Comments about ‘High court's stance could spur immigration laws’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, April 28 2012 3:44 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
A voice of Reason
Salt Lake City, UT

I believe that discipline should rarely be in an attitude of retribution but primarily designed to allow people to have a path to choose where they can restore their good standing with the law. My position is essentially the same that the LDS Church has officially published.

With that in mind, I believe the Arizona law is completely just. When passed I read the entire law (If I remember right, it was merely 17 pages or so). It simply required that officers of the law 'enforce state laws, turn suspects over to federal authorities when the jurisdiction requires it, and punish businesses more severely for breaking the law'. It was absolutely congruous with the United States constitution and I find that it is completely compatible with my more moderate position on immigration.

So everyone in this entire country- should have no complaints about the law. Who is complaining? Mostly liberals. Now, why should any political view be that "laws shouldn't be enforced"? With what justification is such a conclusion reached? It's nonsense!

I support a merciful option for restoring good legal standing- I support the law, and our right to enforce our laws. What's the problem?

wrz
Salt Lake City, UT

@A voice of Reason:

"My position is essentially the same that the LDS Church has officially published."

Too funny. The LDS Church's position says nothing about immigration laws. It's whole approach is that of compassion for families. Nowhere will you find Church officials quoting the 12th Article of faith about obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

"Who is complaining?"

AG Holder and his boss, Obama, that's who. They are bent on securing the Hispanic vote this November.

A voice of Reason
Salt Lake City, UT

wrz,

1- The church included in its statement: "As a matter of policy, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints discourages its members from entering any country without legal documentation, and from deliberately overstaying legal travel visas."

2- the fact is that the 12th AoF is and remains a true doctrine of the church. So your point isn't made. If the church didn't repeat "follow the law", it wouldn't mean that they were supporting the opposite. To claim that would be a fallacious argument. Furthermore, the church actually did state it as you will find in my first point.

JWB
Kaysville, UT

President Obama and President Bush and the Congress during the past 11 years have not properly addressed this issue and now the courts, up to and including the Supreme Court will make a ruling because no one at the Federal level has acted on this vital issue. States will push their ability to defend their area of responsibility and since it will be at that level, potentially, every state will address it a little different from the next state. If not done right, this national issue will become a hot issue when the Supreme Court comes out with it's ruling. The potential impact will be on voting in the general election. Congress made a decision on voting that will impact this general election, already with the Unions and Corporations impacting the process. It is a critical election.

wrz
Salt Lake City, UT

@A voice of Reason:

"The church included in its statement: 'As a matter of policy, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints discourages its members from entering any country without legal documentation, and from deliberately overstaying legal travel visas.'"

I see nothing in the statement about obeying immigration law. Church policy, yes... Immigration law, no. Besides, maybe one in a million illegal immigrants is a member of the LDS Church. So the policy statement applies only to maybe a dozen people at most.

"The fact is that the 12th AoF is and remains a true doctrine of the church."

It may be a true doctrine... but the fact is, it's rarely if ever cited by Church authorities in connection with illegal immigration. Why?

"Furthermore, the church actually did state it as you will find in my first point."

No, no. The Church stated something other than the 12th.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments