President Uchtdorf, faith leaders counsel President Obama on Immigration

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • kargirl Sacramento, CA
    Dec. 15, 2013 11:50 p.m.

    From what I've read, not only does it take years, and money, and lots of both, to become a citizen--but there's also the citizenship test that most people born here couldn't pass without studying (I knew a CNA taking the test--studied every free minute), and meanwhile, to do all this, the potential citizen needs a job somewhere unless, of course, she is one of the blessed few with connections. What's with that? Didn't take all that for our foremothers and forefathers in the late 1800s, did it? My reading tells me it's gotten worse. What, now there's a limit on ordinary people, we allow only privileged individuals to be citizens, everyone else is limited to resident noncitizens? Somebody change the poem on the Statue of Liberty...too bad. I always felt so positive about the one that is there now.

  • RichardB Murray, UT
    March 19, 2013 8:55 a.m.

    The US gave out on average 250,000 green cards before 1976. Since then we have given out over a million a year. Plus 3.3 million work visas last year. It can't be that difficult. If a person wants to be a citizen, they do so legally, even if they have to wait. (if Anything worth having is worth waiting for) If they just want work, then there are plenty of work visas available. They may not be dangerous, but they have been dishonest every day they are here, committing multiple felonies.

    When do Americans get to pick a law to ignore?

    The Senate has a law before it that would eliminate people bringing extended family, and changed to only allow immediate family. This would speed up the wait and the process.

  • Don Bugg Prince Frederick, MD
    March 19, 2013 8:10 a.m.

    Speaking as a Republican, I've been very frustrated by my party's stance on immigration, which forced Mitt Romney to campaign contrary to his own moderate views and lost him key voting blocs. People are choosing to cross the razor-wire fences because that's actually EASIER to cross than the wall we've created out of bureaucracy, delay and paperwork. Why have we done this? Why don't we remember the positive ways in which the immigration of the 19th Century impacted and transformed our nation? How can we take ourselves seriously when we revere our immigrant ancestors and look with patriotic admiration on the Statue of Liberty while simultaneously trying with all our might to keep others out? Most of the people who come here illegally aren't dangerous, and the barriers we put in their way are making it more difficult to distinguish between them and those who actually do pose a threat. Let's have the brains to look beyond the question of whether something is illegal and try to think seriously about what OUGHT TO BE illegal.

  • snowman Provo, UT
    March 18, 2013 12:51 p.m.

    Most of the people here illagelly do not pay taxes. But they do take advantage of our services free of charge. Most citizens of the United States can't get what the illeegals get for free.

  • DP742 American Fork, UT
    March 16, 2013 11:08 a.m.

    I will start by saying that I am conservative. I believe that conservative principles are what will help this nation move forward. But one problem I see in some conservatives--not all--is blind intolerance. Just as Pres. Uchtdorf said, the Church (and me, for that matter) do not condone individuals coming illegally. However, the system that is currently in place is defined by hatred and exclusion. Support of legal immigration should be bedrock conservative policy. I hope that we can all be open-minded enough to allow for progress on this issue. There are many who are willing to work, follow laws, and build a better life for their families that would benefit from a chance to come here legally. It's about time we allowed them to do so by reforming immigration policy in a compassionate manner.

  • trueamerican Huntsville, AL
    March 16, 2013 9:35 a.m.

    Sort of like casting pearls before swine.

  • JanSan Pocatello, ID
    March 15, 2013 11:04 a.m.

    To those citing that we should let the illegals in because Utah was Mexican territory when the pioneers came, can you please inform me of what laws were disregarded and broken my the pioneers.
    Also, about how many citizens of the this Mexican territory lost jobs because of this new settlement and how much did the existing citizenry have to pay in medical cost and welfare costs for the early pioneers?

    Also, how did this land become a part of Mexico when it was settled first by the Indians?

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    March 14, 2013 3:14 p.m.

    These guys have no more business in the nations' political affairs than a voodoo priestess or druid. Keep the line of separation strong.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    March 14, 2013 10:39 a.m.


    Do I think Obama listened? HA! What do you think? Does he EVER actually listen or is it all just a photo op? The man is cemented in his ideology and that is burned into his DNA...nothing can or will change that. Barack has an agenda for illegal immigration and it is based on getting as many illegals to vote in the next election for the democratic party as possible and the ends justify the means. Hard core left wing politics and nothing more.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    March 14, 2013 9:23 a.m.

    Do you think Obama listened? Most likely he listened but didn't hear.

    March 14, 2013 9:00 a.m.

    You send them back by taking away their reason for being here, jobs. Workplace enforcement, E-verify with business penalties, welfare. We need a border we defend into the cities. Once people get past the border, they should not be given a free ride.

    It's not that difficult, when we have honest leaders. Our laws are good, our leaders are bad.

  • Ed Meyer Kanab, UT
    March 14, 2013 12:47 a.m.

    It is easy to say we should send illegal immigrants back to their place of birth, but think about that for a moment. How do you really do that? Do you draft young people into the military to round up the tens of millions of people this would impact. Sometimes it's easy to say something when you are the one who has to implement your recommendations. My personal feeling is that you reduce some of the incentives that encourage illegal immigration. I also feel we need to build Mexico's economy and infrastructure so people will not want to leave their families to seek a better life in America. However,we will never find a solution when we are angry and seek retribution on people who don't deserve such treatment. I agree that compassion comes first and that people working together in such an environment will eventually find a solution.

  • Scott H Ogden, UT
    March 13, 2013 5:16 p.m.

    My father immigrated to the U.S. legally. He was sponsored by kind strangers that agreed to support him financially if he failed to support himself during his first five years of residency. I will be forever grateful for their Christ-like help.

    But much has changed since Dad's day. Our current immigration system is a morass of contradictory policies that are unjust and often unenforceable. In essence, our current immigration laws are immoral. Insisting on holding people accountable for failing to obey such bizarre laws is neither rational nor compassionate.

    Groups from various persuasions have an interest in maintaining the status quo. This stands in the way of developing moral and rational immigration laws. We need laws that are just. Then we need to enforce those laws. But it that order.

    In the meantime we need to deal with those that are here illegally in a healthy manner.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    March 13, 2013 3:25 p.m.


    the Church is also sensitive toward the government of Mexico and the pressure that they apply to the US toward the granting of amnesty to illegals. Recall the speech the president of Mexico gave a few years ago here in the US. I could see the government of Mexico putting pressure of the LDS church to go soft of illegal immigration or suffer the consequences regarding missionary work and temple building in Mexico.

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    March 13, 2013 1:59 p.m.

    A careful reading of the immigration commission reports over the years (1981, 1994, 1997 and the 9/11 commission) reveal a sickening similarity. What they recommended were:
    Better border enforcement
    Better visa control
    Deportation of those who are here without valid documents
    Secure work document verification

    We apparently lack the political will to enforce the law. In fact, there is a fair amount of political pandering by our elected officials who wish to curry favor with one group or another.

    It is not hard to conceive that the global mission of the church is at cross purposes with the best interests of our nation. I speak of security, the conservation of jobs, schools and social services for our own citizens and an immigration policy that encourages skilled workers rather than relatives of third world immigrants.

    To that end, I believe it is inappropriate for church authorities to support amnesty. What suits the needs of undocumented members conflicts with our national needs to enforce the law and deter future border-jumping.

  • SameJersey Kaysville, UT
    March 13, 2013 10:08 a.m.

    Uchtdorf is a man of true character. He doesn't care what is popular, he cares what is right.

  • SLars Provo, UT
    March 13, 2013 9:11 a.m.


    Here is the breakdown from Homeland securities site.
    Family-sponsored preferences 234,931
    Immediate relatives of U.S. citizens 453,158
    139,339.. Employment-based preferences
    25,251.. Priority workers
    68,831 ,,Professionals with advanced
    degrees or aliens of exceptional ability
    37,216 ..Skilled workers, professionals, and
    unskilled workers
    6701 ..Certain special immigrants
    3340.. Employment creation (investors)
    50,103 ..Diversity
    113,045 ..Refugees
    55,4155 ..Asylees
    1147 ..??Parolees
    633 ..Children born abroad to alien residents
    158 ..Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American
    Relief Act (NACARA)
    7,430 ..Cancellation of removal
    154..Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act
    6,527 ..Other
    total 2011 green cards 1,062,040

  • SLars Provo, UT
    March 13, 2013 7:40 a.m.


    Most of our green cards go to families. For instance, of the 141,000 given to Mexico, 9,000 went towards work green cards that filled a need, less than 100 went to the diversity green cards, and their site shows 6,000 as other. Almost 90% went to family unification. We use to allow sponsorship to only immediate family, but the laws were changed to extended families. That's why we have long lines in 4 countries. It's not our fault that everyone wants out, and wants to bring much of their countrymen with them.

    There are only so many seats in the movie house, and we can only sell enough tickets to fill them. When people sneak into the show house, it denies the honest their place.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    March 12, 2013 4:56 p.m.

    The bottom line...

    If you sneak into Disneyland ...and are caught...should we just say "oh well as long as you are here you might as well just go ahead and ride all the rides as those that paid $175 to get in...after all we need to be compassionate" ??


    I think most of us would kindly report the fence jumper and then expect to see him escorted - kindly - out the front gate with the expectation he would next time 'earn' the money to come to Disneyland and pay at the front ticket office just like all other non-fence jumpers in the park. I would say that is a 'compassionate response'.

  • Jared Average, SE
    March 12, 2013 3:37 p.m.

    Re: UtahBlueDevil

    "The Mormon pioneers settled in Mexican land, without permission. [This] 'became' legal through negotiations with the federal government once the land was acquired at the end of the Mexican-American war."

    Did the pioneers break Mexican law by settling where they did? True, they might have settled without permission but that doesn't mean they broke laws in the process. The Mormon pioneers settled what became Utah during the Mexican-American War as you stated. However, at the point that they settled, the war was winding down with the U.S. in negotiations to obtain California and other land that included the future Utah. So at worst the Mormon pioneers settled disputed territory that the U.S. was actively taking from Mexico. Is it against the law to colonize disputed territory? Did Mexico have laws that explicitly stated that U.S. colonists (the Mormon Pioneers) could not settle that particular part of Mexican territory? Mexico had an 1830 law that limited immigration into the Texas territory but it's not clear if there were Mexican laws in force in 1847 that applied to what became Utah.

  • heres117 Pleasanton, CA
    March 12, 2013 2:56 p.m.

    I may gain some of you as enemies here, but I really hope not to: I admit that I'm undocumented, illegal, lawbreaker- call it what you please. I definitely agree and understand the concerns of those opposed to a comprehensive immigration reform, but most of the people I have talked to are not well informed. The immigration system is broken. Yes, thousands of legal immigrants are given the opportunity to come here every year, and no, I know it's not the obligation of the U.S. to open its doors to anyone wanting to come here. People from my country, and other countries like the Philippines and China, have an estimated wait time of 15-20+ years to immigrate legally; That's if you are a skilled worker. Maybe this is one of the reasons why the option of simply crossing illegally seems more do-able. The process of legally immigrating here should be fixed and I guarantee that the number of people crossing will drop dramatically- this is should be part of enhancing/updating the immigration system.
    Every fellow undocumented person has their story, and it all comes down to family. Why do we suffer and sacrifice all? Family.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    March 12, 2013 12:11 p.m.

    Looking through rose colored glasses. Yes it seems so simple and compassionate to just grant amnesty to all 11 million illegals and suddenly they instantly turn into hard working productive tax paying citizens. Tell this to the poor CITIZENS in Arizona who are trying so hard to keep their state afloat and from being overrun by illegals who are robbing their budgets and clogging their welfare roles and emergency rooms and class rooms...all at tax payers expense. Oh and I forgot to mention all the violent crime that illegals bring with them. Of course democrat's LOVE all the new VOTERS and guaranteed power for years to come which is the main point anyway.

    "We believe in honoring ,obeying and sustaining the law". What law? The laws of citizenship! Do illegals believe or care about the laws of citizenship in the US? Ask the 11 million who sneaked across illegally in the dark. So if you sneak across the border you are ... let's see... a criminal aren't you and you AREN'T honoring or obeying the laws of the land are you.

    Here's a thought - go back home and come back legally!

  • europe1 Cambria, 00
    March 12, 2013 12:02 p.m.

    Very impressive - makes a change from the right-wing spiel that you sometimes read...yes, stick to the law...maybe the law, in this case, could work out a solution...

  • reasonableUTE Provo, UT
    March 12, 2013 9:24 a.m.

    Having a wife who is currently going through the process of getting a green card I can say that I do not blame immigrants one bit for coming here illegally. The process takes far too long, and far to much money for almost anyone to be able to afford it. Unless the prospective immigrant is extremely well off, or has an American person or family willing to sponsor them there is no way they could afford to come here legally. Illegal immigrants pay nearly $50 billion in taxes every year. It's worthless, ineffective border patrol that costs our country money. In order to solve this problem, and in order to maximize the benefit that immigrants provide to our country, the government must make it easier for willing and worthy immigrants to come to America legally.

  • radically_independent Orem, Utah
    March 12, 2013 12:22 a.m.

    SLars.... UBD's son here - just for full disclosure.. i saw he was out of post so I am replying for him.

    "The Immigration Act of 1990 established the Diversity Visa (DV) program, where 55,000 immigrant visas would be available in an annual lottery, starting in fiscal year 1995. The lottery aims to diversify the immigrant population in the United States, by selecting applicants mostly from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States in the previous five years.

    Those born in any territory that has sent more than 50,000 immigrants to the United States in the previous five years are not eligible to receive a diversity visa. For DV-2014, natives of the following nations were ineligible: Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, China (mainland-born), Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Mexico, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, South Korea, United Kingdom (except Northern Ireland) and its dependent territories, and Vietnam.[3] The entry period to apply for the DV-2014 is from October 2, 2012 to November 3, 2012."

    So no where near "millions" each year have been admitted using the Diversity Visa program.

  • RN4moms Bountiful, UT
    March 11, 2013 9:04 p.m.

    Immigration reform is needed, beginning with the debacle of legal immigration in this country. My daughter-in-law is Japanese - had her green card when she and children went to see her dying mother in Japan for summer, then my son lost his job but had a ticket to help them return since travel to the USA is difficult with children and the immigration folks at the airport terrify her (treating every foreigner coming through like terrorist). My son got work teaching English so they rented out their Utah home and stayed, still seeking work here. Then the tsunami so they helped her now-widowed father with his crippled business. The resulting financial strain prevented their return. Now he has a job waiting for him in Utah and they won't reinstate her green card which expired (more than 6 months out of USA). He has to leave her there but support her while supporting and caring for children without their mom. Tax-paying property owners, she entered the US legally. They'd have been better off to abandon her family and return to the US living on welfare. Responsibility and honor is respected there, but not here. The American way.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    March 11, 2013 6:33 p.m.


    If President Uchtdorf was posting his personal opinion on a blog, that'd be one thing, but he was sent to speak with President Obama as an official representative of the Church and this is his response after meeting with him in that capacity.

    Nice try, though.

  • I-am-I South Jordan, UT
    March 11, 2013 11:43 a.m.

    I liked the approach President Utchdorf took. It was well balanced(compassion, legality, common sense etc.) It's frustrating because a lot of the people here try to argue as though we can't possibly come up with a solution that is all of those without destroying one of those. Generally the argument is Compassion v. Legality. Why can't we have both? As I see it we will probably have to forgive some situations and get some cold hard justice (it's really unfortunate that we see justice this way, after all people are only getting what they sowed) for some situations. Both of those points of view need to exist. As for which side I lean is the government's job to protect its citizens. I like compassion but I much rather ere on the side of justice. People assume risks when they cross boarders illegally. It shouldn't be our moral or legal responsibility to remove the risks or the effects of the risks they took on. It doesn't take long for people to realize they can use your compassion to their advantage and to your detriment, but compassion still has it's place.

  • anti-liar Salt Lake City, UT
    March 11, 2013 1:56 a.m.

    "At the same time it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that “a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such."

    (Elder D. Todd Christofferson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, April, 2012, General Conference)

  • m.g. scott LAYTON, UT
    March 10, 2013 10:24 p.m.

    I haven't read all the posts, so this point may be old news, but President Uchtdorf makes an error in his assertion that the illegals from 30 years ago are somehow different from todays. In 1986 Congress and Reagan passed an amnesty plan for those already in the country illegally. No need if they weren't illegal then. What should happen is not kicking them out and seprating families. Let them get in the "Back of the Line" with people from every part of the world who want to come here and are waiting. They can live here until they get citizenship in the few years it will take. Simple solution. You might say, then why would they want citizenship at all with that deal? Well if they want to live here as foreign nationals fine, they just can't vote. Thats about the only thing citizenship gives anyway. Voting rights.

  • SLars Provo, UT
    March 10, 2013 5:55 p.m.

    UtahBlueDevil--He gave you his source in a previous post. You're forgetting several categories, like the diversity lottery. Its been well over a million per year average this past decade.

    NeilT-- Your right, it is about economics, and using cheap illegal labor to depress our wages. In that respect, the Church can't claim to be impartial. As a holder of several executive seats on the Salt Lake Chamber they are implicated by association. The Chamber has been pushing for surplus labor for years.

    It seems to me that compassion for those here illegally is rampant, but for the 23 million looking for full time work, the taxpayer that subsidizes those here illegally, those with their id stolen, those with depressed wages, etc, compassion is a dirty word. That's the point that irritates. We are suppose to have compassion for the criminal, while the victim is ignored.

  • BYU Papa Cedar Hills, ut
    March 10, 2013 3:17 p.m.

    People from South America work hard and will often do work which most of us would not prefer. Some are here illegally to pursue illegal activities. People who will work and need work should be given the opportunity. Those who sell illegal drugs should be punished and deported.

    We need to correct any of our laws which encourage illegal immigration. We need to open the boarder where US citizens can travel to Mexico safely with Fair Mexican Law. The Laws should be two way.

  • NeilT Clearfield, UT
    March 10, 2013 9:55 a.m.

    Illegal immigration is more abour economics than rule of law. We have a country where poverty, crime, and government corruption are the norm bordering a prosperous and wealthy country. and then we wonder why people sneak across the border. The far right views illegal immigrants as undesireable, criminals, and a burden on society. Everytime the D-News tries to put a human face on someone here illegaly the far right crows foul. How dare we have compassion on someone who broke our immigration. laws. The real reason many don't want a path to citizenship is citizens can vote and conservatives are terrified they will vote Democrat. Most hispanics have a strong work ethic and sense of family. That goes agaisnt long held stereotypes of mexicans being lazy and criminals.

  • Fred44 Salt Lake City, Utah
    March 10, 2013 7:48 a.m.

    For those who are really concerned about "the law" and want to solve this problem, go after the employers who are breaking the law by hiring them. If there are no jobs, most of these people would not be here. Lets quit focusing on one illegal action and ignoring the illegal action that is the reason for the problem.

    The people coming here illegally are simply trying to make a better life for their family. The people hiring them are trying to make a buck at another human beings expense. Which is the greater crime?

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    March 10, 2013 7:22 a.m.

    @prelax - Ummmm, not sure where you get your facts, but your statement is completely wrong. Here are the facts.

    Family-based immigration (green cards) is limited by statute to 480,000 persons per year. Family-based immigration is governed by a formula that imposes a cap on every family-based immigration category, with the exception of "immediate relatives" (spouses, minor unmarried children, and parents of U.S. citizens).

    Employment-based immigration is limited by statute to 140,000 persons per year. In most cases, before the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) will issue an employment-based immigrant visa to a foreign-born individual, the employer first must obtain a "labor certification" from the U.S. Department of Labor confirming that there are an insufficient number of U.S. workers able, qualified and willing to perform the work for which the foreign-born individual is being hired.

    So no - millions are not handed out. And no - farm owners are not getting green cards for their farm labors. And the farm labor issue predates the 70's. This is not a new problem - hardly.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 10, 2013 5:19 a.m.

    "Why is the President meeting with a German?"

    Well a German might know a bit more about the immigration process. He might just be the person the LDS church selected as their representative to this meeting in which case you'd have to take it up with them.

  • Jonathan Eddy Payson, UT
    March 9, 2013 10:34 p.m.

    I sure wish Jesus would just come and save us all from our silliness, harshness, unrighteous judgement and just plain stupidity. Frankly, we are all border crossers. We cross the borders of decorum and class pretty much on a daily basis. Utah County is turning into Unhappy Valley.

  • Gildas LOGAN, UT
    March 9, 2013 10:18 p.m.

    I invited discussion on the choices for the list of these fourteen entities asked to discuss immigration issues with Mr Obama. No one seems to be suspicious that a majority of views are perhaps being sought to justify the Obama administration in doing what they plan to do already: to legitimize the illegitimate, to reward illegality and fail to proceed against it, to effectually grant amnesty.

    A discussion is welcome of course although I have heard little about its content apart from the position of the LDS Church on which the article gave a little information. Surely the views of all participants on such an "advisory group" were known beforehand or easily discoverable by those engineering the "debate". All that is needed is a majority of opinions favorable to administration policy and one or two more conservative entities to provide an appearance of genuine diversity and fairness.

    The overwhelming majority of the nation appears to be consistently against illegal immigration. Are the administration asking illegal immigrants for their opinion - or those who represent them? That is how our local television media proceeds btw.

    Any information on the other selected presidential advisers Deseret News?

  • prelax Murray, UT
    March 9, 2013 10:16 p.m.


    Up until the mid 70's, we averaged 250,000 a year. Now we give out over a million green cards a year. We have made it easier for more already.

  • Utah_1 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 9, 2013 10:08 p.m.

    Whether the Utah Compact is a great document or not, the idea that it was used to create the 4 immigration laws acted in Utah in 2011 is laughable. Look at the first principle. They totally violate it.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    March 9, 2013 9:16 p.m.

    WRZ... your comment lends itself to not knowing anything at all of the political dynamics going on between Mexico and the US at that time. There was no welcome mat set out for new settlers in Mexican territories, particularly after the annexation of Texas from Mexico in 1845.

    Don't confuse Mexico's inability to do anything about it, with they didn't care. That was hardly the case. I have no idea where you came up with your information. We celebrate the days of 47 - not 48. Utah didn't become part of the undisputed until after the treaty of Guadalupe signed February 2nd 1848 - and wan't confirmed until July 4th, 1848. The fighting was done in 47, but the treaty was not signed, and the lands were not turned over to the states legally when the US bought them for 3 million to settle debts by the Mexican government.

    Uath was part of Mexico in 1847, and through half of 1848. I am not sure what version of history you have that states otherwise... but to claim Mexico didn't care.... good grief... there are a whole lot of dead people who would say otherwise.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    March 9, 2013 9:17 p.m.

    @John WIlson:
    You wrote:
    "I don't know if they had permission per se, but they did settle with the full knowledge of the Mexican Government."

    Illegals move to the U.S. with the full knowledge of the U.S. government.

    Pharisees loved to follow the letter of the law. Christ taught us to follow the spirit of the law.
    Before President David O. Mc Kay all presidents of the church were teaching that new converts moved to Zion (Utah)

    Everything is an evolution process until we get it right.

    You may not like it, but we have 11 million people who are undocumented. Are you going to deport them? Sorry, is not going to happen. A liitle pragmatism please, and legalize them and take them out of the shadows and make them participants members of society. Isn't that better?

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    March 9, 2013 8:44 p.m.

    Having lived in 3 Central American countries and 1 South American country, and children who have lived in 3 different countries in Latin America, plus living in Germany and the Philippines, there are more reasons people come to the United States of America. They come because a lot of their countries don't enjoy the freedoms that we do. We have marketed movies, commercials, products, lifestyle and a myriad of items to these people over decades in all forms of media format. They see the difference of good neighborhood, safety and security in the homes, workplaces, and in public places. They see that even though we may have corrupt leaders, with some getting caught and others not, in their countries people get away with corruption and some die in the process. Having seen people being pulled out of their living places and thrown into prison for no apparent reason nor having public defenders on their side, those people suffer.

    We have so much to be happy about, even in the worst of situations. We have entitled people to have more than if they worked. The people that come here, want to work and do many jobs for us, everywhere.

  • Gregg Weber SEATTLE, WA
    March 9, 2013 8:23 p.m.

    The Church isn't unified on this or many matters. Nor should it force people into one view or another. There is an elephant in the room that is ignored and that is political issues. Real honest debate and not neutrality is the unifier. Otherwise it is crack and divide the Church. Look at Kirkland or any other place where division led to distruction. The subject isn't so much an issue other than any wedge issue has a thin edge of the wedge to divide. I have my ideas on just how but that isn't the reason. Debate leads to truth.

  • wrz Pheonix, AZ
    March 9, 2013 7:27 p.m.

    @Albert Maslar CPA (Retired)
    "'Give me your tired, your poor, 'your vote.''"

    Very clever, Albert. That's what Obama is up to... maintain the Hispanic vote for the mid-term election in the US House. He needs the House to turn Democrat in order to finish his work of changing the US into... socialist state.

    wrz CPA (retired)

    "The Mormon pioneers settled in Mexican land, without permission."

    There was no Mexican law against settlement.

    The Mormons settled in what is now Utah at the end of the Mexican-American War. Remember, the Mormon Battalion? Mormon men were selected to form the battalion whilst on the trek to Utah. They left their families and headed to Texas to join the war. When they got there the war was over... so they headed north to Utah Territory.

    "Citizenship should not be free, nor easy, but a realistic path needs to be provided for... just like for our ancestors."

    There currently is a realistic path... It's called fill out the appropriate papers and get in line... And in the mean time, learn English.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    March 9, 2013 7:08 p.m.


    Since this is a sensitive topic, civilly and politically, we should continue as citizens be more positive at the human side of this topic. Enforcing the current law is important but making sure the law takes in consideration that each case of legal entry is gentler and fair as we show compassion for people that have given viable work ethics while providing for their family. Enforcement should be a common sense approach. That is not as easy as distinct line in the sand but our bureaucracy should have a heart.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    March 9, 2013 7:07 p.m.


    Hopefully, the immigrantion bill doesn’t mean that it will be with the same tactics of the Obamacare bill process.

    The leaders expressed their concerns over the impact the enforcement or lack of enforcement of the immigration system is having on families throughout their congregations.

    Since we have a federal government this issue is one that will have to be resolved by the federal government. Citizens of the United States of America and their individual states still don’t feel secure on their borders.

    Countries for centuries had a policies and laws that discourage entering their borders without legal documentation which is a civil approach consistent with international law. The United States of America has offered compassion for families but also according to precedence its commitment to established laws.

    Individuals within Utah along with elected officials, nationally, locally, and the state can be directly involved with any legislation processes. This helps ensure the values citizens stand for are presented in an orderly process nationally and hopefully that eventual legislation will reflect those values.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    March 9, 2013 7:05 p.m.

    This has definitely been a political issues since 1986 but those elected to represent us have not wanted to do anything as the adverse effect of what President Bush one did. No President nor person in Congress has wanted to touch this issue due to the feelings expressed in this article. The Church cannot be involved directly in the political scene so it will not state anything that would jeopardize their relationship as a neutral entity.

    As President Obama is a political person from the beginning, he will do and say those things that are political and that will win him points. President Obama seemed interested in what these religious figures had to say as immigration is a political issue. In this format, if a religious entity spoke of anything but neutrality, they would be subjected to adversary actions such as losing their tax and business status.

    As usual this President’s White House released a statement on the meeting, indicating that he reiterated his strong commitment to working with Congress in a bipartisan manner so that they can swiftly pass and send a common-sense immigration reform bill to his desk.

  • John C. C. Payson, UT
    March 9, 2013 7:01 p.m.

    Yes, it is lawful to increase visa quotas and make the process easier. It is also desirable.

    Those who oppose these reforms either think there is something inferior about "outsiders" or believe newcomers are a burden. They are not a burden. They improve the economy and bless our nation with further growth. We were foolish not to have welcomed more of them in the past.

    There is one legitimate reason why all conservatives, true believers in free trade, competition, and the laws of supply and demand, should be shaking in their boots at the prospect of more guest workers. Those guest workers will work circles around us for less pay. They've already proven that. At least the unskilled laborers with low education ought to be nervous. They are one class of workers whose wages are slightly depressed with each new wave of immigrants. All other categories of wages go up.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    March 9, 2013 6:50 p.m.


    Immigrant labor picks the food you eat, cleans the facilities you use, and builds the homes you'll live in. Immigrant labor puts money into the Social Security and Medicare you'll be taking advantage of someday (if you haven't already.) Unless you're willing to stop making use of the fruits of their work, you come across as a bit of a hypocrite.

    And laws are changed and adapted all the time. Otherwise, women still wouldn't be able to vote and slavery would still be legal. This is what presidents and members of Congress are elected to to, and whining about "faulty leadership" doesn't change that. Just because reality doesn't function your bubble says it should doesn't mean the rest of us should bury our heads in the sand just to make you feel better. Our current immigration laws are clearly inadequate, so it's time to change them. It's that simple.

  • wrz Pheonix, AZ
    March 9, 2013 6:45 p.m.

    "Those who enter this country illegally are lawbreakers. The question is--which lawbreakers get the 'get out of jail free' card?"

    They all will. That's what 'comprehensive immigration reform' is all about.

    "Which laws will be enforced?"

    None of the existing ones. They'll all disappear.

    "... with our massive unemployment, how will all the people just walking in here find employment for their families?"

    They'll take existing jobs. And how will they do that, you ask? They'll work for less pay. And our American workers will go home to their couches and TV clicker and collect unemployment benefits.

    "With our deep record national bankruptcy, who will provide all the 'social services' for those who walk across our borders or come with a visa and then just stay?"

    The government, who else? And where will the government get the money, you ask? Print it, of course.

    "Can we realistically accommodate the wants and needs of all those in the entire world who want to simply move here and be citizens?"

    Don't worry... they'll stop coming when we become a broken, 3rd world nation. We're almost there now, so sit tight.

  • wrz Pheonix, AZ
    March 9, 2013 6:18 p.m.

    "'He [President Obama] just said in this value process we need to stand together and make sure the United States is still a place where people can come, and once they come, feel not at fear. And do it, of course, in a lawful way.' Okay, right-wingers from the DN boards. Your move."

    The key phrase... do it 'in a lawful way.'

    The issue about those who are here and didn't do it 'in a lawful way' is the unanswered question. No one seems to want to tackle that one. Which is the mark of faulty leadership.

    "The whole point of the President and Congress working together on immigration reform is that the end result will be 'lawful.'"

    Of course it will be 'lawful.' Change the law and voila! it's lawful.

    But, wait! What will the consequence of that action be? Hordes and more hordes of illegals pouring in. That's what! We found that out when Reagan gave amnesty to millions in '86. At that point Reagan only had 1.5 million to deal with... We now have an estimated 11 to 20 million seeking amnesty.

  • MapleDon Springville, UT
    March 9, 2013 5:10 p.m.

    Do you people praising the open borders rhetoric understand the ultimate outcome of letting into this country anyone who wants to? This isn't about compassion. And the people claiming it know so.

    There are three groups who are most vocal in granting amnesty: the Democratic Party, businesses that employ illegals, and churches competing for prospects. All three have common goals relating to money and power. The least of their concerns is this nation or the welfare of its legal citizens.

    This is selfishness at its worst, masked by phony virtues. And your buying into it can mean that either you're one of the interested parties or are easily swayed, a victim of the non-stop propaganda.

    And shame on any church leader for telling his followers to obey the law, then encourage the turning of blind eyes on those breaking the law because you want to convert them.

  • hermounts Pleasanton, CA
    March 9, 2013 4:24 p.m.

    As far as keeping families topgether is concerned, the illegals themselves have already shown that they thought the extra money they could make by leaving their families behind was more important!

  • prelax Murray, UT
    March 9, 2013 4:16 p.m.

    Last year the US gave out 3.2 million work visas, and over a million green cards (source: DHS 2011 yearbook). Coming here legally is not as hard as the pro-illegal movement want you to think.

    Those here with immediate family (over a million) have been granted a waiver by Obama. So that argument no longer applies to the 10 million.

  • AllBlack San Diego, CA
    March 9, 2013 2:39 p.m.

    @ salt lake city wrote: "work visas by returning home, going to the back of the line, and coming back legally. This would help to deter future law breakers"

    Favorite line used by right wingers which is just incorrect at best and fantasy at worst. Returning home means maybe a ten year wait for just an answer to know if you qualify for a work visa, and if the person has more than two speeding tickets they will be refused. Plus only 50k odd work visas are available per year, and they are handed out in that lottery which takes another two odd years to process IF your number comes up for one of the 50k vacancies. Because of all that an illegal is better of risking deportation but staying where they are today because going to the back of the line will ruin and break up families. If caught they simply return illegally a few months later crossing the boarder. The fact that they have to wait so long and then go into a lottery actually deters people from coming here legally.

  • John Jackson Sandy, UT
    March 9, 2013 2:28 p.m.

    We as a people have long believed the punishment should fit the crime. If I were to sneak into a movie theater without a ticket, would I be banned for 10 years? If I were to get on TRAX without a ticket, would I be told, "That's it. You won't be riding on this train for the next five years"? Further, that comparison does not take into account how hard it is for them to get their "tickets" before they came without them. Would we tell someone wanting a ticket to the movie to file for it a few years in advance? Would we tell them that since they are not on the list of already approved ticket holders, they must pay a one-time fee of $95? Would we tell them that if they wanted a ticket, they probably ought to see a lawyer first, so he could tell them how to get one? We are not reasonable in what we expect of these immigrants. -- John Jackson

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    March 9, 2013 1:45 p.m.

    "As I made a preliminary inspection of the list presented at the end of the article, I thought that the specific selection of 'counselors' for Mr Obama in this matter may be an issue for discussion."

    Why? Because it represents a broad spectrum faiths? Does it really make a difference if you are catholic, baptist, non-denominational, or, holding breath, even Muslim. What it is that we are really seeing here that raises this to the level of needing further discussion?

  • Millsap fan Taylorsville, UT
    March 9, 2013 1:15 p.m.

    @ KJB1,

    I'll agree with you that what Pres. Obama said concerning immigration sounds good. However, with Obama, saying and doing are two very different things.

  • AmberDru Xenia, OH
    March 9, 2013 12:38 p.m.

    compassion, family cohesion, respect for law and common sense......Yeah, right. How is it compassionate to legalize millions of new low wage workers when our own college grads are doing survival jobs? How is sending the entire family home together hurting family cohesion? They can all go home, where they are citizens, know the language and see the rest of their extended family. It's a win win. Respect for the law? Really? How about obeying and enforcing the laws we actually have. That would show common sense respect for the law.

  • hubbardesquire Alabaster, Alabama
    March 9, 2013 12:25 p.m.

    When will we hear from our Church leaders this? There is nothing unchristian about getting rid of illegals!!!

  • John Wilson Idaho Falls, 00
    March 9, 2013 12:24 p.m.

    This is a very hot topic, with many very strongly held views. That being said, I think it is cool that President Uchtdorf was invited to the discussion.

  • John Wilson Idaho Falls, 00
    March 9, 2013 12:21 p.m.

    @UtahBlueDevil - "The Mormon pioneers settled in Mexican land, without permission."

    It is my understanding from the study of the history of that period, that the LDS Church leaders were in discussion with the Government of Mexico concerning their settling in that part of what was then Mexico. I don't know if they had permission per se, but they did settle with the full knowledge of the Mexican Government.

  • Dektol Powell, OH
    March 9, 2013 11:25 a.m.

    Why is the President meeting with a German?

  • Global Warner Provo, UT
    March 9, 2013 11:22 a.m.

    Thank you President Uchtdorf. We need men of wisdom and high ethics to facilitate solutions to the complicated problems of immigration. It’s not an easy issue, but having my Church emphasize a Christian approach with compassion and reason is the best way forward. I urge all thinking Utahns to support viable solutions to this challenge. The simple-minded and/or hateful racism expressed by so many Utahns is truly a shame. Now with our immigrant member of the First Presidency taking wise steps in solidarity with our nation’s President, Barack Obama, makes a forward movement more possible nationally. May the suffering of the oppressed diminish and the strengthening of families increase.

  • Wildcat O-town, UT
    March 9, 2013 11:14 a.m.

    Wonder what stake President De Visser would say on this subject? I support President Uchtdorf's stance on this...what a kind and compassionate man. He is the perfect ambassador for the church! I think this is something all reasonable people can support. God bless the leadership of the church and all leaders in Washington to come up with a compassionate way to resolve this issue. Perfect way to help those who are in the shadows of life. They are our fellow brothers and sisters and should be viewed as such first and foremost!

  • goldfever St. George, U
    March 9, 2013 10:35 a.m.

    Mormonism changes as much as the seasons.

  • Gildas LOGAN, UT
    March 9, 2013 10:18 a.m.

    I was comforted to hear, for the first time in my case, that that the LDS Church's policy is always to discourage anyone from entering any country without legal documentation. I was glad to be reassured that I was not of an opposing view to that of my Church.

    I have to agree that a uniform law of naturalization should be applied by the federal government, and that would include I suppose the appropriate enforcement of said laws.

    As I made a preliminary inspection of the list presented at the end of the article, I thought that the specific selection of 'counselors' for Mr Obama in this matter may be an issue for discussion.

  • Bill in Nebraska Maryville, MO
    March 9, 2013 10:15 a.m.

    Why is it that as a conservative that this must be placed as liberal versus conservative. I for one agree with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints position. This is a human trajedy. To separate families for any reason isn't always necessary. I spent twenty years in the military and had numerous assignments where I couldn't take my family. The difference was that I knew my family was taken care of while I was gone. How, by my faith and those who were assigned to look after my family. I do understand that not everyone has this and even those who are assigned don't always do it. However, it worked in my case and still to this day.

    Families are the heart and sole of society. If we continue to destroy the family architecture then we will be the ones to pay. Look again at the LDS Church's stand and really take a hard look. This isn't a conservative or liberal issue. This is a society issue.

  • Fred44 Salt Lake City, Utah
    March 9, 2013 10:10 a.m.


    I am with you all the way we need to quit rewarding dishonest actions or the problem will never stop. I say put all those people who are hiring these folks that are here illegally in jail and make them pay a hefty fine, otherwise this problem will never end. They should not be rewarded for breaking the law just so they can make an extra buck.

  • 1conservative WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    March 9, 2013 9:19 a.m.

    How can LEGAL U.S. citizens NOT be skeptical of anything Obama says relative to immigration enforcement?

    He's done a pretty poor job enforcing immigration now. Border patrol agents have actually had to file a lawsuit to compel this administration to allow them to do their jobs. His administration released almost 7000 illegal aliens a week ago claiming "budget problems".

    How can he (Obama)claim to want to help 20 million LEGAL Americans find work, while at the same time, put 11 million illegal aliens to work?

  • ManInTheMiddle SANDY, UT
    March 9, 2013 9:13 a.m.

    The law treats breaking different laws on a spectrum....kill someone and we may kill you....speed in your car and we'll give you a ticket. Different crimes deserve different punishments.

    I've often wondered why those on the far right think illegal immigration is a crime significantly closer to murder rather than being closer to a speeding ticket.

    Ask yourself, where on the spectrum should illegal immigration fit? Is it really so bad?? Wouldn't you do the same thing put in their shoes? And if you're Mormon you should ask yourself this - if The Church won't baptize people who break the law, why then do they allow illegals to get baptized? Could it be that Church leaders don't find illegal immigration to be a bid deal? And could it be that they are right?

  • Szmclennan murrieta, CA
    March 9, 2013 9:07 a.m.

    Illegal imigration is not about just Mexican imigrants, but it is the largest part of the issue. A thought;What if,while this may go agaist the average persons idea of possibility,I think it would be interesting to see. Just suppose America worked with Mexico, not to take over but to assist with a 60 mile depth border Inside Mexico. With in this border area would be cities designated for those who will be required to reurn to Mexico and the back of the line per say of Immigration. That border area would become like a breaze way that,then could have a US/Meican legal system that protects them while they wait and perhaps might come to like it there,becoming a prosperous region of sorts. Why would Mexicon allow this??? Because we would refuse to trade with them unless they are on board. This buffer would help to protect Americans at the US border. Our Military then could be close to home In that Area and Address the Drug Cartells as well. There are other ideas out there. So I would like to see more, rather than just bashing everyone out there. I am FOR Legal Immigration.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 9, 2013 8:59 a.m.

    Beneath the smoke and mirrors, religion and churches are business organizations created for the same purposes as other business operations. And it is their giant financial power that enables them to have the special privileges accorded to their imaginary product.

    Their divergent aspects points to the falsity of their claims along with the refusal to provide any reasonable proof or support for their product. Yet they readily join together to foster their commercial interests. Their stand on immigration seems much more toward cheap labor than just helping people.

    “Asked how the LDS Church is directly affected by U.S. immigration policy, President Uchtdorf said that isn’t really the point.” “I’m not talking about the organization of the church,” he said. “I’m talking about individuals. As a church, we are concerned about individuals. We care about every member who is impacted in a negative way by this. We need to be of help. We need to support in a moral way."

    Yet the individuals referred to seem to exclude the American workers and their families that are destroyed by the cheap labor.

  • sg newhall, CA
    March 9, 2013 8:53 a.m.

    Fine, then the Christian thing to do is deport all of the families, parents and children. Although the Church says it doesn't get involved in politics, yes it does. How many illegals have been named to positions of leadership in Spanish branches and how many have been caught and deported? Two? This speaks volumes as to how the Church has allowed illegals to feel safe in our country by affording them a sanctuary. The Christian thing to do is remove all freebies and force all illegals to vacate the premises and return to their countries of origin with every member of their family. There are more negatives than positives by allowing 12 million illegals to live among us. Reports are stating that since the Dream Act the number of infiltrators sneaking over the borders on a daily basis have increased by 4 times the usual amount. Of course. We allow 12 million, another 12 million will come over. Enough is enough! I do not support the Church's position. Law is law and it must be enforced.

  • Straitpath PROVO, UT
    March 9, 2013 8:29 a.m.

    I am very right wing, but I choose to follow the Prophet. His move.

  • hnoel Layton, UT
    March 9, 2013 8:25 a.m.

    Following the meeting on Immigration, Our Congreeman Jason Chaffetz is quoted as saying: "The only way we get to where the church wants to be is when we get Democrats and Republicans agreeing, And when we do have common ground we should vote and pass that and move to the next step." This is good policy. However, Chaffetz and his far right wing ilk want to take down the whole elephant when it comes to economic reform. Which are we to believe? The "Finding common ground," "one step at-a-time" Chaffetz? Or the one we see now, with Senator Mike Lee, leading the obstruction in Washington -- helping to create fiscal chaos so that they can blame the president (and there is plenty of blame there -- on both sides)? We don't need large, long-reaching and deep changes in policy right now. We need large, long-reaching and deep changes in personnel -- elected personnel. We need to find someone who will indeed work together to find common ground, and then " and pass that and move on to the next step." Right now they aren't there.

  • midcl REXBURG, ID
    March 9, 2013 8:23 a.m.

    For those referencing the military family situation in relation to the deportation issue see the internet post on "The Impact of Deployment on U.S. Military Families" (DN does not seem to allow a post of a link).

    Food for thought.

    We need comprehensive immigration reform that addresses all of the problems. I agree that border security is a major concern. Enforcement is another major concern, but so is the fate of those already here - as President Uchtdorf said some of them for 20-30 years, coming at a time when we demonstrated a pretty "open door" attitude about things. Do we now just write off the last 30 years of their lives and their families? Not as far as I'm concerned. Comprehensive immigration reform needs to adress that very real issue in a humane and fair way.

    Back of the line - I can agree with that --- bust up the families - not so much. It is interesting how much we tend to assimilate ourselves to Darwinism (survival of the fittest) when it comes to looking at a solution to these types of issues.

  • Aggielove Cache county, USA
    March 9, 2013 8:06 a.m.

    Would they treat us the same in New Zealand if we wanted to become a citizen there?
    Check out there rules on that.
    Then comment.

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    March 9, 2013 7:28 a.m.

    We are sometimes guilty of ascribing the status of revelation to everything the Brethren say. In fact, most of what the General Authorities say is not revelation at all. When they go around the world to train they use the Handbooks and the Scriptures. They are triangulating their words with the revelations.
    I accept the fact that President Uchtdorf is making an administrative statement here. Since there are tens of thousands of baptisms around the world of people who are unlawfully present, this issue becomes a problem for the institutional arm of the Church.
    Administratively they have taken a position that the undocumented can serve missions. There was no grand announcement in Conference about it (unlike the mission age change). The Brethren simply got the word out and they began doing it. It wasn't revelation. It was done in a corner, not from the pulpit.
    Elder Christofferson's remarks in April of 2012 will help us understand who holds the keys of revelation for the Church and how they are communicated to the Saints.

  • watchman Salt Lake City, UT
    March 9, 2013 7:24 a.m.

    It is my hope that all American entities, including the LDS and other religions, will do everything they can to discourage people from coming to this country or staying in this country illegally because of the distinct possibility it will impact their families, and the longer they are allowed to stay, the more children they will have, and the more impact will be felt when the rule of law catches up to them.

    As long as we operate under laws, entities, especially churches, should try to discourage families from breaking those laws.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    March 9, 2013 7:20 a.m.

    I think everyone needs to take a step backward on the legal issue, and realize we each break laws. Some minor like traffic laws, some more serious like tax evasion and taking payments under the table. We also need to realize that most of our relatives did exactly what these people are doing, they picked up their families and moved to new areas to give their kids a better chance in life.

    The Mormon pioneers settled in Mexican land, without permission. The settlement of these lands "became" legal through negotiations with the federal government once the land was acquired at the end of the Mexican-American war. A path to "statehood" was negotiated... where these new citizens had to change certain things to come under compliance with US law. We still see those in Utah who still have not or will not obey these laws.

    So before we spend too much time up on our bully pulpits casting stones, we need to remember our paths, separated by 150 years, were and are driven by similar needs.

    Citizenship should not be free, nor easy, but a realistic path needs to be provided for... just like for our ancestors.

  • SouthernBaptist Jackson, TN
    March 9, 2013 6:43 a.m.

    What Obama and the liberals want to do is NUTS and illegal.

    It's like me breaking into the White House and Obama saying "welcome" and giving me a free room, free food, free education, and spending money!

    I'm going to sneak into a movie and, if caught, say I am an "undocumented ticket-holder"

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    March 9, 2013 5:55 a.m.

    Law vs. compassion and mercy? I'll take the latter. I think the church leadership gets it on this one. Too bad the conservative crowd doesn't.

  • Albert Maslar CPA (Retired) Absecon, NJ
    March 9, 2013 5:34 a.m.

    When caught in a public venue without a ticket, the penalty is ejection or the required purchase of the ticket but in the US, illegal entry is rewarded on the understanding of quid pro quo and a distortion on a bronze plaque hung in the Statue of Liberty, "Give me your tired, your poor, "your vote." As long as that is the ultimate purpose of unfettered amnesty, the problem can only get worse.

  • anti-liar Salt Lake City, UT
    March 9, 2013 3:12 a.m.

    The term "compassion," as regards the way we view illegal aliens, really doesn't belong in the discussion at all. This is because compassion really is not at issue -- there is no actual shortage of compassion towards the illegal alien to speak of.

    The real issue, instead, is that some are hijacking, perverting, and co-opting the principle of compassion in a devious effort to persuade us to look the other way at chronic illegality, contrary to our knowledge of right and wrong.

  • Immifriend Sandy, UT
    March 9, 2013 12:19 a.m.

    Wonderful to read this story. As President Obama has said, America should be a place where people can come, and when they come, not feel at fear. Many who advocate help for the immigrant continue to urge that the help should be achieved in a legal fashion. Congressional legislation, then, would be wonderful. It would also be wonderful to see at least some of Utah's delegation aiding the cause, helping to create a path for citizenship for those who are already here, a path that is quick and that does not require them to be separated from their families here for any extended period of time. I do think it interesting that what we once called "amnesty" is now being dubbed "a pathway to citizenship." Still, all it amounts to is forgiving someone for not having paperwork. I have no problem with that. -- John Jackson

  • JayTee Sandy, UT
    March 8, 2013 11:21 p.m.

    I think most of us like the idea of compassion and charity. However, with our massive unemployment, how will all the people just walking in here find employment for their families? With our deep record national bankruptcy, who will provide all the "social services" for those who walk across our borders or come with a visa and then just stay? Can we realistically accommodate the wants and needs of all those in the entire world who want to simply move here and be citizens? What do you tell those well-qualified and educated foreigners who follow all the rules, wait many years, pay thousands of dollars in legal fees, and then get preempted by those who simply walk across the border and stay? If border "security" doesn't become a serious priority, how long will it be before we simply cease to be a nation? Talk is great, but the bottom line is, who's going to pay for it all, and how? I would urge all civic and ecclesiastical leaders to address these questions, because they're real and they're not going to be wished away regardless of anyone's good intentions or high hopes.


  • SLars Provo, UT
    March 8, 2013 10:45 p.m.

    The only way people are invited to work, is with a work visa, and they expire.
    We need to care about everyone, including those citizens out of work, or had their id's stolen, lost jobs to the depressing of wages by surplus labor. They are the forgotten people in this debate. If families are separated, it's by their choice.
    These churches should of been preaching to their business owners, and the illegal aliens years ago. Now it looks like a push for cheap labor for their business owner members.

    me me me, I live in a different country from my family, a choice I made. I don't need counseling. Half of my family lives in another country, we are not broken.

  • azresident Mesa, AZ
    March 8, 2013 9:38 p.m.

    And the law prohibits shoplifting, robbing a convenience store, and squatting in vacant homes. Yet some who are homeless break these laws to support their families.

    In the interest of supporting families and keeping families together are these laws and these lawbreakers to be ignored?

    Those who enter this country illegally are lawbreakers. The question is--which lawbreakers get the "get out of jail free" card? Which laws will be enforced?

  • me me me LAYTON, UT
    March 8, 2013 9:26 p.m.

    RRB...being an active duty wife myself I feel I can answer this question. Yes the answer is yes. We military families have much needed counseling after deployment, to repair the broken pieces. Our kids pay the hefty price for freedom. Deployments take a toll on families. Some work it out...Some never repair...

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    March 8, 2013 9:00 p.m.

    Chris B.

    The whole point of the President and Congress working together on immigration reform is that the end result will be "lawful."

    It's going to be fun watching you guys tie yourselves into knots over this one.

  • OCoug Ogden, UT
    March 8, 2013 8:45 p.m.

    Here's to a speedy and fair resolution. This is an important step to figuring out the best option available. One thing that makes America great is diversity, we just need to figure out how to help immigrants do it correctly.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    March 8, 2013 8:42 p.m.


    "do it in a lawful way"

    your move.

  • iron&clay RIVERTON, UT
    March 8, 2013 8:21 p.m.

    Little by little Obama will meet in the middle?

    March 8, 2013 7:56 p.m.

    Shepherds teach right from wrong. I don't see that here.

  • DRay Roy, UT
    March 8, 2013 7:08 p.m.

    Pres U perfect man of Faith there, being born in Czech, raised in Germany, now of US, a very compassionate man who also understands importance of rule of law. Kudos to Pres Obama for seeking this participation of men of Faith.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    March 8, 2013 7:00 p.m.

    "He [President Obama] just said in this value process we need to stand together and make sure the United States is still a place where people can come, and once they come, feel not at fear. And do it, of course, in a lawful way. He was talking about his principles and what he said is totally in line with our values."

    -President Dieter F. Uchtdorf

    Okay, right-wingers from the DN boards. Your move.

  • Aggielove Cache county, USA
    March 8, 2013 6:25 p.m.

    Sounds like fun.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    March 8, 2013 6:21 p.m.

    Christianity at work. The shepperds doing what they were called to do.

    March 8, 2013 6:20 p.m.

    Rewarding dishonest actions will never stop the problem. Only enforcement will. Give them a path to citizenship/work visas by returning home, going to the back of the line, and coming back legally. This would help to deter future law breakers.

    Family is not an issue, as separation by borders does not break up a family. Do our servicemen overseas have broken families?