their wages".

    The Book of Mormon never denounces those who come to new countries. It does denounce those who exploit their employees though.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan
    July 22, 2010 12:23 p.m.

    VST,
    You forget that extremists always have the answer, and reflection, compromise and civility are to them synonyms for defeat and surrender.

    Bob Dole was right when he said honorable compromise is no sin, but we have to many in Utah who have bought Pat Buchanan's racist references to the Mexicans as "non-western hordes, like the Barbarians who overwhelmed Rome".

    Besides the inate problem of calling anyone a "barbarian" there is the problem that Mexicans are Western in many respects.

    They speak Spanish, a European language. The vast majority of immigrants practice some form of Christianity. Mexico actually has a government more closely patterned on our own than any European country.

    They have a president, a congress, states with governors who are elected by the citizens of the state and many other things. They may have higher levels of election fraud than we do, but they are no longer a one-party state, and PAN and PT and PV have eclipsed PRI in many respects.

    The backbone of the Mexican diet is corn, specifically corn tortillas, but a large percentage of their corn meal is imported for the US.

  • Lane Myer
    July 22, 2010 11:44 a.m.

    John Pack Lambert of Michigan | 11:21 a.m. July 22, 2010
    I hate to say this, but I do hope that this statement by the Church gets some of the hatefilled radicals to resign their membership.


    ------------

    My! And that was said so very civilly...?

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan
    July 22, 2010 11:21 a.m.

    I hate to say this, but I do hope that this statement by the Church gets some of the hatefilled radicals to resign their membership.

    It is good for the kingdom of God to be purged of those who no longer have the principals of the gospel as the motivation of their actions.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan
    July 22, 2010 11:17 a.m.

    RobertBennett,
    Did you intentionally say frieght train, or was it Freudian slip? Most people are moved on passenger trains. If we are going to treat our fellow sons and daughters of God as human beings, the least we can do is put them on viehcles that are built for the use of human beings, not the use of coal.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan
    July 22, 2010 11:13 a.m.

    To ST,
    stop blaming others for the problem and start seeking a solution.

    If the death squads in Guatemala were civil and did not kill people and rape them in the middle of the night we would not have this problem.

    If the drug cartels were civil, and did not kill innocent bystanders in the shoot-outs we would not have this problem.

    If US born Americans respected the law and did not buy illegal drugs there would not be the drug cartels causing the problems in Mexico.

    If our congress had thought on immigration policy it would not have written so many blocks to large scale immigration from a specific locale. Our current laws were written with anti-Mexican bias as a motivator.

    If Americans did not higher undocumented immigrants as nannies, including Americans who later aspired to be Attorney General, we would not have this problem.

    The fact of the matter is acting like we can just deport millions of people, disrupt the home lives of millions of minor US citizens and claim we are doing the right thing makes no sense.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan
    July 22, 2010 11:06 a.m.

    To cblhmb,
    In some ways this comment page is not a good place to look for serious reflection on matters of public policy.

    The laws are written by the government. The job of the legislature is not to enforce law, but to make it. The modern president and to some extent state governors function not just as head of the executive branch but as leading advocates for legislation.

    Biden and his disciples may laugh at the Cheney/Palin view of the Vice President having a legislative role, but the fact of the matter is that for at least the last 80 years, the development of laws in the United States has largely been the work of advisors to the president who then seek to push them through congress.

    It is called "Obamacare" in some circles because it was in large part developed by the Obama administration, not so much by people in congress.

    Preservation of families is an important point. Two wrongs do not make a right, and ripping children from their homes is not good public policy.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan
    July 22, 2010 10:58 a.m.

    Flogger,
    The principal in writing laws is not obeying the laws, since the laws do not yet exist.

    Beyond this, did obeying the law mean killing Jews in Germany when it was required by the government, or do God's laws supersede man's laws?

    The fact of the matter is that our immigration system is unjust. Mexicans are kept waiting 18 years to immigrate because of the truly unfair maximum immigration cap from a particular nation, which includes in its calculations family reunifications and other things that were originally extra-quota.

    We should recognize more individual freedom, and back down from attempts at social engineering in immigration policy.

    While there are many needed reforms, we should first revoke all considerations of a person's nationality in the immigration process, and treat all immigrants on the same basis. Security risks could still be factored in, but limits on the number of immigrants from a specific country should be revoked.

  • JER84119
    July 22, 2010 10:41 a.m.

    @Resident

    Ok, Let's play your game. How was Christ Liberal?

    Let's start with his associates; he spent his time among the poor and the sinners, not 'hobnobbing' with the social elite. He called working-class men to be his disciples (again, not the power elite members of the Sanhedrin)

    He preached the principles of Social Justice and redistribution in "love you neighbor" and his instructions to the young rich man (Matt 19:16-24). In fact go read the entire New Testament again and see how many times Jesus instructs wealthy people to redistribute their wealth to the poor.

    How often did Jesus complain about the Pharisees, who by their strict adherence to the law had lost the true point of the Gospel.

    I would strongly recommend that ALL members of the LDS Church go back and read the 134th Section of the Doctrine and Covenants. Tea-party members, pay close attention to v.5. All pay attention to v.7&9. What right have we to dictate the rights of others who wish to exercise their freedom of conscience? Legislating moral issues is not our right, except as they directly affect our ability to worship.

  • JER84119
    July 22, 2010 10:09 a.m.

    @vic

    At what point did anyone in this discussion say that it was unnecessary to follow the example of Christ and participate in the necessary ordinances that have been outlined.

    This whole discussion is about blind obedience as compared to thoughtful reflection. The last time I checked, the imposed blind obedience program was the one outlined by Lucifer, not the one advocated by Christ and chosen as the pattern for this world.

    Right now, the conservatives, in COMPELLING OBEDIENCE to their definition of morality are the ones in scriptural error.

  • LDS Liberal
    July 22, 2010 9:49 a.m.

    vic | 12:00 a.m. July 22, 2010

    I didn't think it was possible, but here we have someone who professes to believe in Christ, but doesn't want to be obedient to His teachings.

    Thanks for setting me straight in that one doesn't have to believe in Christ, be baptised, be endowed, pay tithing, pray, go to church,have the priesthood; and yet, if one isn't obedient and do those things I just mentioned - you too can go to the celestial kingdom - Right?

    If anything, one doesn't have to do anything to get there - right?
    =================

    vic,

    I'm sorry to learn about your inability to read.
    Maybe you can get some help with putting words in other people's mouths.

    Could you please show me exactly where I EVER said anything about not wanting to be obedient?

    I espicially found it sad that you rattled off things you need to do to get to heaven, and never once mentioned anything about others.

    It was list all about yourself.

    You should reconsider.

    Sincerely,
    You Bleeding Heart Liberal Brother.

  • vic
    July 22, 2010 12:00 a.m.

    re: LDS Liberal | 6:57 p.m. July 20, 2010
    Resident | 4:21 p.m.

    -------------
    Absoluteism (strict obedience to the law)
    makes the entire sacrfice and Atonement completely null, void and in-valid.

    ---------

    I didn't think it was possible, but here we have someone who professes to believe in Christ, but doesn't want to be obedient to His teachings.

    Thanks for setting me straight in that one doesn't have to believe in Christ, be baptised, be endowed, pay tithing, pray, go to church,have the priesthood; and yet, if one isn't obedient and do those things I just mentioned - you too can go to the celestial kingdom - Right?

    If anything, one doesn't have to do anything to get there - right?


  • LDS Liberal
    July 21, 2010 5:09 p.m.

    Resident | 11:27 a.m. July 21, 2010
    @ LDS Liberal

    On a previous post you listed what you feel makes Jesus liberal. I noticed you had social justice listed.

    Can you carefully explian the parable of the talents to me?
    ===========


    Right after you tell me how I am wrong,
    and how you KNOW the Atonement is NOT the most Liberal act in the entire Universe.

  • Resident
    July 21, 2010 11:27 a.m.

    @ LDS Liberal

    On a previous post you listed what you feel makes Jesus liberal. I noticed you had social justice listed.

    Can you carefully explian the parable of the talents to me?

  • mkSdd3
    July 21, 2010 10:15 a.m.

    It has been stated that this issue is complex. The causes of illegal immigration are just as complex and so is the effects on society. However the solution is very simple. Obey the laws, change laws where needed, but first and foremost lock the boarders so no one enters with out proper authority.

    The number of work permits, visas, and new citizens could be talked about and adjusted as needed. But the closing of the boarder can't be compromised on. This is where the crime is happening. This is how the underworld is attacking us.

    We need the people that are here to fully participate in the community that they live in. Illegals can not fully come out of the shadows of society for fear of being deported. Once they are here with legal status they will be fully accepted into society and will fully participate.

    We should not let those that are breaking the rules to benefit from it. They must apply for legal status, and that should only be done from the country of origin. If we find someone here illegally then we deport them.

  • Jemezblue
    July 20, 2010 8:30 p.m.

    The church is very right about this issue. As a conservative, but a student of the History of the Southwest and the Mexican Americans, I am in the middle of this issue and both are wrong. Both sides are yelling at each other with out really understanding what the other side is saying.

    The conservatives want the laws of our country to be respected and honored. I believe these laws are what made our nation great.

    However, our compassion as a country is also what made our country great. Also, it is our country that really created all of this with our drug problems and mishandling of treaties with Mexico.

    The problem with immigration is that it is very complex and there are no easy solutions, especially with the economy of both our of countries that are so entwined.

    I would be very willing to sit on a panel to find solutions to these issues. Other people that need to join the panel are economists, politicians, historians, sociologists or anthropologists, etc. that are specialists on international issues.

    We need this discussion, because both of our countries need to stand together in the last days.

  • LDS Liberal
    July 20, 2010 6:57 p.m.

    Resident | 4:21 p.m.

    I think there are things that are very absolute and things that are not. I think obedience to God is an absolute regardless of what man tells me to do. I believe that God is absolute and unwavering

    =================


    Absoluteism (strict obedience to the law)
    makes the entire sacrfice and Atonement completely null, void and in-valid.


    I don't believe you.
    I can't believe you.
    I WON'T believe you.

    If you really understand the very reason of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and his Atonement....
    You should reconsider your stance.

    I am a sinner, but I know about Christ's Atonement for us, and he is EXTREMELY Liberal in my book!

    As opposed to your God being so Absolute in everything.

    Sad,
    I will pray for your better understanding....

    ~Peace

  • LDS Liberal
    July 20, 2010 6:47 p.m.

    Resident | 4:21 p.m.

    The only person I recall who taught
    All-or-Nothingism
    Black & White

    was Lucifer - comprehending that all things had their opposites....

    Light darkness
    Virtue Vice
    Health Sickness
    Pleasure Pain


    I see how someone can get confused,
    but don't be decieved.


    The world (and the Universe for that matter) in an endless multitude of shades of gray AND a full spectrum light and colors.


    I don't believe in absoluteism.

  • zoar63
    July 20, 2010 6:13 p.m.

    @Brotherhood | 12:46 a.m. July 19, 2010

    "I believe in being honest. I also believe that we need to keep in mind that our country was founded on principles of freedom for all and that in scriptures it is stated that God will bring those who should be brought to this land (read in 2 Nephi 1”

    You have a point, but it also could be the beginning of the fullfilment of another prophecy. See 3Ne: 14-17

  • Resident
    July 20, 2010 4:21 p.m.

    @LDS Liberal

    Nope, I don't really consider myself a Republican or Democrat. I consider myself conservative vs. liberal.

    I think there are things that are very absolute and things that are not. I think obedience to God is an absolute regardless of what man tells me to do. I believe that God is absolute and unwavering.

    I believe that Satan is not. I believe that anything that is not with God is against Him. (I can add sources from scriptures if you'd like)Satan fills the Earth with grey area. We learn it time and time again from church authorities. I believe that a true open mind is one that studies the scriptures and the Prophets and is strictly obedient to what they say.

    People say that that is too conservative, but honestly (I'm sure you can attest to this) it is that strict obedience that opens understanding. I think that is why if you search conservative and liberal on the church's website, you will see articles in favor of being conservative and not liberal. You have the agency to think, but the blessings come from conservative obedience.

  • LDS Liberal
    July 20, 2010 3:36 p.m.

    Resident | 2:04 p.m.

    Forgive me.

    I may have wrongly stereo-typed you in the camp of ultra-Conservatives aka, "Mike Richards" and "RedShirt", who have assured us time and again of their uncompromising "Absolutenest".

  • Brian H.
    July 20, 2010 3:05 p.m.

    "It's to facilitate a discussion where all get in the same room and really listen, and hopefully that will inject a lot of thoughtfulness and a lot of respect," Welling said.

    "It's a listening exercise," she added. "Most participants will spend two minutes talking and two hours listening."

    That would be nice. I would love for people to stop arguing and start making reasonable plans that both parties can accept. Isn't that how we got our Constitution? Seems to me that God ordained the idea of compromise and civility, not just the ideas that came from it.

  • wild flower
    July 20, 2010 2:39 p.m.

    ummm, after reading these posts I'm assuming there are some illegal LDS in our midst. These people need to "repent" and learn to live the laws of the land.

    Cheers!

  • Resident
    July 20, 2010 2:04 p.m.

    @ LDS Liberal

    Honestly... What does that have to do with what he/she said?

    Do you ever have anything of substance to add?

    Tell me this, how does what I wrote fall under absolutism and not compromising?

    Your foolish comments show that your ideas of conservatism are "absolute."

    Also, what makes your opinion so "right?" Isn't it, afterall, just your opinion? You seem to be the one on the conservatives case for not wanting to hear out grey shades of the liberal view? Your comments seem hypocritical to me.

  • 20/20
    July 20, 2010 1:39 p.m.

    I'm so grateful for the new civility in discourse. I feel that I am now safe to advocate enforcement of the law without being called "racist", "immigrant-hater", or "hypocrite".
    Oh wait, in just the past few posts, I, and thousands of other law-and-order Utahns, have been called exactly those names by the "civil" advocates of ongoing criminal behaviors.
    You have already shown that you don't feel that rules apply to illegals. In your posts, it is evident that you don't feel that civility applies to you either.

  • LDS Liberal
    July 20, 2010 1:17 p.m.

    JER84119 | 9:01 a.m.
    JER84119 | 10:48 a.m.

    Agreed, and Agreed!

    You nailed in both of these comments.

    Conservatives who are also absoluteists will never understand that there is balance and compromises in everything.

    To them, the world is Black & White.

    I see grays, greens, blues, yellows, etc., etc., etc.

    I hope and pray they we can find the correct balance to things -- that is the right answer.

    A favorite line form Star Wars:
    Only a Sith deals in Absolutes.

  • Resident
    July 20, 2010 11:22 a.m.

    @ JER84119

    I never said they are stealing ALL our jobs. If you see what I wrote, I said that they are stealing many jobs. What happens when there are many illegals that come in and take lower paying jobs? The people who are jobless continue on the jobless benefits. It's become such a norm that there are "citizens" that would rather take the jobless benefits and let illegals take the lower paying jobs. Otherwise there wouldn't be much of an excuse for many people not to work. Go to the Northern California Carpenters Union (Liberal) and ask them how many carpenters have lost their identity and work due to illegals. I was surprised that they are so open to illegals in their political mindset, yet have so many issues with them as well.

    Do you honestly feel that we are completely safe without regulating the borders? Do you honestly feel safe letting drug smugglers into the country so easily? You may reject it, but it does not take away the fact that it is a national security issue. Just because there have been wrongs does not mean there cannot be rights.

  • zinnia
    July 20, 2010 11:04 a.m.

    Re: STILL JIM, Please speak for yourself. My ancestors were pilgrims who came to America and were not breaking laws, I do not find that there were any written laws of that particular time that stopped the inhabits of settlers from the shore lines of Massachusetts. This planet belongs to us all. However, there are rules,regulations AND LAWS where people dwell and live that must be obeyed. Laws keep people from murdering and stealing from one another. Laws keep our country in order.

  • JER84119
    July 20, 2010 10:48 a.m.

    @Resident

    I agree that our economy cannot sustain an open border policy, that being said, the wholesale abuse that is being given to immigrants (not just illegals) is inexcusable, period.

    I agree that we need to secure our borders; I do not believe that wholesale deportation of 11 million people (some of whom are United States Citizens, or sponsorship eligible relatives, e.g. parents and siblings of US Citizens) is acceptable. I do not believe that we should repeal or ignore the 14th Amendment which provides citizenship to ALL people born in the U.S.

    Additionally, I disagree with you on the assertion that illegals are stealing all our jobs. I know few Caucasian citizens who would "lower" themselves to perform the tasks that many illegals willingly perform. Jobs like "field-hand" during harvest, hotel housekeeping, and fast-food cook are considered below the dignity of most "citizens" (unless you're 16)

    Additionally, I reject the National Security argument. Too many wrongs have been committed throughout world history in the name of National Security... (the Topaz Mtn. Relocation camp springs to mind immediately) as do places named Dachau, and the GULAG.

  • Resident
    July 20, 2010 9:56 a.m.

    @ JER84119

    I understand that there are members of all kinds and yes, there is a lot of hypocrisy.

    The church said "Elected individuals have the primary responsibility to find solutions in the best interests of all whose lives will be impacted by their actions."

    I understand that not all of those who are illegal are bad people. I understand that they are trying to escape a bad thing and come to a better place. I understand that we need to keep them in mind in dealing with our immigration policy.

    I also understand that our economy cannot sustain an open boarder policy. I understand that illegals are taking the jobs of many americans and many of those americans choose not work thus the government provides. I understand that it is the illegals that are making it very difficult for the legal immigrants. I understand that it is a national security issue.

    Personally, I think we need to secure our boarders. I think that letting people jump the boarder is wrong. I think that it's a little too tough for those who want to come to America legally. Let's fix it. Is that, in your opinion, wrong?

  • Still Jim
    July 20, 2010 9:26 a.m.

    Isn't it interesting that people who are proud of their illegal immigrant ancestors are appalled by illegal immigration in the modern era. Yes, boys and girls, if you look in your family tree you will find illegal immigrant ancestors.

  • snowman
    July 20, 2010 9:19 a.m.

    1happycamper: I'm sure there is more than one democrat in the church leadership. We are not told what arty we have to be.

  • daizy
    July 20, 2010 9:16 a.m.

    Who is Ethan Moller on KSL talk show?! This guy supports illegal immigrants just because he served a mission in Mexico, and because he can speak some very bad Spanish. He is one very mixed up LDS guy and says that we Americans are all illegals. Perhaps he may be illegal in his own mind, but I was born here and very legal with my own SS-card and not someones elses which was stolen. Sheeeesh!

    It's time for some adults to reach adulthood.

  • Resident
    July 20, 2010 9:11 a.m.

    @ LDS Liberal

    "LDS Church repeats call for 'civil discourse' on immigration

    ==============

    Why does the Church need to keep repeating itself?

    It would seem some members are choosing to not only just ignore, but to even be Rebelling."


    In your opinion, if I choose to support tougher immigration laws, am I a rebel? Is it uncivil for a member of the church to support it? Who is being uncivil?

  • snowman
    July 20, 2010 9:10 a.m.

    AlexGomez2: When the pioneers came to Utah there was nothing here but a whole lot of nothing and Indians.

  • JER84119
    July 20, 2010 9:01 a.m.

    Wow, Hypocrisy and irony prevail.

    As a member of the LDS Church, I am routinely appalled by the behavior, conduct, and attitudes of the majority of members of the church along the "Mormon Corridor" Shame on all of us. Shame on those who are hiding behind the language of the 12th Article of Faith (knowing full well that the Church itself has ignored the 'law' - I refer you back to the polygamy era.) Shame on you who ignore the 13th Article of Faith about "doing good to men".

    And finally, shame on you for choosing to follow Glenn Beck instead of the called and ordained Apostles of Jesus Christ.

    Far to many of my friends and neighbors have sold their birthright of civil liberties and the teaching of Joesph Smith -- "I teach the people correct principles and let them govern themselves" for the pottage of conservative and tea-party lip-service to "moral" and social issues.

    Many of us say America is on the wrong track, and I agree. We've been on the wrong track for many years (accelerated after 9/11) of surrendering our own interests for those of the elite and of big business.

  • idablu
    July 19, 2010 10:14 p.m.

    It is clear to me that the Church is officially neutral on this one. They don't condone or condemn deportation of all illegals. They are simply on the side of "civility." Those of you (liberal or conservative) who are trying to use the church to support your political position are wrong, and the brethren would condemn such behavior. I also think using the B of M or other scriptures to support your position shows piety and self righteousness.

    Tightening up our borders is imperative for this country to survive. But deporting ALL illegals I believe is a little extreme.

  • LDS Liberal
    July 19, 2010 7:14 p.m.

    LDS Church repeats call for 'civil discourse' on immigration

    ==============

    Why does the Church need to keep repeating itself?

    It would seem some members are choosing to not only just ignore, but to even be Rebelling.


    Stay tune,
    This should keep getting interesting....

  • onewhotries
    July 19, 2010 4:39 p.m.

    I think Americans are afraid. The old saying,"what goes around comes around" can be applied here. If God said ,"there is room enough and to spare", and there is a lot of unused land,why should it be so hard to let immigrants in? Yes, we ALL should obey the laws of All lands,and why so slow on the 'paper work'? Why not help other countries to build up their infastructure, which would help to create jobs in their countries, and also get in good government leaders?I think we are afraid of loosing what we have bcause we are not living up to our own constitution. Corrupt government, long before Pres. Obama, is part of the reason. Illegal immigrants aren't our problem, ungodly laws are.Satan stirs up the negative; try and find a positive Christlike solution to our country's problems. How about putting all those great minds out there to work and find an amicable solution to and for the heartache of so many desperate people who only want to care for their families. And stop using drugs so the bad guys won't have a market here. love you!

  • 1happycamper
    July 19, 2010 4:27 p.m.

    Geepers, JM. That is great prophesying that you are doing here. However, not to offend you in anyway, but you seem a bit paranoid. um, love ya anyway :)

  • onewhotries
    July 19, 2010 4:15 p.m.

    Since this country was originally lived on by the ancestors of these Latinos it will return to them if we Americans don't honor and obey the God of this land;it says so in the Book of Mormon.Europeans came here freely under divine inspiration; mostly poor and uneducated. Now you have laws to prevent others from the same opportunities.Will you pick the fruit, gather the veggies, clean the toilets? No, now that you're educated you want 'big' jobs, you wouldn't do the work these poor people do or your ancestor's did.What will be next? Get rid of the Blacks and take their jobs? Watch, pray, and obey for this is what God asked us to do. Love one another, serve one another. With all your smarts find a better plan.You practice obeying the law,set a better example.Follow the prophet, he can 'see' better and more than any of us. Remember the last inhabitants of this land and why they lost it.Pray before you vote so we can have better leaders who will listen, as George Washinton and Abraham Lincoln did, for God's counsel.This country needs to repent

  • LDS Liberal
    July 19, 2010 4:07 p.m.

    1happycamper | 3:29 p.m. July 19, 2010
    WOW! I'm absolutely Modified to learn that there are actually liberal LDS Mormons. I see a lot of double standards going on in these comments. You folks are suppose to follow your leaders. Although one of your very high ups is a democrat--SO does that make him a liberal? All I know is that people coming into this country illegally are breaking the laws in my book.
    ==================

    Some of our highest ups is not even an Americans.
    German Socialist for that matter.

    To which I add, he holds my most humbled respect as a servant of the Lord.


    And I agree, people coming into this country illegally are breaking the laws in my books too.
    [Hint: that's why they are illegal, right?]

  • 1happycamper
    July 19, 2010 3:29 p.m.

    WOW! I'm absolutely Modified to learn that there are actually liberal LDS Mormons. I see a lot of double standards going on in these comments. You folks are suppose to follow your leaders. Although one of your very high ups is a democrat--SO does that make him a liberal? All I know is that people coming into this country illegally are breaking the laws in my book.

  • LDS Liberal
    July 19, 2010 3:10 p.m.

    Chris B | 1:48 p.m. July 19, 2010
    Kimber,

    You must be new to these posts. LDS Liberal is not LDS. Like all liberals, he hates the Mormons.

    ==================

    Don't EVEN go there.

    You know about people who "assume" don't you?

    Furthermore; you are PRECISELY the very group the Brethren are refering to [or do you realize that?].

    Question my position on politics ALL you want,
    Calling me NON-Mormon because I disagree with you "politically" is wrong and that's why the repeated warnings both over the pulpit and repeated LDS News-letters.

    That old "you not a patriot, and are UN-American because I dis-agree" from ultra-Conservtative hate-radio hacks might work in for your ignorant entertainment, but the World-Wide LDS Church won't play that game.

  • eagle
    July 19, 2010 2:23 p.m.

    You can be liberal and moderate and be a good LDS person. I get sick of hearing this garbage from those on both sides of the political aisle.

  • Chris B
    July 19, 2010 1:48 p.m.

    Kimber,

    You must be new to these posts. LDS Liberal is not LDS. Like all liberals, he hates the Mormons.

  • Kimber
    July 19, 2010 1:27 p.m.

    I love it LDS Liberal! It's kinda hard to believe that you are both LDS and Liberal (kind've a contradiction in terms). When I found that basically I'm a moderate Liberal I also found I couldn't fit in in the LDS religion. But I'm glad to see that there is someone that would rather try and be both (but I will watch to see if you sometime decribe how that is). This is because if you are open about it, you are likely to be warned or dis-fellowshiped (at least) and if you are silent you will eventually feel that you cannot keep hiding within yourself.

  • LDS Liberal
    July 19, 2010 12:59 p.m.

    Here it comes Conservatives....

    Who is it going to be?

    Those of you who will follow the Brethren?,
    or those of you who will follow hate radio.

    This is further proof Modern Conservtives are WRONG and are following today's versions of Sherem, Nehor, and Korihor.


    All the more reason I applaude KSL dumping "Sean Hannity".

  • Bleeding Heart
    July 19, 2010 11:42 a.m.

    There has been SO much mention of the 12th Article of Faith, but surprisingly, to my knowledge, NO mention of Matthew 22:37-40: "Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, THOU SHALT LOVE THY NEIGHBOUR AS THYSELF. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

  • mkSdd3
    July 19, 2010 10:14 a.m.

    I support sending people back to their country of origin, and emigration based on the rule of law. Close the boarder and enforce the laws.

    This opinion is NOT uncivil!

    However those people that are on the other side of the issue have called names and hurtled insults at me. I think the call for civility is pointed at you not me.

    Stop using names like racist, bigot, uneducated, stupid, and any other name that you think is OK to use.

    Just because we have a different opinion doesn't mean you have to be uncivil towards me.

  • JM
    July 19, 2010 9:05 a.m.


    @Vespero, just FYI, there are people on the DN all the time pretending to be LDS who are actually anti-Mormons. Every time they try to prove the BoM BoA, etc, false they actually end up proving it true.

    So, they have developed another tactic, it's called, offend everyone by pretending to be LDS. Many of these people hate Mormons and want others to hate us also. Some of them are gay activists. Maybe all are, don't know. They have many screen names,and you will especially find them on Michael Ash's articles on teh BoM and etc.

  • sarajean
    July 19, 2010 7:33 a.m.

    One of our greatest Presidents, who actually saw the potential of our great America, had this to say,
    "I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the wall had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it and see it still.
    And how stands the city on this night? More prosperous, more secure, and happier than it was eight years ago....she's still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness toward home."
    President Ronald Reagan in his farewell address.
    I don't see our city that way now. We have changed.

  • Vespero
    July 19, 2010 6:27 a.m.

    So many people on this board claiming to be LDS, so many people on this board refusing to listen to the counsel of their leaders, so many people so locked in their own opinion that all they can do is justify their own hatred and try to feel righteous doing so... This is not just a problem for those who are here illegal. For decades, we have lured them here with our immigration policies with a wink and a nudge. The United States is as responsible as those who have come seeking a better life, and the United States needs to take accountability for their side of this as well. To merely kick them all out and think that we are solving the problem or being fair would be a large exercise in self-justification, blaming, and self-deception. What is needed is a thoughtful and measured response that does not just simply punish those who have immigrated illegally for heeding the implicit invitations that the USA has given in so many ways. A proper solution will recognize the shared accountability.

  • E. Klinche
    July 19, 2010 6:14 a.m.

    Many Latinos are here (illegally and legally) because of the Cold War and US drug use.

    How legal were/are those conflicts? Is that the fault of poor immigrants that those problems have caused dire situations?

    If you are from El Salvador or Guatemala, or even parts of southern Mexico, or other parts of South America, as millions of US Hispanics are, then Marxism did a doosey on your home lands.

    Many Anglo Americans are lucky that their ancestors only fled poverty and lack of opportunity in order to come here. Others are not as lucky: see Nazi regime survivors, Russian emigres, Chinese and Vietnamese asylum seekers...

    Not all Latino illegals are here for the same reasons, true. The criminals (those with arrests and charges in crime, like drugs and theft, etc...) should be prosecuted to the full extent of our laws.

    The law abiding ones? Make them legal! This is the USA, the greatest country in the world.

    100 years ago it was "too many Irish, Poles, Italians and Jews". Is this is a problem today? We should welcome new immigrants! The Statue of Liberty is not a bunch of fluff, nor is the Declaration of Independence.

    God bless.



  • RichE
    July 19, 2010 5:27 a.m.

    To all who have commented on the 12th Article of Faith as justification to treat illegal immigrants with disdain, immediate deportation, splitting up families by sending illegal parents of American born citizen children out of the USA, etc...

    May I suggest that you also read and ponder the next (13th) Article of Faith which reads:

    We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men...

    Doing good to all men - shouldn't that be our overriding concern for all of us?

    Isn't that what the LDS Church leadership is asking of its members?


  • JBrady
    July 19, 2010 2:15 a.m.

    @ Brotherhood
    I have no problem helping those that I choose. I do not like people that demand it. In 1996 we created NAFTA to help the people of Mexico. Now they are the 14th best economy in the world. Thanks to our subsidies and tax breaks going to American companies that move there Mexico has less unemployment than the US.

    China, India, Mexico and the Philippines are the only countries that have a long wait on green cards. Their demand exceeds our supply. It's not a justification for breaking man and God's laws.

    Let's all help those in the countries we served our missions in. And let's be fair to everyone by enforcing our laws.

  • JBrady
    July 19, 2010 2:15 a.m.

    @ Brotherhood
    I have no problem helping those that I choose. I do not like people that demand it. In 1996 we created NAFTA to help the people of Mexico. Now they are the 14th best economy in the world. Thanks to our subsidies and tax breaks going to American companies that move there Mexico has less unemployment than the US.

    China, India, Mexico and the Philippines are the only countries that have a long wait on green cards. Their demand exceeds our supply. It's not a justification for breaking man and God's laws.

    Let's all help those in the countries we served our missions in. And let's be fair to everyone by enforcing our laws.

  • MormonDem
    July 19, 2010 1:50 a.m.

    Archie: overstating a visa is a civil, not criminal, offense. Also, a couple of years ago when Elder Marlin K. Jensen was sent by the First Presidency to call for compassion for immigrants, Elder Jensen himself compared illegal entry or visa violations to civil offenses such as traffic violations.

    idablu: citizenship for anyone born on American soil is not a "loophole," for goodness sakes! It is written into the Constitution!

  • JBrady
    July 19, 2010 12:59 a.m.

    re:idablu

    The DN will not approve posts with links in them, sorry.

    Not approving comments about the churches indiscretions towards hiring people here illegally in the past, does not help keep a civil discourse either.

    We had quite the talk about honesty and transparency outside our ward house today. It creates more of a problem than it solves.

  • Brotherhood
    July 19, 2010 12:46 a.m.

    I served an LDS mission in Mexico; the Mexican people treated me with so much kindness but sometimes asked me to tell them why the people of our country hated them so much.
    I believe in being honest. I also believe that we need to keep in mind that our country was founded on principles of freedom for all and that in scriptures it is stated that God will bring those who should be brought to this land (read in 2 Nephi 1). I think as we are selfish and forget about others' needs we will not be happy. Charity is the law that never faileth. Which of us can really cast a stone? If we want to be happier with our situation, I think we should realize that maybe our Heavenly Father would want us to share more and judge others of His children less.

  • Archie
    July 19, 2010 12:12 a.m.

    idablu | 10:50 p.m. July 18, 2010
    Archie | 10:13 p.m. July 18, 2010

    1. What are the actual laws and penalties associated with these issues?

    2. What is the economic impact of illegal immigration

    Two good questions; both worthy of investigative reporting. How about it, DN??



  • idablu
    July 18, 2010 10:50 p.m.

    The immigration problem should be addressed by focusing on 2 issues: Illegal immigration's impact on the economy and its impact on national security. I think few would argue that our porous borders are a great avenue for potential terrorists to enter the country. To me, economic impact is not so clear. I've seen lots of conflicting data. Can anyone direct me to reliable, unbiased, independent, factual data on the economic impact of illegal immigration?

  • idablu
    July 18, 2010 10:32 p.m.

    Re: Bill in Nebraska | 9:24 p.m. July 17

    You express my own sentiments very well.

    some other thoughts:
    1. Deporting all illegals will be very expensive and very messy. Deport every one who commits a fairly serious crime. Those who are working, provide probationary citizenship and tax them. If they can keep their nose clean after a period, grant them permanent status. Make employers provide health benefits.

    2. Secure the borders!

    3. Those who favor open borders and cry racism to anyone opposed to their opinion are cowards.

    4. I think the counsel of the Brethren is wise. Let's carefully consider the ramifications on all the people and families involved in this debate.

    5. If some comes to this country illegally, and has a baby while still illegal, that baby should not be allowed to have legal citizenship. I think fixing that loophole will curb much of the illegal immiration.

  • Archie
    July 18, 2010 10:13 p.m.

    I ran across this scripture yesterday and thought of the immigration issue...

    D&C 58:21 Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land.

    I've read posts on this thread equating illegal immigration to a speeding ticket. Honestly, I've heard local leaders make the exact same comparison - seems like an over simplification of the issue.

    Does anyone know which statute the immigration issue falls under; criminal or civil? I believe traffic tickets fall under civil law. Are we really talking about the same thing?

    Does remaining in the country after a work or student visa expires fall under the same statute as entering the country illegally?

    Compliance with the laws of the land is the issue. However, I think we need to understand what those laws and associated penalties are before we can talk intelligently about the issue...don't we?

    Does anyone have insight to the laws at the heart of the issue?

  • sagacity
    July 18, 2010 10:09 p.m.

    To those of you who are going against the Church's measured stance on immigration, to those of you who love cherry-picking: Hypocrisy is an ugly thing. And you're bound to find yourselves all tangled up in it sooner than later.

  • RichE
    July 18, 2010 9:48 p.m.

    To all who have commented on the 12th Article of Faith as justification to treat illegal immigrants with disdain, immediate deportation, splitting up families by sending illegal parents of American born citizen children out of the USA, etc...

    May I suggest that you also read and ponder the next (13th) Article of Faith which reads:

    We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men...

    Doing good to all men - shouldn't that be our overriding concern for all of us?

    Isn't that what the LDS Church leadership is asking of its members?


  • blablabla
    July 18, 2010 9:34 p.m.

    These comments are embarrassing...it's funny how Utah LDS members are so willing to follow the council of their bishops or stake presidents when they say things like, "you can't drink coke!", but when the Church gives an OFFICIAL, PUBLIC statement those same members try to find their way around a REASONABLE call from the CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST. Is it really that hard to be civil? I've never seen so much hypocrisy from people that say they want to be like Jesus and then come here and write horrible things about children of God.

    Those of you who say that they should come here legally have NO IDEA about immigration laws and how hard (almost impossible) it is to come here LEGALY. A work visa is expensive and very hard to get approved (you need a sponsor, and companies employing immigrants DON'T want sponsor them).

    The issue is a lot more complicated than "following article of faith 12" Those who say that honestly have NO IDEA about immigration...and with the attitudes I see here, it seems like you don't want to learn, just talk and talk ignorantly.

  • Dr. James Rawson
    July 18, 2010 9:00 p.m.

    To quote Scott Taylor: When Herbert first announced the event earlier this month, the immigration focus was Arizona's controversial, divisive legislation and Utah's role in state reform. Scott has failed to read the AZ law obviously. The legislation is not divisive, it mirrors the federal mandate to control illegal immigration. It does nothing but protect AZ from the scourge of illegal aliens and stop the drug and crime traffic flowing across their southern border unabated because of the stupidity of the Obama and Bush administrations. It's obvious the deseret news has already passed judgment and doesn't care one iota about the legal citizens of this state who fork over the taxes so that the illegals can live a better life off of the entitlement programs of the federal and state government. Absolutely and totally shameful and against the principles of this country aimed at protecting the rights of lawful residents, period!

  • StandAlone
    July 18, 2010 8:00 p.m.

    "When the law is changed, to allow easier and more immigration, I will remind all of you (illegal you say) immigrant haters that you staked your opinions and actions on the need to follow the law, so follow the new one."

    What other laws should we change to accommodate people? If we continue to change laws to suit the agenda of a few, why have laws at all? That's the difference between Gods' laws and man made secular laws. One changes like a political fashion trend , the other is never changing and constant.

    I can't imagine what society would look like if we accommodated everyone for whatever reason. There are over 300 million people in the U.S, and nearly 7 billion people worldwide. If we remove our borders, there will be no United States of America.

    I, for one, do not hate immigrants. I'm an immigrant myself, a legal one under the current law. I do have a problem with dishonesty though.


  • JayTee
    July 18, 2010 7:20 p.m.

    The bank has more money than I do. I guess to provide for my family, and offer them a better life like the bankers have, I should be allowed to rob the bank and elevate my family's status. If the bankers are at all Christian, they should be willing to turn a blind eye to my activities, and treat me in a "civil" and "charitable" manner and not be pressing charges. After all, as greedy capitalists, it's only right that they give up a little to benefit people like me. After all, haven't they ever read Uncle Tom's Cabin? I mean, without the money, some of my family might have to leave the area to work or rob elsewhere. It's time we started sharing and letting people take what we've built here. That way we can all feel good about ourselves. I mean, Jesus himself must have been a robber, right? Or not. Anyway, if I want your stuff, you should be a humanitarian and make sure I get it . . . NOW!

  • ratkellar
    July 18, 2010 7:16 p.m.

    There are 2 issues that the Church itself does not seem to understand (at least in its statement).
    1) There is a political issue. Rational discourse by elected, federal officials is needed. I prefer a solution similar to Reagan's, but DC seems more worried about who should enforce the federal law.
    2) There is an issue of illegal acts by persons entering this country without permission. That is no longer to be handled by legoislative persons, it is law enforcement. The law should be enforced -- by federal officers and if necessary by state officers.
    The political issue is complex; the enforcement issue should not be.
    I'm not certain why the LDS Church should be involved or have an opinion. Our basic tenets are to obey the law and also to be benevolent.

  • RAB
    July 18, 2010 7:08 p.m.

    For the LDS Church, obeying the law is extremely important. Anyone breaking the law needs to rethink their behavior and do what they know they should be doing.

    More than anything else however, the gospel has always emphasized mercy and the golden rule. One has to ask: Do I want for those immigrants what I would want for myself? Would I want the blessings of living in our country denied to me? Would I want to be forced back to a country where I lived in fear, despair, and/or hopelessness?

    Obviously, these immigrants are so desperate and unhappy with their lives in their own countries that they are willing to leave their beloved friends and families, travel a great distance (sometimes at great risk and cost), live in constant fear of deportation or other punishments, and take the least desirable, lowest paying jobs available - all for the mere hope of tasting of the blessings that many of us take for granted.

    Breaking the law is wrong and people should repent of it. But there is a word for people who want something for others that they would not want for themselves. “hypocrite”.

  • Jonathan Eddy
    July 18, 2010 7:05 p.m.

    As expected, the ignorant will fall for anything. We have had immigration issues for over 200 years, but it was never of any real concern until the last couple of years. Why? Because it is in the propaganda press on a daily basis.

    Now that you are all whipped into a frenzy, here is what will happen next.
    1. You will demand federal reform
    2. The President will oblige and offer a solution under the Security and Prosperity Partnership Act of 2009
    3. Homeland Security will step in and take charge
    4. North American Union ID cards will be issued as a cure
    5. You will accept it hook line and STINKER
    6. The North American Union will take command over national sovereignty and America will become even weaker and more watered down
    7. North Americans will travel freely among all borders but America as the greatest nation will end
    8. You will wonder what in heaven's name happened, just like you did when we lost our manufacturing base to Mexico via NAFTA/GATT and then to China

    You Utahans sure make me feel warm and fuzzy and safe.

  • JayTee
    July 18, 2010 7:01 p.m.

    It looks like most of the roundtable invitees are the cheap-liberal-votes lobby, the cheap-labor lobby, and the we-want-to-continue-the-welfare lobby. When you talk about the feelings and needs of all concerned, you should know that for this country to maintain any degree of security, economic well-being, and sovereignty, we HAVE to have borders and those borders have to be real and have meaning. Otherwise, you've just given away the entire country to any takers who happen to want it. I'm all for being civil, but I'm also about being realistic and vigilant when it comes to maintaining some degree of viability, solvency, and tranquility in this nation--as long as we can HAVE a nation.

  • ds7
    July 18, 2010 6:39 p.m.

    more of these uneducated masses aren't helping our situation. for every $1 these people contribute in taxes, they remove $3 in benefits.

    i can "love" these illegals just as much if they're in mexico as i can if they're in west valley.

    no need to break-up families, send the whole lot back to mexico or whatever other south american country they broke out of.

  • Ernest T. Bass
    July 18, 2010 6:37 p.m.

    Why should we be civil when were true and there not.

  • TJ Banks
    July 18, 2010 6:26 p.m.

    It seems like it is too late to solve this problem...there are too many illegals of many nationalities that are here...they tell their relatives and friends and they all want to come too. Look at San Fran. the docks are filled with illegals trying to catch fish for their dinner...if their own leaders in their own countries were altruistic and actually helped the populace get water, sanitation and food production programs instead of greedily taking advantage of the people, we might not have this problem. This is not an easy problem to solve, so I believe that the church leaders are cautioning us to be civil and not go too far on either side with rioting and so forth.

  • Chileno
    July 18, 2010 6:20 p.m.

    Just follow the prophet and you will be doing the right thing!

  • rw
    July 18, 2010 5:05 p.m.

    The Church's message is simple and clear. No matter which side you are on, love your neighbor as yourself. No matter the issue, no matter your beliefs, we are required by God and logic (they are not incompatible) to try to understand, to be compassionate, kind, loving. Civil. A call for civility does not take sides. Rather it is a plea to approach an issue in such a way that the best possible good is the result.

    An argument that shows no compassion is not as effective as it could be.

  • Emophiliac
    July 18, 2010 5:00 p.m.

    What is there to debate? Illegals have no claim to be in the US. And anyone employing them should be fined and/or lose their business license. Let the illegals either self-deport or give them a ride to the border - either works. And, of course, don't break up families. Give US citizens who are either married to or children of illegals a ride to the border as well. To do otherwise would be cruel.

  • Ajax
    July 18, 2010 4:13 p.m.

    The strident advocacy of a systematic identification and purging of undesirables that is witnessed in some comments could easily pass for the rantings of supremacist groups. And if members of these groups are not already here and active in stoking the fires of racism, I would assume that they soon will be packing for the politically fertile fields of Deseret.

  • Christy
    July 18, 2010 4:09 p.m.

    @LDS Mom,

    Provo and SLC are sanctuary cities. Don't ask if they're here illegally, they don't tell you. Sometimes all you need to get benefits is a utility bill showing where you live. Many of the children are legal US citizens, so they lawfully receive benefits.

  • Wizard of Oz
    July 18, 2010 4:02 p.m.

    What bothers me about the whole immigration issue is the attitude of the Mexican government. They seem to want more of their people to leave Mexico to come to the United States. They do this because those immigrants send US dollars back to Mexico.

    If I were the president of Mexico, I would hang my head in shame for such an attitude. It would shame me that my country was so full of corruption and violent drug cartels that my economy could not have a hope of supporting my people. It would shame me to think that the only thing I could offer my people is my efforts to make it as easy as possible to leave my country. When will Mexicans take back their country from the thugs and secret combinations that rule it today?

  • Ajax
    July 18, 2010 3:50 p.m.

    Let's face it. Too many of we Utahns are handicapped by a black-and-white mindset. And making matters worse is our spare partisan world view locked in the grip of an imagined simpler, less baffling past. Tell me, how is something so complex, with so many twists and turns, as fair and balanced immigration reform ever to be achieved from so narrow a perspective?

  • Christine
    July 18, 2010 3:48 p.m.

    The LDS chursh is right. Do what's best for those whose lives will be affected by the new laws the most.

  • Not_Scared
    July 18, 2010 3:08 p.m.

    "What everyone misses here is that our government created a lot of the problems we face with illegals. Biggest problem is delivering their babies at tax payers expense and then making the babies US citizens even though the parents are illegal. How stupid is this?"

    You want an nation, were like in the time of Christ's birth, a pregnant woman is cast out on to the streets to give birth?

    If you have no humanity compassion is stupid. Why did the US government waste dollars buying chocolate bars to give to starving children in Germany after the war?

  • dansimp
    July 18, 2010 2:53 p.m.

    How can any member of the church really think the 12th article of faith means that all laws are good, and we need to support all of them?

    It was illegal to harbor Jews in Europe during WWII. It was legal to own slaves. It was illegal for a black person to drink out of the same fountain as a white. In some countries it is legal to rape women, or to stone adulterers. You cannot possibly believe that the Church supports these activities under the guise of the 12th article of faith.

  • disgusted
    July 18, 2010 2:17 p.m.

    UtahBlueDevil:
    'Is it that they are brown babies this go around rather little Irish babies, or italian, or polish, german, chinese, what ever.'

    No a lot of those Irish,Italian,Polish,German and not so many Chinese' babies were born to 'legal'immigrants that went through Ellis Island in the 1800's. The Chinese were used as slave labor for the railroads (most of them were illegal). People don't want to break up illegal families because we stupid Americans made automatic citizens of their babies paid for by taxpayers of the US. That's what I was referring to. (illegal parents. . . legal babies) see the problem?

  • LDS Mom
    July 18, 2010 1:42 p.m.

    In all of the talk about "The List", the thing that no one is saying is this was government information. Our state has known all along who should and who shouldn't be here. There would not be a debate at all if our great leaders would do their jobs.

  • DocSarvis
    July 18, 2010 1:29 p.m.

    UtahBlueDevil.....I totally agree. No more cheat lawn service, etc. I've never been in favor of supporting slave labor. How about you?

  • UtahBlueDevil
    July 18, 2010 1:13 p.m.

    Disgusted... its in the constitution. Sorry. It has been this way a really long time. So what is the real issue here? Is it that they are brown babies this go around rather little Irish babies, or italian, or polish, german, chinese, what ever.

    To your question how many countries oversees allow people to come and go without documents.... ok.... France, Germany, Spain, Netherlands, Austria, Italy, Poland.... the list keeps going. In the EU, no documents are required. You can drive from France to Germany with no more change then you would see if you when traveling from Utah to Nevada.

    And no, we are not the only country that has net immigration. Shocking as it may sound, you go to places like Germany, and you will see people of all ethnic origins. Perhaps you need to extend your travels a bit wider than just New Mexico.

    DocSarvis - I agree. Don't get that cheap lawn service, or construction done. Pay more for your hotels so they can hire Mary instead of Maria to clean your rooms. And lets stop shopping at Walmart and buying Tyson products because they use cheap labor. Don't want to do that... ? Hmm.

  • facts_r_stubborn
    July 18, 2010 1:05 p.m.

    We should support efforts to enforce all laws and work to change them if we don't agree. Today, no good citizen and patriot will support breaking some laws to supposedly enforce others. Vigilanteism by some hinders effective enforcement.

    Immigration is a complicated issue, affecting millions of people, both legal residents and those here illegally. Those who suggest that these issues are as simple as enforcing the law, apparently have not noticed that we still have crime of all kinds, not just illegal immigration. They also may not have noticed that border control has been beefed up dramatically in the last few years. Enforcement isn't free.

    Perhaps, we should have more patience for federal and state law enforcement personnel and even our elected officials while they try to deal with the problem of illegal immigration. We should recognize they are targeting violent and other criminals who also happen to be here illegally first. That just makes sense.

    We should be compassionate towards those who are otherwise law abiding persons, who are undocumented, while also enforcing the law. We should have laws that recognize the difference.

    I can't hear you when you're yelling, let's talk.

  • Samuel the lamanite
    July 18, 2010 1:01 p.m.

    Why don't you all just go back to Europe.
    Just kidding I feel this country belongs to those who want freedom.

    Your ancestors came here illegally (if your a Mormon Brigham Young was an illegal Alien. John Taylor lived in hiding from the law) but all is forgiven. Swedes, Danes and Norwegians used to be unwanted populations as were the Irish, Greeks and the Italians. I could list the slurs and stereotypes but I am obeying the brethren about civility.

    if this is the site for the gathering of Israel we need to let them gather.

  • disgusted
    July 18, 2010 12:42 p.m.

    What everyone misses here is that our government created a lot of the problems we face with illegals. Biggest problem is delivering their babies at tax payers expense and then making the babies US citizens even though the parents are illegal. How stupid is this? Every state in the Union has given them driver licenses so they can move around freely from state to state changing their identities as they please. They forge documents such as Social Security cards, birth certificates, and anything else they gave steal. I spent some time in New Mexico many years ago. On Thanksgiving one particular year the Newspaper headlines indicated that 65 burglaries occurred over the Holiday. If it isn't tied down it will be stolen and sold at the many flea markets that was around the city. You say racist? How many sovereign countries oversea's including Canada allow people to just come as go as they please without legal documents? Remember the Haitian boat people? Why didn't we let them all into this country? Wake up people. We're not the solution to everyones problems here in this country.

  • DocSarvis
    July 18, 2010 12:33 p.m.

    Easy solution. Have people put their money where their mouths are. Those in favor of allowing illegal immigrants into the country have to pay to subsidize them. Those against it don't.

  • Sarah Nichole
    July 18, 2010 12:31 p.m.

    As somebody who has legally immigrated to another country in the past, I'm all for making that process easier on everybody involved. If it were easier for people to move here legally when they wished, most of them would not come illegally.

    Having said that, if you are breaking the law, then you need to make restitution of some kind for doing so. You need to pay a fine, do x number of hours of community service, serve a jail sentence, whatever, just like anybody else who breaks the law. After that restitution is made, and after those in question have begun steps to make their stay legal, and have begun to learn the language, then I don't think there's anything wrong with letting them stay here, if they haven't committed any other crimes they haven't made right.

  • fire_rooster
    July 18, 2010 12:28 p.m.

    Enforce the law, be compassionate. Love your brother.

    "Lamanites met others who were seeking liberty. And the land soon welcomed all who wanted to be free. Book of Mormon stories say that we must brothers be."

    -Book of Mormon Stories hymn

  • evensteven
    July 18, 2010 12:23 p.m.

    The Church's plea for civility would get alot further if they would also issue a plea for honesty. I remember getting lectured in GPM a few years ago about how fudging on one's taxes was inappropriate behavior for a priesthood holder. It would be nice if the Church would come out and openly state that being in the US illegally is inappropriate for a priesthood holder.

    The truth is, the Brethren are deeply divided themselves on this issue. A call for civility is the only thing they all can agree on. The correct stance is to oppose illegal immigration. The opposite stand will open a Pandora's box of more widespread ignoring of laws - all tacitly endorsed by the Church. They have waited too long to deal with this "don't ask, don't tell" issue.

  • Anonymous Infinity
    July 18, 2010 11:46 a.m.

    There is nothing racist about our government enforcing border laws. It goes without argument that a nation without border control is not a nation at all. With this, the notion, er law? that says a child born in this country is automatically a "citizen" is flawed and unamerican. This needs to be rescinded. This is what is fueling all this talk about being compassionate and reasonable about sending lawbreakers who have crossed our borders without authorization back to their own countries. People of other origins do not have a "right" to come to this country, only under certain legal conditions. Why is this so hard to understand? Green cards will not work either, because there is no monitoring of these people. And giving people visas is totally out of control, because these people simply melt into the population and never return to their country of origin if they aren't legitimate tourists visiting our country. Food stamps, welfare, health care and all the rest of it are going through the roof and adding to the burden of government. All of this is outrageous.

  • shamrock
    July 18, 2010 11:25 a.m.

    I applaud the LDS leaders for reminding us of the importance of civility. It doesn't matter what the issue is, we'll solve it better and faster if we treat each other with compassion and courtesy.

    There's something called the Paradox of Persuasion. The louder we yell, the harder we pound the table, the more quickly our listeners will back away and write us off as screwballs. Screaming and name-calling never convinced anybody, so let's just give it a rest.

  • Idaho Coug
    July 18, 2010 11:04 a.m.

    This is such an interesting look into human behavior. So many are waving the flag of the 12th Article of Faith like it suddenly became the most important tenant of our faith. Do you just as passionately report people speeding through your neghborhood, waive over someone rolling through a stop sign, turn in anyone you suspect of playing loose with the tax code, etc etc?

    It is also very interesting to see people very willing to criticize the Church if a stance does not mesh with their own personal or political opinions. I am all for LDS members thinking for themselves and not just blindly following. But I get the feeling that some are very hypocritical in that regard. They condemn others for disagreeing with a church stance that they have no problem with. But when the Church is not quite in line with what they want or believe it is a different story.

    The bottom line is that for years we have literally had no border. In good economic times we welcomed the cheap labor. Now we want to send them all home. This CAN be resolved short of deportation. BOTH parties need to step up.

  • micawber
    July 18, 2010 10:45 a.m.

    It surprises me how many commenters are willing to counsel the brethren about this innocuous statement that we should act with civility.

    And, Galileo, terms like "Zion curtain" are disrespectful and add nothing to the civility of the dialogue.

  • Not_Scared
    July 18, 2010 10:37 a.m.

    "What this country needs is less rhetoric like the paragraph above which makes many erroneous assumptions that illegal immigrants are criminals, drug dealers, and gang members." Propagandist use this to frame their argument.

    I live in California. Most the Mexicans I know, work harder than most whites, I know. The whites grew-up here, many got parental welfare, some work at jobs daddy got them or their father in law. They have love to tell you what success stories they are.

    What's more amazing; is the more parental welfare I saw them receive, the more conservative they became. When you never earned anything on your own you never learned charity toward others.

    Mexicans have ever taken a thing from me. They have been warm caring people. I see Mexicans working in condition that I'm surprised people work under.

    On one hand; we have people born into the chosen race, their parents had connections and money and they were born here. They never exerted a calorie to get here.

    They resent people who risked their lives to get here. You try walking through the Sonora Desert.

  • optimist
    July 18, 2010 10:23 a.m.

    Wow, reading all of these post, makes me feel like I am at a BYU/Utah football game. The same hate mentality. It's embarrassing. I'm ashamed.

  • Peter Coyotl
    July 18, 2010 10:07 a.m.


    John Adams wrote: 5:51 a.m. July 18, 2010
    @ Galileo | 9:40 p.m.

    "How is it different? The person that breaks into your home comes uninvited. He's out of work. He sees that you have "plenty" so he helps himself to better his situation and that of his family. He's broken the law by entering illegally and what isn't his to take. How is it different?"
    * * *

    Your analogy forgot to mention that the person who entered illegally knew that someone from your home would invite him/her to perform chores at a cheaper cost than what is currently being paid.

  • AlexGomez2
    July 18, 2010 10:07 a.m.

    When Mormons established and expended through Utah, and other Southern States, they were stepping into Mexico. The Pioneers were IN FACT fleeding the United States, the nation that failed to protect their religious rights. My fellow Mormons, I'd ask you this favor, take a minute and read "The Wentworth Letter" that Prophet Joseph Smith Jr. in 1842. You'll understand the context under which the 12th Article of Faith was written. DO NOT quote it to back your misguided and almost malicious position on immigration, I have to say, my father went inactive over Mormons first invading Mexico and then joining the army supporting the invading government. Brothers, you who are of "Pioneer stock" should be grateful Mexico, a foreign land your ancestors invaded, was the promised land for the florishing of the Church. How dare you applying the 12th Article on the illegal issue. The so called Mexican Cession occured in 1848, one year after the Mormons arrived in UT. So please don't come and lecture my illegal brother and sisters, Mormons or non-Mormons using the 12th Article of Faith. Don't be ignorant, while your are online please read about the "Mexican Cession."

  • marxist
    July 18, 2010 9:53 a.m.

    Clearly this is the time for cool heads. It is critical that the people south of the Rio Grande continue to like us. If we're nasty enough they won't - in which case we could end up with a Hugo Chavez type government, which we would then feel obliged to topple, a la the CIA and Allende. The mess would go on and on. No, let's cool it. Be kind and considerate.

  • Deportation Glitch Lady
    July 18, 2010 9:32 a.m.

    On "illegals breaking in". When someone breaks into your home, you don't encourage them to stay and let them do yard work for years and then go to the local police reporting the " breaking in".

    On enforcing deportation for unlawful entry, even the US Supreme Court has found alternatives to allow those with or without papers to stay in the US. This is a balancing act. Anyone who has been in a foreign country or knows someone in a foreign country hopes that if crimes are committed, there will be alternatives in punishment.

    Clearly no one expects a police officer to show up with handcuffs and dogs in the yard in the illustration above. " It is a civil issue." I think the officer would say. But if now, this very moment, someone breaks in then handcuffs, tasers and all of the fun stuff become relevant. Hence the title of the news calls it a call for "CIVILITY".

  • Peter Coyotl
    July 18, 2010 9:25 a.m.

    JJ Morales wrote: 4:00 p.m. July 17, 2010

    "As a Latino, Hispanic, Mexican-American or whatever we are called, I think we need to secure our border first and then talk about immigration reform. We should never give citizenship to those here illegally unless they go back to their country of origin and come here the right way."
    * * *
    As a person who is identified by others with all those groups, I like to call myself an American.

    Immigration reform that mandates employment verification will do as much, if not more, to secure the border from illegal workers than spending more money on an increased physical presence on the border. If the jobs are not there-the illegal workers will stop coming.

    I am against breaking up families. Rather than give citizenship to those who entered illegally and have worked and have not committed a crime, they should pay a fine, serve a probation, and wait a period for a green card equal to those who wait legally. They would be granted legal status without instant citizenship. Then they do not benefit with citizenship over those who wait legally.

  • RichE
    July 18, 2010 9:06 a.m.

    To all who have commented on the 12th Article of Faith as justification to treat illegal immigrants with disdain, disgust, immediate deportation, splitting up families by sending illegal parents of American born citizen children out of the USA, etc...

    May I suggest that you also read and ponder the next (13th) Article of Faith which reads:

    We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men...

    Doing good to all men - shouldn't that be our overriding concern for all of us?

    Isn't that what the LDS Church leadership is asking of its members?

  • Peter Coyotl
    July 18, 2010 9:05 a.m.

    disgusted | 3:18 p.m. July 17, 2010

    "What this country doesn't need is an abundance of low wage,uneducated,unskilled laborers who cannot speak English and have become social well-fare (welfare?) recipients off the backs of taxpaying citizens filling our prisons commiting (sic) crimes from selling drugs and gang banging."
    * * *

    What this country needs is less rhetoric like the paragraph above which makes many erroneous assumptions that illegal immigrants are criminals, drug dealers, and gang members. Obviously there is a criminal element in every group. Mormon ponzi schemers do not reflect the entire group of Mormons. Catholic priests who abuse children are not reflective of all Catholics. People who illegally enter this country to commit crimes are not reflective of those who enter illegally to seek work.

    Immigration reform could allow needed legal unemployed workers to return home. Currently illegal immigrants are discouraged from returning home for any reason due to the danger and difficulty of crossing the desert to return to work. There could be less of a burden on entitlement programs if unemployed immigrant workers could go home when there was no work.

  • Hanksboy
    July 18, 2010 8:59 a.m.

    It's remarkable that so many people on this board "know" what the Mormon church is doing and why it is doing it. It'd be interesting to "know" where everyone is getting his/her information. Everyone is entitled to an opinion but not to his/her own set of facts. I'm as anti-illegal immigration as anyone but I believe that a call for compassion and civility seems to be a church's prerogative, if not duty. Governor Herbert is doing the right thing by bringing disparate sides to the table. Who knows, maybe showing civility (or even some compassion) may lead to a terrific solution to this mess.

  • bryancrobinson
    July 18, 2010 8:44 a.m.

    What so many of those who are posting comments are forgetting is that bad laws should be changed not enforced. Our immigration laws used to prevent those of Japanese descent from becoming citizens. That didn't change until after WWII. Prior immigration laws were used to discourage Catholic Irish immigrants from coming to this country because the powers that be were afaid that Protestant power and influence would be diminished. Women used to not have the right to vote. The very constitution didn't count a Black person as a full citizen. Those bad laws were changed and thank God they were. We need new immigration laws that are realistic and humane and yes, that includes a way for those who are already here and have families and roots in this country to become legal. Those who demand enforcement of current laws are ignorant of those laws and the negative effect they have on society as a whole. There is a better way. There needs to be compromise on the issues by both sides just like thre was to come up with the constitution. That document, which many considere divine, was the product of compromise by reasonable men.

  • baddog
    July 18, 2010 7:54 a.m.

    If I were to hazard one guess about the "civility" of the immigration issue, I would look at the comments posted on this and other boards.

    Sometimes there isn't much civility.

    A year or two ago, a meat packing plant in Postville, Iowa was subject of a federal raid looking for undocumented aliens. Dozens were taken into custody. Children were separated from parents for significant lengths of time.

    One can suggest that the raid was "uncivil" since federal agents did not take into consideration family needs or situations of those detained.

    I have soul-searched this issue at length. I find myself agreeing, and disagreeing, on nearly every point made. I am conflicted.

    I firmly believe, though, that for the health of the country, we must come to some resolution, be it amnesty or deportation, or some combination of the two.

  • Truth and Light
    July 18, 2010 6:24 a.m.

    Before Orange County was built, "illegal" members there could only go to Los Angeles because if they went to San Diego, they were at risk of being identified at random road blocks. I cannot understand why such activity is tolerated.

    We believe in sustaining the law, so let's do what we say.

  • John Adams
    July 18, 2010 5:51 a.m.

    @ Galileo | 9:40 p.m.

    How is it different? The person that breaks into your home comes uninvited. He's out of work. He sees that you have "plenty" so he helps himself to better his situation and that of his family. He's broken the law by entering illegally and what isn't his to take. How is it different?

  • patriotandmore
    July 18, 2010 5:50 a.m.

    The church is right to call for civility on this issue. Like any other institution they must take the high road. But, if you poll Utah and U. S. citizens, the vast majority of them want to see the border closed and our laws enforced. Instead, the laws (immigration laws) have been bent by public officials in order to pander to those who break them. The church should take a stand on this issue and simply state that all members are expected to obey the laws of the land. That should include immigration laws. U. S. citizens are expected to obey ALL laws so why not illegal immigrants? Our elected officials have failed us. I hope the church leadership doesn't.

  • Dodge
    July 18, 2010 4:47 a.m.

    re from SoUtBoy: "Ask yourself this question: if you lived in Mexico under the conditions 99% of the people live in with no hope to better yourself or your situation would you come to America too?"

    That is Mexico's problem! They need to take care of their own civil problems. The answer is not infiltrating America with all of their illegals and all of their babies. Get a grip on trying to justify this situation. You can't. It is illegal pure and simple. Do you know what that means?

  • atl134
    July 18, 2010 2:38 a.m.

    Meanwhile, hundreds of meters away, the Energy Solutions Arena crowd most emphatically cheers Napolitanos statement that the second amendment gives people the right to have guns to protect themselves from tyrants. Now uh... exactly how many Utahns think that the Obama Administration is a tyrannical one?

  • MapleDon
    July 17, 2010 11:33 p.m.

    If the important issue is to "keep families intact" (see jfarker 3:13pm), the same "compassion" should be applied to all criminals. Sending a criminal to jail or prison breaks up families. Obviously, that's not the issue.

    It seems each big player (political parties, businesses, churches) has something to gain by encouraging disobedience to existing law. The majority of the little folk, like me, see something wrong with their stance and we find the call for compassion to be disingenuous. There's more to this than meets the eye.

    Even this recent call for civil discourse is one-sided. You have Rep. Sandstrom on one side and 29 people on the other. Stacking the so-called "roundtable" doesn't fly. In fact, it is offensive because those who organized this stunt obviously thought we'd be duped by whatever recommendation they come up with.

    I have become firm on my position partially due to the fact that those who encourage lawlessness will not honestly explain their reasoning. Rather, they hide behind phoney emotional pleas. However you slice it, these are lies. And the little folk know it.

    Personally, I'm disappointed with how the Church is handling this.

  • hm_412
    July 17, 2010 11:15 p.m.

    Whether or not the LDS church leaders are inspired, their logic makes sense.

    Uncivil rhetoric leads to hasty, irrational actions. And irrational actions are just that--irrational. Civil discourse provides room for logic to flourish.

    However, if you're so sick of talk that you just want anything to be done, I suppose there is no sense in logical discourse. Just make sure you don't complain if you don't like the way things turn out down the road.

  • Dave from Taylorsville
    July 17, 2010 10:57 p.m.

    lkball00 | 6:50 p.m. July 17, 2010
    "God would not have his people cross a boarder, steal people's identity, smuggle drugs into the country, and not pay taxes, but collect the benefits. Use your brain people. Think for yourself, quit letting the church speak for you!"

    The LDS Church does not condone "steal people's identity, smuggle drugs into the country, and not pay taxes, but collect the benefits." Asking for civility in dealing with it is a Christ like quality.

    Now as for "God would not have his people cross a boarder. . ." Well now, how many time can we go into the Old Testament and find that very case?

    And the LDS people don't have the leaders of the Church speaking for them. . . the leaders speak on GODs behalf.

  • Dave from Taylorsville
    July 17, 2010 10:50 p.m.

    DocSarvis | 5:42 p.m. July 17, 2010-

    Folks, It's people who talk like this that foster lynch mobs and fan the flames of Nazi like regimes.

    Be very carful when you read and you will see Satan poking up is head here and there.

  • BP
    July 17, 2010 9:59 p.m.

    I'm surprised that people are comparing this to gay marriage. One involves social acceptance, the other involves a severe risk to human life. The church has been active is passing legisltion for civil rights for glbt individuals.

    Most Americans have never been in a position where they had to choose between keeping the law and keeping their families alive. It is a rare blessing that we enjoy as a testament to our wonderful country. It is a blessing that many in Latin America no longer enjoy. While not all come with benign intentions (drug running is still far too prevalent), the vast majority of illegals only commit the crime of coming to the country without papers (because papers cost too much...our immigration system is biased towards the rich and educated). They come here to work, not freeload.

    As usual, the LDS leaders are displaying wisdom beyond the average church member. That's part of why they are church leaders.
    I don't hear them condoning illegal immigration; I hear them saying God's children are more important than political statutes, and we need to make sure our actions don't needlessly cost human lives.

  • dave4197
    July 17, 2010 9:51 p.m.

    When the law is changed, to allow easier and more immigration, I will remind all of you (illegal you say) immigrant haters that you staked your opinions and actions on the need to follow the law, so follow the new one. And help shape the new law. The present law needs change, but nobody is really debating the details. To some it means clamping down more. To some it means open borders. This is the debate we must engage in, and soon. Our neighbors to the south used to live in the US southwest, they are not an army coming to overrun this country, they are not terrorists, so chill, you immigrant haters. Make immigration legal and easy. Get the police going after real criminals, and stop wasting their time and our newsprint with your (illegal you say) immigrant bashing. It's a non sequiter. look it up frogger I mean flogger.

  • Galileo
    July 17, 2010 9:40 p.m.

    Please allow me to pull back the Zion curtain for you...

    At 3.79 million square miles and with over 309 million people, the United States is the third or fourth largest country by total area, and the third largest both by land area and population.

    It is one of the world's most ethnically diverse and multicultural nations, the product of large-scale immigration from many countries.

    The U.S. economy is the world's largest national economy, with an estimated 2009 GDP of $14.3 trillion.

    So, no, John Adams, someone 'breaking' into my 2800 sq. ft. house tonight, and 'wanting to stay' isn't comparable to desperate people pouring through our porous southern border, seeking opportunity and a better life.

    Can you understand this?

  • disgusted
    July 17, 2010 9:30 p.m.

    Economic differences aside, we as a country must enforce our immigration policies and stop believing that as a nation can take in all of the rest of the world's problem people who seek better lives here.

    Our citizens are having problems just trying to survive. We have a large unemployment problem, two wars, huge financial debt, burgeoning health-care crisis in this country. Now we want invite every illegal to come here to take advantage of 'Uncle Sugars' generosity. You now increase the rate of crime, homelessness, alcohol and drug abuse, you breed inner city gangs with dis-contempt for law and order when these people realize the 'American Dream' is nothing but a dream. A huge underclass of poor people who aren't even willing to pay for the basic necessities (i.e. electricity, gas, etc.) and sponge off the generosity from our 'free' social services at taxpayers expense. What's wrong with this picture? Send them home and have them make it in their own countries of origin. Their problems shouldn't be added to our's.

  • eagle
    July 17, 2010 9:29 p.m.

    I would be shocked, unless there is a revelation or something, that President Monson or anybody in the church leadership will:

    A) call all illegal aliens of LDS faith to return home to the countries of origin and do so post-haste for the good of our country or to follow the 12th Article of Faith.

    B) will come out with any political position calling for increased border security, comprehensive immigration reform etc.

    I would suspect that a call for understanding and brotherhood would be in order. However, all I did suggest that recent events and emphasis on illegal immigration can increase tensions between the Anglo-LDS community and the Latino LDS community.

    As far as the growth of the church, perhaps its growth will take place based on doctrinal truth as stated above. The church is growing rapidly certainly. But as I understand church doctrine, there is a battle with the Adversary for every soul and I feel this is a divisive issue in which the Adversary would indeed find useful to His cause.

    Perhaps compassion and attempts at understanding rather than strident positions and actions fit better within the doctrine of the church...

  • Bill in Nebraska
    July 17, 2010 9:24 p.m.

    Please, I'm as conservative as one can get but I can also see the problem of trying to expel 12 million people. That to me makes absolutely no sense at all. I believe that the Lord would rather for us to work out a means that for those who REALLY want to be here and work for a living should be given the opportunity to do just that and to apply for permanent residence in this country. It will be a near impossibility and a load of cash to deport 12 million illegal immigrants from this country. We have been the melting pot for the world since our inception in 1776 and our constitution is devinely inspired. It is time to be civil and to come up with a series of law that will accomodate all. I agree in principle with Arizonia but I disagree with the anti-amnesty people. Ask your self deep down if Christ would deport them or would he work to make it feasible for them to meet the requirements to stay here. I appauld the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve in this statement. So we must be civil also.

  • eagle
    July 17, 2010 9:14 p.m.

    Would LDS faithful that are Latino living in the confines of Utah or Arizona feel that they are indeed welcomed? I think it is fair to say that an uneasiness exists. These families have relatives throughout Mexico and other countries in Latin America. They talk to these people. That would be one possible connection.

    While I don't know how many posters on the DN blogosphere are LDS, it is fair to assume that many are. And those who brought forth the list have been called heroes, their actions called heroic, etc. Many might agree that it took courage for them to do this etc. Many others feel that they have broke the law period. Many others feel that they may have broke the law but for the better good etc. Go research the blogs since the list came out and you will find comments of this theme. Unless all of these are written by non-LDS, which I doubt, then there are many out there amount the Utah Anglo LDS faithful that feel what these people did in exposing the list was the right thing to do.

    Continud...

  • frelsi
    July 17, 2010 8:43 p.m.

    When my house is broken,I fix it, not move into the neighbors house. Take care of the real problem. Revolution?

  • JJL
    July 17, 2010 8:42 p.m.

    @ eagle

    "... however, the long-term vibrancy and growth of the church is certainly tied with Latin America."

    No. The long-term vibrancy and growth of the Church is tied to its doctrinal truth. No unhallowed hand can stop the Work from progressing. Additionally, what does securing our borders with Mexico have to do with the growth of the Church in Latin America? Make the link - don't just assume that it is just a PR issue.

    All those who simplify the immigration issue (i.e. "What about honoring and sustaining the laws, etc.?") should consider which laws and rulers they would obey. Would you honor and obey Hitler, Jim Crow laws, or Stalin's orders to summarily execute kulaks if you were put in those situations?

    Remember that the Church resisted anti-poligamy laws passed by Congress for years until at least 1890. Remember also that when the Saints left Winter Quarters, crossed the plains, they settled in what was then Mexico (now Salt Lake City, Utah).

  • SLars
    July 17, 2010 8:40 p.m.

    There can never be a "successful resolution" until the laws are enforced.

    Through their actions, they shall be known. I have learned more by example than by words in my life. As far as the immigration mess goes, I see the greed of men supersede that of God time and again.

    "Careful reflection and civil discourse" are catch words that mean very little, and will be interpreted by all different groups as supporting their cause. Neither will budge, as it is an argument for massive amnesty that will break our country on one side, and enforcement of our laws that we have not seen for 25 years on the other.

    To either side, there is no middle ground. As amnesty has been tried before and created the mess we have now. It's now time to try the other, which will surely lead to calls of profiling, racist, compassion, etc.

    We've had words for 25 years, now we need action. It's important to this young generation that they learn by example that laws are to be followed, and crimes do not pay.

  • John Adams
    July 17, 2010 8:04 p.m.

    @ eagle | 7:38 p.m.

    "... however, the long-term vibrancy and growth of the church is certainly tied with Latin America."

    All the more reason to teach and expect these potential saints to learn and keep the laws, just as i was taught when I joined the Church.

    There is not one example in the all the Standard Works where the Lord or His prophets suggsted the Church kowtow to prospective members. The Book of Mormon is a perfect example, Alma 42 in particular: "I desire that ye should deny the justice of God no more. Do not endeavor to excuse yourself in the least point because of your sins, by denying the justice of God; but do you let the justice of God, and his mercy, and his long-suffering have full sway in your heart; and let it bring you down to the dust in humility."

    In short, understand and obey the LAW of God, rather attempting to justify and rationalize.

  • John Adams
    July 17, 2010 7:46 p.m.

    @ Brer Rabbit | 7:22 p.m

    "From the high perch of the LDS Church leaders they assume that what they want is best for everyone, even if they have to disregard one of their main principles in the 12th Article of Faith, '...obeying the law.'"

    If this were true, and I stress "if," would this not create a very real problem for the Church? Are you saying there is standard for the Churcvh and it's leaders and one for the members? If the leaders can pick and choose which laws they will obey, then how can they expect any less from the members? Isn't that corruption?

    Are you suggesting that the Restored Gospel will revert back to the beginnings of the Great Apostasy where there were different standards, depending on where you fit in the church's social pecking order?

  • eagle
    July 17, 2010 7:38 p.m.

    The leadership of the LDS church is in a peculiar catch 22. The large majority of the Utah flock (and that of Arizona as well) wants stricter immigration laws, wants to secure the border and a good share of this majority would deport every illegal alien tomorrow if they could. A good degree of this flock applaud "the list" and call those who put it together and publicized it as "heroes" and such.

    However, the majority of growth for the LDS church is in Latino countries. Mexico is a bountiful source of new converts. The church has many Spanish speaking missions within our countries borders, teaching of course many illegal aliens.

    The church leadership walks that incredibly delicate thin line of alienating one group of saints at the expense of others. Yes, Utah and USA saints are currently the financial lifeblood of the church, provide the majority of the leadership etc., however, the long-term vibrancy and growth of the church is certainly tied with Latin America.

  • Brer Rabbit
    July 17, 2010 7:22 p.m.

    Poor Rep. Sandstrom. This deck is really stacked against him. "Invitees range from Rep. Stephen Sandstrom, R-Orem, who looks to push an Arizona-style immigration bill, to Sen. Luz Robles, D-Salt Lake, who opposes it. Others include Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, Salt Lake City Police Chief Chris Burbank, Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce president and CEO Lane Beattie and officials from the Utah Association of Counties and the Utah League of Cities and Towns."

    Anyone that knows the position of these invitees, knows that Sandstrom is the only one that opposes amnesty in this entire group.

    As for the LDS Church their concern is a global one on how they will be perceived abroad. Whenever those outside of Utah hear the word, "Utah" they think it means the LDS Church. By they way they aren't far wrong. So the objectives of the Church may not coincide with what is best for Utah or the Nation.

    From the high perch of the LDS Church leaders they assume that what they want is best for everyone, even if they have to disregard one of their main principles in the 12th Article of Faith, "...obeying the law."

  • John Adams
    July 17, 2010 7:20 p.m.

    @ Galileo | 7:01 p.m

    The irony is that by not enforcing immigration laws you DO create "class stratification, racism, and prejudice." The laws that applies to the citizens of this country do not, apparently, apply to illegal aliens. Where is the equity in that? How is that just?

    Please, explain why demanding our elected officials and police to uphold the laws they took an oath to enforce is bad.

    Here's a question I've seen asked on numerous occasions, and NO ONE has answered it: If someone were to break into your home tonight, would you allow them to stay?

  • dave4197
    July 17, 2010 7:16 p.m.

    The problem here is poor people from south of our border are looking to better themselves, and they see us. The problem here is we anglos are extremely selfish with our wealth, heavy on the extremely. The problem here is those neighbors were here before us anglos, but we don't like to talk about that.
    Build a fence, I hope Mikhail Gorbachev tells our gov't to tear down that fence, we don't need anything like a Berlin Wall on our border. It's not going to work, it's not working now. Use our wealth and good will to educate and cooperate in business with our friends from around the border, now there's a novel idea. When you separate out the hate, racism, and a few legitimate legalities, and begin to think solutions of a larger problem, maybe we can make headway. Education is a key to a better life. Good wages at work should be the rule, on both sides of the border. The border is a line in the sand, or a quiet meandering river, certainly we US people can better tolerate and help those across it.

  • nottyou
    July 17, 2010 7:02 p.m.

    Put it to a vote and we'll see how much influence the LDS Church has on this issue. A vast majority will vote to deport ANYONE that is here illegally...ANYONE!

  • Galileo
    July 17, 2010 7:01 p.m.

    The horror of class stratification, racism, and prejudice is that some people begin to believe that the security of their families and communities depends on the oppression of others, that for some to have good lives there must be others whose lives are truncated and brutal.

  • lkball00
    July 17, 2010 6:50 p.m.

    John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever should believe in him shall not perish but have everlasting life. Salvation has nothing to do with the LDS church's "good works".
    Our God is not a passive one! Right is right and wrong is wrong. God would not have his people cross a boarder, steal people's identity, smuggle drugs into the country, and not pay taxes, but collect the benefits. Use your brain people. Think for yourself, quit letting the church speak for you!

  • John Adams
    July 17, 2010 6:41 p.m.

    @ the truth | 5:39 p.m.

    "... While they [the Church] may BELIEVE in obeying and sustaining the law, it is not thier job nor place to enforce it and deal with it..."

    That's not entirely accurate.

    While you and I have to answer the question "are you honest in your dealings with your fellowman" in the affirmative, illegal aliens do not. As a member of a bishopric, I have seen this first hand.


  • Deportation Glitch Lady
    July 17, 2010 6:19 p.m.

    SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

    How will the LDS position on immigration reform affect Utah vote on this issue?

  • Christy
    July 17, 2010 6:03 p.m.

    You might want to brush up on your social skills Mr. Bennett. That doesn't sound very 'polite' to me.

  • Schnellerton
    July 17, 2010 6:01 p.m.

    Vague. Broad. Fuzzy. Incomplete. Just some words to describe the Church's position. They can't argue for amnesty without alienating the 12th AOF crowd. They can't argue for deportation because of the thousands of illegal immigrant converts in the U.S. The kingdom of God obviously has no borders, but it is a fine line to say breaking one law is okay and breaking another law is not okay.

    I happen to be in favor of the free flow of labor and people. That keeps costs down and maximizes freedom. However, more must be done to expel the criminal element that exists, though admittedly overly exaggerated. If a documented worker and his family are law abiding, welcome. If they cross the line, then back they go over the line we call the border.

  • SoUtBoy25
    July 17, 2010 5:57 p.m.

    Ask yourself this question: if you lived in Mexico under the conditions 99% of the people live in with no hope to better yourself or your situation would you come to America too? All of you that had any drive or ambition would jump at the chance to work. If you ask me we have way to many Javert's and Thenardier's in this country. If you want to stop illegal immigration turn your anger to the country that allows it not those who are only trying to find a piece of bread to eat for their families. And remember somewhere way back your ancestors did the very same thing; just now immigrants face stricter laws set by the very people that benefited from the absence of them. This is much different than Prop 8, if you Javert's out there can't see that we've wasted a 200+ years of progress.

  • ex missionary
    July 17, 2010 5:55 p.m.

    I do have to agree that many of the posts on this issue get ugly. Some are clearly racist. Some seek to scapegoat. Some completely lack any sign of compassion or empathy.

    Not everyone displays these characteristics but I'm sickened by those loud few who do.

  • Osgrath
    July 17, 2010 5:48 p.m.

    A fair amount of second-guessing the Brethren going on in this thread. If you feel comfortable with that, so be it. I, on the other hand, do not like negativity, spite and hatred.
    Now to the main point: few people on either side of the issue would deny that things won’t change until our southern border becomes secure. Talk of amnesty, work visas or any other plans are nonsense until that happens. First things first: secure the border. Then decide what to do.
    Here is another though: how many of those here illegally are contributing members of society, working, buying property, paying taxes, etc., and how many are drains on society? I know of many in the former category and many in the latter. We should not paint them all with the same brush. A person engaged in identity theft should be prosecuted, whether a citizen of the U.S. or not. As for automatic deportation for not having papers, think about that the next time you break the speed limit and don't get caught.

  • SamM
    July 17, 2010 5:47 p.m.

    I am very pleased by the Church's call for civility. I am equally disheartened by some of the mean spirited comments on this board (particularly by "disgusted"). Certainly we should strive for the rule of law, but this is not the only consideration. There are humans and families involved in this debate.
    Some would like to make it as cut and dried as putting bank robbers in jail, but what if we compare it to another instance of law breaking. If those who call for swift and compassionless administering of the law to illegal immigrants were to apply the same standard themselves for speeding, then few if any would still have a drivers license.
    The real issue is that the Federal Government has failed us all by making it too difficult to immigrate legally, and too easy to immigrate illegally. In essence, our policy has invited illegal immigrants to escape the problems of their homelands and live here illegitimately. Truly not all of the blame can lie with these people. Our policy tells them to come. So moving forward, I hope that we will all strive for a greater measure of civility.

  • DocSarvis
    July 17, 2010 5:42 p.m.

    Here it comes. The real power in the state, the organization that really makes the rules in Utah is now speaking. What a very civil statement by the brethren who are telling Shurtleff, et al, how they want things. The LDS church will not take a stand against illegal immigration because of their success with converts south of the border. How predictable. Look for more things like this. The feds, the state, and now the LDS church are trying to pat people on the head, tell them "there, there, be good little boys and girls and let us handle the immigration issue. We know what's best for you." When what they really mean is what's best for them.

  • the truth
    July 17, 2010 5:39 p.m.

    RE: flogger


    Ter is BIG difference between mans law's, civil law's,

    and GOd's laws, and moral laws,


    IE:

    you break the speed limit and not jeopardize your eternal salvation,

    but committing acts of thievry, killing, and immorality do threaten your salvation.


    see the difference?



    Render unto ceasar that whihc ceasars,

    render unto God that which is God's,



    The church's JOB is NOT to deal illegal immgration, but deal with saving your soul


    While they may BELIEVE in obeying and sustaining the law,

    it is not thier job nor place to enforce it and deal with it,

    that is between the state and individual

    While Eternal Salvation is bewtween the Church and individual,

    and their concern is acts that would affect that.


    So it is not suprising they would be asking for civility here, behavior that is appropriate for the children of God.

  • RobertBennett
    July 17, 2010 5:37 p.m.

    Christy | 5:23 p.m. July 17, 2010
    How do you 'very politely' deport people?


    Too easy. Tell them to get on the freight train themselves or we will help them on OUR way.

  • BP
    July 17, 2010 5:30 p.m.

    I'm surprised that people are comparing this to gay marriage. One involves social acceptance, the other involves a severe risk to human life. The church has been active is passing legisltion for civil rights for glbt individuals.

    Most Americans have never been in a position where they had to choose between keeping the law and keeping their families alive. It is a rare blessing that we enjoy as a testament to our wonderful country. It is a blessing that many in Latin America no longer enjoy. While not all come with benign intentions (drug running is still far too prevalent), the vast majority of illegals only commit the crime of coming to the country without papers (because papers cost too much...our immigration system is biased towards the rich and educated). They come here to work, not freeload.

    As usual, the LDS leaders are displaying wisdom beyond the average church member. That's part of why they are church leaders.
    I don't hear them condoning illegal immigration; I hear them saying God's children are more important than political statutes, and we need to make sure our actions don't needlessly cost human lives.

  • Christy
    July 17, 2010 5:23 p.m.

    How do you 'very politely' deport people?

  • John Adams
    July 17, 2010 5:23 p.m.

    No, Cowboy Joe, YOU are attempting to make this a "RACIST PROBLEM."

    CJ @ 3:07 p.m., put it as plainly as it can be put, and quite well, I might add. His comments are NOT in the least bit racist. They are factual and true.

  • Cowboy Joe
    July 17, 2010 5:11 p.m.

    I believe this has become a RACIST PROBLEM NOT AN ILLEGAL PROBLEM. WE NEED TO READ PRESIDENT HINKLEY's PRiesthood talk about racism 4 years ago.

  • Dog Fur
    July 17, 2010 5:02 p.m.

    Ignoring our immigration laws - uncivil. Driving without a valid driver's license - uncivil. Working for pay "under the table"- uncivil. Stealing social security numbers - uncivil.

    Wanting to enforce our rule of law - civil.

    Very politely deport illegal immigrants - civil.

    Changing our immigration laws to encourage more stable, orderly legal immigration - civil.

  • ST
    July 17, 2010 4:51 p.m.

    If the ILLEGAL immigrants were civil, weren't here ILLEGALLY and went home then we wouldn't have this problem. !

  • Not_Scared
    July 17, 2010 4:17 p.m.

    You can't call for civil to people who never were taught civility by their parents, churches or communities. This as been a lessen. I see how education promotes civility in society. It's those who devalue being educated who lack the most civility.

    In funny or maybe an indicator of intelligence that people can't see that valuing civility isn't the same as condoning breaking the law?

    It disturbing seeing how incivility is devastating America as it undermines America values.

    This may be god's way of showing us how ugly this uncivil behavior is to watch.

    Once I wondered how good people in Germany were sold fascism. God seems to be letting me see the answer today, in America.

    God give me the strength to resist the temptation of hate, racism and feelings of being superior to others. Replace fear with courage and incivility with humanity and caring. It was good people, obeying the laws of man, who turned the family of Anne Frank over to the authorizes. Lord, are you reveling that their are your laws that are laws higher than the laws of man, like love thy neighbor as you love thy self?

  • cblhmb
    July 17, 2010 4:05 p.m.

    The LDS Church is calling for careful reflection, civil discourse and goodwill. I do not see or hear much of that, but a lot of judging, anger and name calling.

    For members of the Church who strive to follow the Prophet, we need to remember that he has inspiration, insights and perspective that we do not have. As important as civil laws are, there are also higher laws and an eternal perspective.

    I hope that we can discuss these issues with civility and respect.

  • sagacity
    July 17, 2010 4:04 p.m.

    [rey-siz-uhm]

    The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.



    "Racism is an ism to which everyone in the world today is exposed; for or against, we must take sides. And the history of the future will differ according to the decision which we make."



    (That was 'specially for you, 'disgusted'.)

  • Say No to BO
    July 17, 2010 4:00 p.m.

    It seems funny to me that the church was silent when illegal aliens were taking to the streets with rather hateful messages.
    The best church spokesman Tuttle could offer then was a comment that it is so hard to keep all the commandments and a reminder to love thy neighbor.
    Now that the anti-amnesty crowd has found a voice along comes a cry for civility.
    A bit biased if you ask me.

  • JJ Morales
    July 17, 2010 4:00 p.m.

    As a Latino, Hispanic, Mexican-American or whatever we are called, I think we need to secure our border first and then talk about immigration reform. We should never give citizenship to those here illegally unless they go back to their country of origin and come here the right way. BTW, what is the Mexican policy governing its southern border? I fully support AZ and other states that want our border protected, laws enforced and our country secured.

  • Informed Voter
    July 17, 2010 3:50 p.m.

    FLOGGER has a good point, brethren.

  • my slc
    July 17, 2010 3:49 p.m.

    I applaud the LDS Church for its statement of the call for "careful reflection and civil discourse" regarding immigration issues."

    Unfortunately i am afraid it will fall on deaf ears. Read the comments regarding "the list", Sheriff Burbank and the need for Utah to adopt the Arizona type laws.

    KSl made a good call to drop Hannity from it's afternoon lineup. Unfortunately we read in the paper today that Glen Beck had a book signing at LDS Church owned Desert Book.

    Americans are frightened, unsure and shocked at the economic downturn we are facing. They are looking for someone to blame, Illegal immigrants one of the last few minorities to hate it is ok to rant about.

    Things will get better and the silly rhetoric will calm down, but I am afraid not before the November elections.

    They we are all take a long look at where we have been and where we are going.

    Americans are a good and just people. The voice of reason will be heard.

  • Informed Voter
    July 17, 2010 3:48 p.m.

    "Elected individuals have the primary responsibility to find solutions in the best interests of all whose lives will be impacted by their actions," Purdy continued.

    NO, BROTHER PURDY, elected officials have the primary responsibility to OBEY & ENFORCE the law. They should believe in "honoring, obeying, and sustaining the law" ...as per their oaths of office.

    Sure be civil, but do your sworn duty!

  • CJ
    July 17, 2010 3:42 p.m.

    to Flogger:

    You are right on, where is the reaffirmation of our belief in the 12th article of faith? We wouldn't dream of condoning any other kind of lawbreaking but there is a big exception on immigration,very disturbing to me and a lot of others especially when you look at how illegal immigration is devastating this country. I couldn't refuse to pay income taxes and get an exception, why can illegals ignore immigration law and get a pass?

  • disgusted
    July 17, 2010 3:18 p.m.

    We should stop listening and start 'looking'. I see many out of state vehicles driven by Hispanics. Makes me wonder what or why they are here? If anyone hasn't noticed most of West Valley and North Salt Lake are ghetto's. Cars parked on lawns, homes trashed.

    What this country doesn't need is an abundance of low wage,uneducated,unskilled laborers who cannot speak English and have become social well-fare recipients off the backs of taxpaying citizens filling our prisons commiting crimes from selling drugs and gang banging.

    Arizona has got it right. Deport all of those that have entered illegally and give them only work visa's if they want to come here for work. Period.

  • flogger
    July 17, 2010 3:13 p.m.

    This statement is quite a stark contrast from the Church's statement on gay marriage.

    The church claimed to know the will and mind of God with no equivocation regarding gays, and 'encouraged' its members to donate as much of their time and means as they could to stop gay marriage.

    So why not the same with illegal immigration? Don't we have an Article of Faith that says we believe in 'obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law'? Why not the same statement of obeying the principle?

    Could it be because the Church doesn't want to offend its Latin American population, which these days makes up much of the growth in the Church.

  • jfarker
    July 17, 2010 3:13 p.m.

    As a fifth-generation caucasion American I have struggled with my feelings regarding immigration reform. The rule of law must be respected in order to prevent chaos, but that same law promises citizenship to anyone born within our borders. There are very real economic and human concerns on both sides of the border. What should we do? Grant amnesty? Build a Berlin-like wall?

    Well, I recently read "Uncle Tom's Cabin," and one of the many lessons I re-learned from this story is that the sanctity of the nuclear family MUST be preserved. Whatever the social and/or economic costs, this truth cannot be denied: we have no right to separate spouses from each other or children from their parents. Surely that amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. (If you haven't read Harriet Beecher Stowe's classic, please put it at the top of your reading list. Her characters express the pain of separation so clearly--no wonder Lincoln credits her with starting the Civil War.) As solutions to the immigration problem are considered, I implore politicians and civil authorities everywhere to resolve to LEAVE FAMILIES INTACT. Truly, any other position is fundamentally immoral and indefensible.

  • CJ
    July 17, 2010 3:07 p.m.

    I have an idea, listen to the polls !! The people of the state and nation have spoken loud and clear on this issue and without equivocation and that means members of the church as well, we are on the same page, non of you are. Here is the message: enforce the law, send illegals home, no amnesty, no guest worker programs, no in state tuition, no welfare, illegals go home and come here the right way or not at all.
    Putting together a stacked deck of amnesty hacks like sell out Chief Chris Burbank and others like him isn't necessary. You are all forming a panel because you CAN'T ACCEPT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, plain and simple. We aren't all as stupid as you think we are.

  • Blondie2
    July 17, 2010 2:07 p.m.

    "IT's a listening Exercise"""" (last statement quote in the article.) Well, how can it be an EFFECTIVE listening exercise when the deck is stacked sooooo high for Chief Burbank-type opinionators? Let's have another "listening exercise" and put it on a referendum ballot this November? That I believe would be eye opening.