Quantcast
Utah

2 BYU studies reflect complexity of Mormon church’s influence in shaping immigration views

Comments

Return To Article
  • Trooper55 Williams, AZ
    May 5, 2011 11:05 a.m.

    I don't agree with this article at all. The pure and simple facts are the illegals are causing a drain on the taxpayers pockets. I further believe that if people marry an illegal they are breaking the law, also if the LDS church backs the HB116 they are breaking the law and I was always taught that you don't do it. Families are an important part of it, but lets get real. I believe if a person marries an illegal and then worries what if my husband or wife gets deported sorry so, but you broke this law so don't cry about it.

  • TMR Santa Monica, CA
    May 3, 2011 7:22 p.m.

    To In Arizona: I have no idea what was done in Arizona, but the fine you refer to in California was a $5,000 fine that the Church incurred for failing to report daily in-kind donations. The Church had reported it at a later date. This infraction is considered minor and the Church readily agreed with the Fair Political Practices Commission to pay the fine. The fine had nothing to do with your assertion that "local leaders asked specific members to donate money."

  • In Arizona Mesa, AZ
    May 3, 2011 9:47 a.m.

    To TMR: I am factually correct because I was actively involved in it. Local leaders asked specific members to donate money. It was done that way in California and Arizona, don't know about other States, but you cannot tell me I am not correct when I was involved in it.

  • jenrmc Fort Worth, TX
    May 3, 2011 9:40 a.m.

    The bottom line is that people should look to their own conscience and not the Church for their opinions. Faith isn't a dogmatic practice, instead a thoughtful one. I parted ways with the Church when it begin the Prop 8 political movement. I will choose to belong to a PAC if I want but it won't be one that calls itself a religious organization. Back to this story:
    Immigration is allowed in certain situations. If the movement of people into this country is done legally I am for it. If done illegally then the choices made should have the appropriate consequences. We don't want people in this country who show through their immigration status that they are willing to break the laws of this country when they don't agree with them. We have enough natural-born citizens that already do that.

  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    May 3, 2011 2:49 a.m.

    I disagree with the Church's position on this subject. Pure and simple.

  • TMR Santa Monica, CA
    May 2, 2011 7:15 p.m.

    To In Arizona, you are factually wrong about what happened in California. To the rest of you, parsel the words of the LDS Church all you want, but no amount of pharasitical maneuvering changes the fact that the church supports HB116 and a "humane" approach to the immigration issue.

  • In Arizona Mesa, AZ
    May 2, 2011 5:54 p.m.

    The way the Church handled the Prop 8 situation in California was wrong and received a fine for it. The way it was done was sneaky. Yes, I am an active member but that's what really happened. Asking local Church leaders to select a few members of each Stake that they felt could afford to donate money, but to approach it as "the Church is not asking you to do this", was wrong. Church leaders, although they are prophets, are still human and do make mistakes too.

  • NoMad Grantsville, UT
    May 2, 2011 4:44 p.m.

    There is also an argument that immigration is an implied power of any sovereign nation, and as such, the federal government has the power to regulate immigration because the United States is a sovereign nation. While it is true that the United States is a sovereign nation, and it may be true that all sovereign nations have some powers inherent in that status, it is not necessary to determine if immigration is such a power that does not even require constitutional mention, because the Naturalization Clause handles the power.

    Thanks to Jason Potkanski for the idea, and Stephen Lush for some clarification.

  • NoMad Grantsville, UT
    May 2, 2011 4:43 p.m.

    The Constitution never uses the word immigration, so how is it that the rules for immigrants, and quotas for countries, are set by the federal government and not by the state governments? After all, as the 10th Amendment states, are the powers not delegated to the United States held by the states, or the people?

    The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, from Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration (see, for example, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]). It would not make sense to allow Congress to pass laws to determine how an immigrant becomes a naturalized resident if the Congress cannot determine how, or even if, that immigrant can come into the country in the first place. Just because the Constitution lacks the word immigration does not mean that it lacks the concept of immigration.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    May 2, 2011 4:35 p.m.

    Walt,
    The statement made have been clearly authorized. To claim they are of limited validity would just be innacurate. This is inherently deceptive. It does not have to be signed by the First Presidency to be an official church statement.

    There are reasons why they have chosen not to read this in church meetings. This is an issue of public policy resolved currently by deliberative sessions in the legislature. It is complexed and would not lend itself to direct advocacy through a petition.

    Beyond this President Monson, his associates and his predecessors understand that some power grows when it is not exercised. The Church was able to influence Propostion 8 to the level it did because it so rarely calls on Church members to act in such a way. It was the first time since 2000 Church members in California had been specifically asked to become involved in any initiative campaign, and even then they limited it to a call to action only after the admendment was the live option because of the California Supreme Court overturning Proposition 22.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    May 2, 2011 4:28 p.m.

    Drifter,
    On what grounds do we deport American citizens? Your proposals would be inherent violations of the 14th admentment. If my sister had a Guatamalan husband who was getting reported on a technicallity I would have to in good conscience ask her if she was prepared to move to Guatamala. I would probably urge it, but I can see many women not wanting to risk going to unsafe countries where they have never lived.

    Your position is not a humane one. Jesus taught that the second great commandment was to love our neighbor. Some of your need to be told the parable of the good samaritan in modern setting as the parable of the Good Mexican.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    May 2, 2011 4:18 p.m.

    Karpowitz assumtion that this shows that people assume the Church agrees with them is not really supported by his study.

    It appears he has not taken into account how many people changed their views based on the position taken by the Churh. If Quin Monson's study is anywhere near valied, 10% of the population of Utah support the immigration bills at least in part because of the position the Church took on the Utah compact.

    Yet the Utah Compact support was not an unprecedented action by the leaders of the Church. Elder Jensen's statement abut the need for caring in which he clearly was acting on assignment of the First Presidency, I believe about the time President Monson became president of the Church, but it might have been earlier, signaled to those who wanted to know that the Church suported immigration reform that would keep families together.

    Thus people who care about what the Church says have known te Church supports immigration reform far longer than November. Karpowitz ignores the fact that in general the people who care enough to learn the Church's position are those who seek to live by it.

  • MoJules Florissant, MO
    May 2, 2011 4:11 p.m.

    I have a very bull headed stubborn attitude, when I was in high school I tried to get my seminary teacher fired, he had replaced someone that I adored. During that time the play Jesus Christ Super Star came out and the church did offer a statement on that and they said that because it depicts the Savior as a human, they discouraged members to see it. So we were in class and were discussing this, I raised my hand and said, when the Prophet speaks, the debate is over, my teacher was getting ready to debate me and stopped in his tracks, realizing that I was agreeing with him. I have had to let my heart change about this issue, I still do not condone people coming here illegally, but there has to be a way to reward those who are contributing to their areas and not taking. Deport the jerk that raped my son in laws sister when she was 11, but don't deport the families that work and help in their churches and communities, and this is all religions and areas.

  • Idaho Coug Meridian, Idaho
    May 2, 2011 1:47 p.m.

    Hello Folks - it is difficult to really define what the church's position is or has been on MANY things (both doctrinal and political) since about oh, April 6, 1830.

  • Gerrie McLean, VA
    May 2, 2011 1:46 p.m.

    The points made here are thoughtful, reflecting the fact that most people are aware of the sensitive nature of illegal immigration in the Church. My understanding is that the Church statement was not a document that was signed by any official, but rather issued from the PR office. Is that correct? If so, the fact that it was not an instructional document, to be read from Church pulpits across the nation, is interesting. Perhaps this is why few people understand the official Church position on illegal immigration.

  • ric2012 Mesa, AZ
    May 2, 2011 12:36 p.m.

    Haven't we always been taught by our leaders as stated in the 12th Article of faith that "We believe...in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law" Is a person that is here illegally breaking the law. I think so. I do not understand why people don't understand that "illegal immigration" is ILLEGAL. I do not mind if people migrate here to the US, I just ask them to do it LEGALLY. By the way how can a person who is here illegally be a branch president.

  • RRB SLC, UT
    May 2, 2011 11:46 a.m.

    The study does show that after churches, the governor, legislature, and business voiced their opinion and try to get us to accept the Utah amnesty, the majority (57%) still favor the laws of the land, and honesty by enforcement and self deportation.

  • Hunt Spanish Fork, UT
    May 2, 2011 11:39 a.m.

    The reason no one knows the LDS Church's position is because they are purposefully being vague on the subject. They say they support the Utah Compact and yet HB116 is in direct violation of it.
    It would be nice if the Church could just get out of the discussion all together and take a nuetral stance.
    If not they at least owe its members an explanation as to why they seem to be supporting state legislation that on the surface appears to be in direct violation of church teachings.
    One thing that would help is if they were to direct their church owned newspaper to stop playing one side of the fence with propaganda style reporting and to try showing the entire picture related to illegal immigration. The Dnews has only succeeded in driving a wedge into our communities by not showing the entire picture and impact both on immigrants and U.S. Citizens.

  • Kathy. Provo, Ut
    May 2, 2011 9:29 a.m.

    Illegals should self deport with dignity.

  • Utah_1 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 2, 2011 9:24 a.m.

    1. The 4 immigration bills dubbed the Utah solution are constitutional. The US has power over naturalization/citizenship, not immigration. Prior to case law beginning in 1893, Immigration was and is a State Power. The constitution wasn changed.

    2. The Utah Compact states Immigration is a federal policy issue between the U.S. government and other countries not Utah and other countries. So the 4 bills violate The Utah Compact, not the constitution.

    3. There are 4 bills. One that provides enforcement HB 479, one that provides for migrant workers HB 466, one that provides sponsoring HB 469, and one that provides a guest worker permit HB 116. HB 116 was modified to become a combination of others and could be deleted and the 3 bills remaining can function and many believe would work better.

    4. With HB 469, you dont need HB 116. Someone here illegally could find a sponsor, go home and come back with permission.

    5. If we are going to have a line for people to come to this country, you cant reward those that bypass the line. HB 116 violates that. HB 469 doesnt.

  • Walt Nicholes Orem, UT
    May 2, 2011 9:16 a.m.

    @JohnJacobJingleHeimerSchmidt

    I have been unable to find any statement from, or on behalf of, President Monson that suggests that he personally supports the compact.
    I have been unable to find any statement from, or on behalf of, President Eyring that suggests that he personally supports the compact.
    I have been unable to find any statement from, or on behalf of, President Uchtdorf that suggests that he personally supports the compact.

    Where are you getting your information?

  • RRB SLC, UT
    May 2, 2011 9:03 a.m.

    That didn't help. The four bills passed are in direct violation of the Utah Compact by intruding on Federal rights. And the Churches initial policy of immigrating legally and countries had a right to make bills that strengthen their borders seems invalid now?

    Add to that the fact that HB 116 invites people to come here, and it's not about enforcing immigration but encouraging illegal immigration.

    I'm confused.

  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    May 2, 2011 9:00 a.m.

    D&C 134

    "It is NOT JUST for religions to mingle religious influence with civil government..."

    HB116 violates Federal and State laws, contradicts the official Republican Party platform, and violates the civil rights of true, legal Americans.

  • Walt Nicholes Orem, UT
    May 2, 2011 8:47 a.m.

    There are three men in Salt Lake City - all Prophets of God - who could put an end to the debate with a brief statement read from the pulpits on a Sunday Morning.

    Where does the church stand? They are the only ones who are authorized to say for sure.

  • JohnJacobJingleHeimerSchmidt Beverly Hills, CA
    May 2, 2011 8:30 a.m.

    The Prophet who supports the Utah Compact but many LDS in Utah are choosing not top listen to him. It is not a la carte system of what you chose to sustain the Prophet in.

  • Drifter Provo, UT
    May 2, 2011 7:45 a.m.

    That's a really good idea--keeping families together. Love the concept. So if we are going to deport the father of the family, who is working on a stolen Identity and destroying someones life, we should deport them all-that way we maintain the family integrity and cut down our taxes to support them.