The euphemism of "undocumented" is a necessary legalism. Unless and
until someone's been found in a court of law to be in the country
illegally, they are, in the eyes of the law, undocumented. If someone breaks
into your house and steals your TV, unless and until they're convicted of
that crime, they're alleged burglars. And because our legal system still
(barely) abides by the bedrock principle that a person is innocent until proven
guilty, this distinction is not just "PC," it's absolutely
necessary. There are far too many examples (and it seems to be increasing) of
people being harassed or abused or even killed because someone mistakenly
believed they were "illegal." PC or not, the presumption of innocence
ought to be brought back to the forefront of our legal system and our society.
The Prophet Joseph Smith has given us the prophetic guidance that we need on
this matter: "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers and
magistrates in obeying honoring and sustaining the law."
I'm grateful that the Prophet Joseph Smith had the heaven inspired
foresight to keep our church from being tossed to and fro with every wind of
these immigration issues in these last days. He gave us this bedrock,
foundational principle that will guide us well. It is so simple even a primary
aged child can learn it "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents,
rulers and magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law."
"Sanctuary for the undocumented
"I'm really tired
of this "undocumented" word game. Everyone knows it's a euphemism
for illegal. Would the headline for a home intruder be "unexpected house
guest?" How about a carjacker: "unintended passenger?" Should we
refer to tax evaders as "un-filed taxpayers?" Shoplifters: "unpaid
customers?" What happens when "undocumented" is no
longer PC. Will it be "legal immigration status challenged?" It's simply nonsense.
>>They need to obey the laws. All of them. Yes. But
obedience to the law does not mean you must agree with it publicly or privately,
or stop calling for changes to it. That's the wonder of the
First Amendment. Constitutionally protected freedom of conscience allows all of
us to speak openly about laws we disagree with.
Three questions:1) When a church or synagogue provides sanctuary to
an illegal immigrant, how do they know the person or people are not wanted
criminals in their home country?2) Why don't churches and
synagogues provide sanctuary to all criminals?3) Why aren't
all church and synagogue leaders who provide sanctuary arrested for harboring
criminals and obstructing justice?
This issue speaks to the political nature of churches today.All that
effort. It would be better spent helping people to repatriate to their home
country as a family. Instead they dig in.But I applaud their
openness about what they are doing. It clearly tells the rest of the
congregation where they stand. And if the founding members don't like it,
they can withdraw their financial support and worship elsewhere.Sorry to vent, but I'm tired of arguing with people in my ward who insist
the church would never call illegal aliens as missionaries.
@at long last. .Yet conservatives try to ignore the law in so many
other areas claiming religious freedom.
At long last...I agree. Pot is legal. Gay marriage is legal. Sunday
shopping is legal. Gambling is legal. Abortion is legal. Liberalism is legal.
The religious have no business trying to impose their sanctimonious
attitude towards people on us. Nor their attitude towards anything else.
They need to obey the laws. All of them. Right?
The sanctimonious attitude of many religious people just disgusts me. What is
it about illegal you don't get? Didn't Christ say something about
rendering to Caesar that which was Caesar's? One interpretation has to be
obey the laws. . . Hypocritical behavior