Illegal Immigration Is Not a Crime

76

September 3, 2010 by The Mormon Worker

Committing a crime is something that we as a society and members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS) are strongly opposed to. Illegal immigration is not a crime. Paul Mero explained it succinctly on the website of the conservative Sutherland Institute: “… illegal immigration is a civil violation, not unlike a speeding ticket.  It’s not a misdemeanor and it certainly isn’t a felony.  In other words, under the law, the initial act of illegal immigration isn’t a criminal act – unless speeding is a crime.  And illegal immigrants aren’t ‘criminals’ unless everyone who goes over the speed limit is a ‘criminal’ [whether ticketed or not]. ” That might also explain why illegal immigrants hold Temple recommends, serve as bishops or branch presidents, and are allowed to go on missions, just as those who speed aren’t denied to do the same.

When the Savior was asked by one of the scribes, “Which is the first commandment of all?” His answer was categorical:  “… The first of all the commandments is … thou shalt love the Lord thy God … And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.” (Mark 12:29-31)  Are not illegal immigrants our neighbors in every sense of the word?  Do actions such as racial profiling, name calling, and using hateful language reflect the same love we have of ourselves?

Elder Marvin J. Ashton of the Twelve Apostles warned us about these negative feelings in the April 1992 General Conference:  “If the adversary can influence us to pick on each other, to find fault, bash, and undermine, to judge or humiliate or taunt, half his battle is won. Why? Because though this sort of conduct may not equate with succumbing to grievous sin, it nevertheless neutralizes us spiritually. The Spirit of the Lord cannot dwell where there is bickering, judging, contention, or any kind of bashing.” He continues: “So what is the antidote for this bashing that hurts feelings, demeans others, destroys relationships, and harms self-esteem? Bashing should be replaced with charity.”

“Wherefore, my beloved brethren, if ye have not charity, ye are nothing, for charity never faileth. Wherefore, cleave unto charity, which is the greatest of all, for all things must fail- Charity is the pure love of Christ, and it endureth forever.” (Moro. 7:46–47.)

Finally Elder Ashton points out: “Perhaps the greatest charity comes when we are kind to each other, when we don’t judge or categorize someone else, when we simply give each other the benefit of the doubt or remain quiet.”

Often people ask: What would the Savior do?  We can find the answer by looking to what He DID do—how He responded to the woman taken in adultery.  This was a woman who was guilty of violating the law, and whose punishment was to be stoned to death. Was Christ there, rallying the people to execute her punishment to the fullest extent of the law?  Or did He remind those present to look within first?  Perhaps we should let he who has never sped (or committed another such civil violation) cast the first stone.

Most immigrants (whether here legally or illegally) have had no previous exposure to the LDS church or what is stands for.  How sad that their first (and possibly only) experience with the church will be filled with hatred, racism, and name calling–rather than the Christian ideals of charity and compassion.

There is no doubt that comprehensive immigration reform is urgently needed; however, it must be done in a compassionate and humane way–after all, we are dealing with humans (and our neighbors).  Please contact your local state legislator and ask him/her to vote against representative Steve Sandstrom’s immigration bill, which separates families and promotes racial profiling. Please also contact your Federal legislator and express your desire for Congress to pass compassionate and humane comprehensive immigration reform.

The emails of several Utah Legislators who will be influential on immigration issues are below:

daagard@utah.gov, lfowlke@utah.gov, sherylallen@utah.gov, tbeck@utah.gov, jbird@utah.gov, rgreenwood@utah.gov, keithgrover@utah.gov, ehutchings@utah.gov, dipson@utah.gov, briansking@utah.gov, blockhart@utah.gov, kaymciff@utah.gov, coda@utah.gov, jseelig@utah.gov, markwheatley@utah.gov, lwiley@utah.gov, cwimmer@utah.gov
jgreiner@utahsenate.org, dcbuttars@utahsenate.org, lhillyard@utahsenate.org, bmcadams@utahsenate.org, rromero@utahsenate.org

Advertisements

76 thoughts on “Illegal Immigration Is Not a Crime

  1. Forest Simmons says:

    We strain at gnats and swallow camels. We love the letter of the law, but “… have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith…”

    … said Jesus Christ …

    “… who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life…”

  2. Natassia says:

    Speeding is not a “crime” you say…but is it a sin? I would argue that it is.

    Willfully disobeying the law is a sin and it is wrong…just as is willfully violating a country’s statutes and laws that are put in place to protect its citizens and promote its citizens’ best interest.

    We can certainly love our neighbors and be our brother’s keeper without having to incentivize illegal immigration (which is what we do every time we refuse to enforce the law). Don’t forget, our neighbors also include our fellow American citizens whose lives are often negatively impacted by illegal immigration (lowered wages, a heavier burden on the educational system and social services programs, increased gang activity and drug & human trafficking, etc.)

    Rather than forcing our brothers and sisters in America to carry the burdens that illegal immigrants bring, perhaps we can help to incentivize transformation in those immigrants’ home countries.

    A welfare state with open borders CANNOT SURVIVE regardless of how “Christian” someone may think it is.

  3. sasoc says:

    Nice try, but you are incorrect. The penalty for illegal entry into the USA is either a fine or up to six months in jail. Play with words all you want: in my book, if a judge can throw you in jail, you’re a criminal.

    • Natassia says:

      Semantics are so much fun, aren’t they?

      The fact that someone WILLFULLY violates United States laws is not a reason to be celebrating and seeking ways to reward them or to encourage more people to do the same. And yet this is what I seem to be hearing from these “comprehensive immigration reform” folks.

  4. Tod Robbins says:

    Wonderful opinion piece, and I wholeheartedly agree with you Forest.

  5. sasoc says:

    Christ’s words inspire us to lift consciousness and render love into action to the greatest extent possible, but do not require us to abolish our rights to our own bodies and selves. Put another way, someone else’s suffering does not entitle them to drain away your life; compassion should not be self-immolation.

    Luckily for humanity, the founding fathers of the United States set up a system of government and economy that would promote something better than such a zero-sum game. And they succeeded in spectacular fashion, as their institutions and philosophy as rooted in the English Enlightenment period created the fertile ground for the richest, free-est, and most powerful nation on Earth to rise up and defend free peoples everywhere from tyranny.

    It is this beacon of freedom, our government of, by, and for the people, and our culture of opportunity based on self-reliance and anglo-saxon ethics, that attracts people from all over the world to come and make a life here.

    For most of the nation’s history, the myth of ethnic diversity has been just that: a myth. Assimilation has been ruthless and effective, and has preserved the unique brand of culture and philosophy that buttresses our great success. Though there are ethnic flavors in the tapestry of America, they are transmogrified into trace elements of mild potency.

    In this way, our nation renews itself, without losing itself.

    No nation – not even the United States of America – can survive a balkanization of its people. Without a unifying philosophy, a unifying language, a unifying set of principles and ideals, a nation will depart the renaissance, enter the baroque, and then finally lose all form as its fissures and fractures are left untended by a population unable to even know whether its body is blighted.

    Which brings us to the present moment in America. The accommodation, for myriad reasons, first of three million illegals from Mexico granted amnesty in 1986, and now 12 – 20 million illegals of the same provenance, has been an abandonment of American heritage and an abandonment of the American ideal.

    This non-assimilating population came here through illegal means and without regard to our sovereignty and with no intention whatsoever of being anglicized as have all previous (legal) immigrant groups. Therefore their presence here must be resisted and ultimately ended, and any notion that this is not possible is a lie.

    Our nation has been and remains the last best hope of Earth, and we must preserve and defend it so that free peoples the world over may always live in the secure knowledge that the greatest nation to ever grace the face of the Earth will remain the sword and shield of freedom down through the ages of man.

    • J. Madson says:

      wow. a bunch of nativist, racist nonsense. Pat Buchanan would be proud. Oh, and some american exceptionalism thrown in for good measure. God help us if this nation is the last best hope of Earth. And especially help those who dont share our narcissistic, self serving vision of freedom.

      You certainly realize the hypocrisy of your assertions that certain populations are coming here without regard to US sovereignty and no intention of assimilating when we consider that this is exactly how the US came to be. By disregarding the sovereignty of those already here. Unlike immigrants today, however, the founding fathers (lucky for humanity you say) were not content simply living side by side with those already here, they had to massacre those who dared claim rights to their native land.

      this last line was in jest right? I mean you cant possibly believe any of this stuff.

      Our nation has been and remains the last best hope of Earth, and we must preserve and defend it so that free peoples the world over may always live in the secure knowledge that the greatest nation to ever grace the face of the Earth will remain the sword and shield of freedom down through the ages of man.

      • Jack Mormon says:

        Here we go again. Someone is playing the history card, trying to characterize America as a historically “racist, nativist, genocidal” country. Yada, yada, yada. I don’t suppose you can cite the specific immigration laws on the books when Europeans first settled the New World, can you? Didn’t think so – where there is no law, there is no transgression.

        By the way, the Second Article of Faith, “We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression”, implicitly excuses us from any responsibility for so-called “historical sins”.

        You already showed your contempt for the First Amendment when you tried to shut down the American Renaissance conference this past winter – don’t think I forgot that. You obviously have contempt for America’s history as well. America may be an imperfect nation, but we are still the best hope for mankind.

      • sasoc says:

        Boy do you hate America, what happened to you? This country is literally the light that lifts up the world, and I say this because it was the USA that stopped Japan and Germany from enslaving humanity. And then we went home instead of imposing our will on a world in which we had the only atomic weapons and large standing army still able to fight. We are the righteous, brother, and you best believe it.

        As for assimilation, previous groups did not keep one foot in the old country when they got here – they embraced their new country whole heartedly and celebrated their children’s absorption into the culture. Today’s illegal immigrant latinos cling to their language with vigor, as evidenced by the two versions of airline magazines on planes, ESPN Deportes, product labeling in Spanish, and on and on. It’s a disgrace, and it is NOT consistent with the behavior of LEGAL immigrant groups from 120 years ago.

        As for “last, best hope of Earth,” that is a direct quote from Abraham Lincoln. But you probably hate him too.

      • tariq says:

        No, Sasoc, “we” didn’t go home “instead of imposing our will…” The U.S. still has many military bases in both Japan and Germany.
        And Jack Mormon; the “history card”!? Really? History isn’t a card. I know that you right-wing crazies would rather we all forget history so that you can re-write it to fit your fantasies, but that isn’t going to happen. Fact is, racism and genocide are a major part of U.S. history. Ignoring history won’t change that.

      • Natassia says:

        Oh, so it’s not the “history card”, but the RACE CARD, Tariq?

        Call someone a white supremacist and somehow prove their valid arguments wrong? Sorry, bud, but an honest debate doesn’t work that way.

        And having a military base in a country that tried to annihilate ones countrymen and allies less than 70 years ago is not the same as “imposing ones will.” And with the crap going on with North Korea (who is a major threat to Japan), I seriously doubt the Japanese are too upset about having the U.S. military in their backyard.

      • Derek says:

        As to whether or not the Japanese are upset about having the US military in their backyard, it’s worth noting that there was a protest of around 90,000 back in April over the US military presence in Okinawa.

        http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/26/world/asia/26okinawa.html

        It wasn’t the first, and it won’t be the last. I doubt we’d be very placid here in the US about a foreign military power establishing bases from which they could throw their weight around.

      • Natassia says:

        I’d be impressed with such protests if I didn’t recognize the sad fact that should anything threaten Japan, they’d be calling our President on the phone begging for help…kinda like those silly American anarchists who bellow about hating cops and the government and then are the first to dial 9-1-1 when someone burglarizes their a**es.

      • tariq says:

        Saying that racism has alot to do with U.S. history is not “playing the race card”. It’s a historical fact. No legitimate historian on the right or left would have a problem with that statement, but you right-wing crazies aren’t interested in historical facts, you’re interested in making things up to keep your fantasy bubble from popping. Just let the bubble pop already. You’re adults for goodness’ sake! Facing reality won’t hurt you. It’s time to grow up.

        Derek, yeah, I was stationed in South Korea for a year and there were huge “yankee go home” protests outside of my base at least once every few months. I know that there were Koreans who wanted us to be there, especially the Koreans who were making money off of us, but there were also mass numbers of people, especially young people, who resented our military presence in their country.

      • Natassia says:

        Tariq,

        I guess you forgot this slip-of-the-typing-finger:

        As for the white supremacists who have slithered in to the conversation…

      • tariq says:

        That wasn’t a slip. I meant what I said.

      • Natassia says:

        Oh, so you were playing the race card?!

      • tariq says:

        No, I was playing the reality card.

      • Natassia says:

        Tariq, what justification do you have for calling anyone in this discussion a “white supremacist”?

      • Joseph says:

        Natassia

        “And yet here we are, a suicidal liberal haven of insanity–incentivizing the mass immigration of uneducated and un-inoculated citizens OF FOREIGN NATIONS without demanding strcit standards of assimilation.”

        What do you mean by “assimilation”? Or “un-inoculated”? You can give it whatever spin you want, but ultimately those things mean “Anglicized”. Tariq will have to justify for himself his use of the “white supremacist” label, but the above comment sounds pretty racist to me. On top of that, accusing people you don’t know of being “un-educated” sounds elitist. And racist, since it is based on an assumption that non-“Anglicized” individuals are automatically “un-educated”.

        I doubt you will be happy or satisfied with my response, and yes, there are always loopholes to be found in saying “I’m not racist for thinking that all cultures are inferior to mine.” It seems likely you will give many of the excuses I’ve heard before. But I just thought I’d let you know where the “white supremacist” accusation might be coming from.

      • Natassia says:

        Joseph,

        Assimilation: Michelle Malkin put out a great article on this on July 2. I’ll let her words and those of the Founding Fathers she quotes speak for themselves.

        Un-inoculated: First of all, illegal immigrants (who we are rewarding and incentivizing by holding this amnesty thing like a carrot on a stick) are not medically screened like legal immigrants are for contagious diseases such as tuberculosis. And do you think these immigrants have received inoculations like most American citizens have during childhood? For more information about contagious diseases that can be attributed to immigration (namely illegal immigration), see here. Legal immigrants are required to have certain immunizations. How many illegal immigrants cross our borders every year without those immunizations?

        I don’t know what you mean by Anglicized. I’d rather see them Americanized where they speak the language of the rest of America’s citizens: ENGLISH and adhere to the laws of the country (which includes respecting immigration laws) and have a healthy patriotic tie to the country they seek to join rather than this crap.

        Illegal immigrants from Latin American are coming here without the ability to speak or read English (that’s UNEDUCATED here in America) and without any real job skills….that’s why they take UNSKILLED labor jobs (that still pay better than what they would get if they went to college and made a “middle class” income down in Mexico and many other Latin American countries.)

        Uneducated is uneducated. There’s nothing elitist about the appropriate and accurate use of the word. And OF COURSE I think there are cultures inferior to that of Western European & American Christian societies. Good grief…if only because we have capitalism (or at least we used to)! Race has nothing to do with it (although it does have some effect on IQ). Really, it’s all about belief systems and cultural traditions.

      • The issue of potential communicable disease and inoculation is potentially a legitimate one. The primary reason most illegal immigrants enter illegally is because the current process is beyond their reach. The best way of dealing with that issue is simply to open up and simplify the overly complicated and onerous immigration process. potential immigrants will no longer have a reason to enter under the radar. With more immigrants entering through legal channels, potential health risks are more likely to be caught. Just walling them out, on the other hand, is a losing proposition.

        Strange that you don’t see the connection between being “Americanized,” as you put it, Natassia, and “Anglicized.” Virtually from the founding of the nation, the default culture was WASP, which stands for White *Anglo-Saxon* Protestant. The language you want them to learn is *English*. The Anglo connection to the American culture you’re talking about is pretty obvious.

        Aside from the obvious, superficial, WASP elements, I’m rather confused about what people mean when they talk about immigrants and their supposed resistance to “American values” or “American culture” (a href=”http://aliberalmormon.wordpress.com/2006/05/01/where-in-the-con/>”Is English An American Value,” “American Values”).

        Your complaints about the lack of education, skills, understanding of our (supposedly superior) culture, and patriotism are very familiar. We’ve heard them again and again about every wave of immigration which did not originate from Britain. The same charges were levied against the Germans, the Irish, the Chinese, the Italians, the Greeks, the Japanese, the Eastern Europeans, et al. Each time alarmists warned that each wave was not assimilating and would somehow weaken and balkanize the nation. And yet each time, after a generation, the immigrant populations were happily speaking English, waving US flags, and pretty well integrated into society (if not as fully “assimilated”–ie, Anglicized–as the elitist WASPs wanted). The warnings of the Chicken Littles never came to pass. I don’t see any reason this latest wave should be seen as any different.

      • sasoc says:

        “Anglicized” should mean inculcated in the mindset (NOT the racial makeup) of the nation’s progenitor, namely England. There is such a thing as an anglo-saxon mindset, and it is more than just the English language, though that is a big part of it. It is also the customs and ethics of that particular culture. Let me provide but one example: anti-trust laws. As I have written about here
        http://wp.me/pMW8w-qZ
        the body of anti-trust laws in existence in anglo-saxon countries is far more developed than in other cultures around the world. These laws foster fair competition with the intent to protect society from inefficient economic resource allocations (i.e., provide the most goods for society at the least cost – very democratic). It turns out that other NON-anglo-saxon cultures don’t value this as highly.

        So there you go: the anglo-saxon mindset is real, and in my opinion, it has produced the free-est and richest country on earth. ALL immigrant groups who come here should be ANGLICIZED so that, regardless of their origins, they come to embrace in the very soul of their beings the core American ideals and principles. By the way: these principles are often quite different from the latin culture as embodied in former colonies of Spain.

      • sasoc says:

        As for Derek:

        You think this wave of “immigrants” is no different from previous waves? Oh how wrong you are. First of all, they are ILLEGAL. They have not come in the front door. That alone destroys any credibility they have and it is an insult to previous immigrant groups to lump them together.

        Second of all, the Spanish language is being heavily advocated by the wave of illegals and they doggedly cling to it in a way that Italians and Germans, etc. never did. I once attended a meeting of Spanish TV and radio programming company executives and they spoke proudly of the “MYTH” of assimilation of the latino community. That was their word – MYTH – not mine. Refusing to let go of the Spanish language was a core part of why assimilation was said to be NOT happening. Since that day, I have watched American Airlines offer two in-flight magazines – one in Spanish, one in English – on flights within the domestic USA. It is one thing to offer it on a flight from Chicago to Mexico. But Chicago to Seattle? And I have watched ESPN add “ESPN Deportes” so that Spanish-speakers can stay comfortable with their own language while squatting inside the USA.

        Stop kidding yourself: this group of illegal immigrants is very different from all previous groups.

      • Natassia says:

        It’s not that I don’t see the “Anglicization” connection (once it is explained to me–thanks Sasoc)…I just don’t think in terms like that. I don’t use that word in my thinking or vocabulary. Call me uneducated. 🙂 I won’t call you elitist, I promise.

        I also don’t see why we need to open up immigration to everyone who seeks to come here. We should be far more choosy about who we let in…especially when they bring questionable cultural practices like FGM, polygamy, honor killings, anti-Semitism, etc.

        I’m not English. My mother and her family are Portuguese immigrants, my father from a long line of natural-born citizens who were some of the settlers who raced across the Oklahoma plains to claim land. But English is the language of our founding documents, it’s the language taught in our schools, used on our official documents, signs, etc. and spoken by all natural-born citizens of America. I swear, would you call it “Spainization” if Mexico or any other Central American country demanded that immigrants learn to speak Spanish? Spanish is not the “native” language of those countries.

        I swear…human beings have migrated from place to place, sometimes peacefully and many times not, bringing cultures and new languages with them. And no one calls it “Arabization” or “Spainization” or “Portugalization”. Except when Americans dare to expect immigrants to learn English when they come to America. lol

        I see it for what it is: a bias against whites, especially English-speaking, Christian whites. It’s a mad, mad world we live in.

      • Are you sure they are so different? Is it true that most immigrant in prior generations went through the proper channels and screening processes? There weren’t boats which landed in quiet ports and unloaded their passengers? And again, how do we compare the legality of different groups who immigrated under very different immigration laws (including the original European colonists and pioneers, for whom there were no laws as we understand them, but who frequently “colonized” and “settled” against the wishes of the indigenous inhabitants)?

        And Spanish is being “heavily” advocated? There is perhaps some small minority who refuse English, but I’ve seen little evidence that they are widespread. There seems to be a larger portion of the immigrant population who wish to keep their language alive as a thriving second language. So what? What’s wrong with embracing their heritage? What’s wrong with a multi-lingual America? There is nothing sacred about English. That is our national tongue strictly due to inertia–and there is no evidence that the inertia is significantly fading.

      • Natassia, you’re right: human migration is a constant throughout history. They bring new cultures and languages with them. To try to force them to to conform to certaomcultures and languages or to stay out, is ethnocentric and futile.

        This isn’t a bias against white, English-speaking Christians. It’s a rejection of biases in favor of white, English-speaking Christians.

      • Natassia says:

        If there is nothing wrong with a multi-lingual America, what is wrong with a uni-lingual America?

        By purposely promoting immigration with assimilation, you show a bias towards anything that is not white or English or Christian. It’s as if there is this great desire to see the majority of America turned into a minority.

        I want to know why that is.

      • Derek says:

        You err in assuming a neutrality to cultures, languages, or religions is a bias against a given culture, language, or religion.

      • Natassia says:

        On the contrary, by incentivizing illegal immigration and by not requiring assimiliation, you are encouraging people to continue with their culture and language regardless of the culture and language that they are bombarding. This is not neutrality. This is passively encouraging the replacement of one culture and language with another.

      • Derek says:

        Exactly. In market terms, if there is not enough market demand for a particular culture, religion, or language, why prop it up? To insist that government intervention protect a given culture, religion, or language is biased. Allowing each to compete freely and rise or fall on their own merits is neutrality.

        Of course, I’m a liberal. I don’t necessarily mind government protection and intervention. But no one has yet succeeded in showing why the English language is somehow superior and deserves some special protection. No one has given any concrete examples of what important values the immigrants are spurning so as to merit rejection from our society.

      • Joseph says:

        Natassia,

        I read the link you gave on the founding father’s and, to be honest, I never liked Hamilton anyway. And Washington, who I do respect, I never viewed as perfect. But his statments in the link you gave should be put in context with this (written to a Jewish congregation)

        “It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance…”
        (http://www.pbs.org/georgewashington/milestones/hebrew_congregation_read.html)

        This ideal has not always been lived up to, and Washington himself failed to live up to it on occasions, I still view it as a good goal.

        I think Derek has done a very good job of addressing the other arguments brought up, so I’m not going to add much.

        Natassia and Sasoc, it is a free country, so you are welcome to your illusions. Just realize you are losing, and the world will be better for it.

      • Natassia says:

        While Derek’s approach is incredibly materialistic, yours is extraordinarily weak:

        “If you don’t agree with amnesty for people blatantly violating U.S. laws, then you are are a bigot.”

        Tell me again why it is wrong to amend government programs that are incentivizing illegal immigration as well as to enforce the laws on the books alread?

      • Joseph says:

        “If you don’t agree with amnesty for people blatantly violating U.S. laws, then you are are a bigot.”

        That would be a weak argument if that were the argument I was making. I was pretty sure I never made any such statement. I looked over my comments and sure enough, it’s not there. I have pointed out a statement you made that could be interpreted as bigoted, and I’m not backing down on that particular point. But your statement above takes my words much further than what is actually there, stated explicitly or implied.

        There also seems to be an assumption that I am in total agreement with the above post. I never said I was. I do agree with the intent and overall purpose of the post, but not necessarily every detail. Like Ron Madson, I do view it as a complex issue.

        I do view concerns about language, race, and “assimilation” as racist approaches to the issue. As Derek pointed out, those have long been concerns, yet America has benefited from diversity.

        I do recognize, however, that there are limited resources. Both Derek and Ron have pointed to the need for more open processes, not blanket amnesty. I see a need to consider compassionately the needs of desperate workers trying to keep their families together, as well as consider what is possible to do with the resources that are available. I don’t have all the answers, and I don’t really have any intention of going into all of my ideas here, since this comment has already gone on to long.

        But, once again, I’m not the one who created the false dichotomy you accused me of. Those were your words.

    • Natassia says:

      Edit: correction

      “promoting immigration WITHOUT assimilation”

    • Joseph says:

      Oops. “founding father’s” should be “founding fathers”. Don’t know why that apostrophe ended up there.

    • sasoc says:

      If Natassia and I (and others like us) “are losing”, then we all will lose and the world will plunge into darkness.

  6. J. Madson says:

    sorry sasoc. no hate. just a desire for repentance and painful truth telling.

    you can read a discussion we had here on this issue

    https://themormonworker.wordpress.com/2010/04/30/orson-scott-card-we-are-not-in-need-of-powerful-stories-but-righteous-actions/

    Jack Mormon

    suggest you go read the first amendment again. It doesnt guarantee that a private hotel or any private institution has to give you a platform.

    same goes for the article of faith. It is speaking of a specific theological issue. It is not granting amnesty to national and historical crimes. History has consequences and many are still suffering the consequences of our nation’s history. Addressing those consequences is the Christian thing to do.

  7. Forest Simmons says:

    So we are the beacon? of what? of selfishness? of meaness to strangers?

    Ex. 22: 21
    21 ¶ Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.
    Lev. 19: 33-34
    33 ¶ And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him.
    34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.
    Num. 9: 14
    14 And if a stranger shall sojourn among you, and will keep the passover unto the Lord; according to the ordinance of the passover, and according to the manner thereof, so shall he do: ye shall have one ordinance, both for the stranger, and for him that was born in the land.
    Deut. 10: 19
    19 Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.
    Isa. 14: 1
    1 For the Lord will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land: and the strangers shall be joined with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob.

    [The contexdt of this passage of Isaiah 14, is the day when the Mexicans build up the new Jerusalem, and we Gentile strangers may join with them if we promise to be nice.]

    Mal. 3: 5
    5 And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false swearers, and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right…

    Heb. 13: 2
    2 Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

    I submit that God’s law trumps man’s law. The underground railroad was illegal, but it has been vindicated by time.

    “He drew a circle that shut me out-
    Heretic , rebel, a thing to flout.
    But love and I had the wit to win:
    We drew a circle and took him In !
    From the poem “Outwitted”
    — Edwin Markham

    Was Moroni a criminal for visiting Joseph Smith in New York without a visa?

    How about the the Three Nephites who are supposed to be here among the Gentiles in the last days? Are they criminals for not having documents?

    These borders only serve the purposes of the great and abominable church of the devil, and all of its branches that are built up to get power and gain and to enslave the souls of men and torture the saints, “the poor of my people,’ including innocent women and children.

  8. Natassia says:

    Lord have mercy. Even ancient Israelite laws derived from the Torah required assimilation. And yet here we are, a suicidal liberal haven of insanity–incentivizing the mass immigration of uneducated and un-inoculated citizens OF FOREIGN NATIONS without demanding strcit standards of assimilation.

  9. Ron Madson says:

    I write for the Mormon Worker but I have mixed feelings about immigration issues. I agree that there needs to be order/rule of law in regard to immigration as well as there needs to be speed limits in residential areas for the benefit of all concerned even those exceeding the speed limit. I would suggest liberalizing access such as guest worker permits and systematic recording for purposes of taxes, benefits etc. Lack of an above the board system leads to difficulties for all concerned.
    In short, respect the rule of law, but liberalize it for the benefit of all.
    Also, we all believe in restrictions it is just where we draw the line. For example, who of you would allow unfettered access to your home and property without permission? Be hospitable but does that mean unregulated?

  10. crime, n.

    1. An omission of a duty commanded, or the commission of an act forbidden, by a public law. The term crime is hardly a technical term at the common law, but is essentially defined in many of the penal codes in the United States, as in the New York code, as “an act of omission forbidden by law and punishable upon conviction by (1) death; or (2) imprisonment; or (3) fine; or (4) removal from office; or (5) disqualification to hold or enjoy any office of trust, honor, or profit under the state; or (6) other penal discipline.” A crime is a violation of a public right and may also involve a violation of the rights of an individual. Crime includes all grades of public offenses, which at the common law are often classified as treason, felony, and misdemeanor (see these terms); also see WRONG, TORT, SANCTION, MALUM IN SE, and MALUM PROHIBITUM; and cf. DELICT.

    2. Gross violation of human law, in distinction from a misdemeanor or trespass, or other slight offense. Hence, also, any aggravated offense against morality or the public welfare: any outrage or great wrong.

    As to these it will, of course, be understood that I am here speaking mainly of peccadilloes and not crimes. W. C. Brownell.

    3. The action of committing such offenses; conduct violating the law.

    “Men steeped in crime.” Froude.

    4. Any evil act or sin; a violation of the divine law; esp., a grievous sin; also, sinful conduct; wrongdoing.

    No crime was thine, if’t is no crime to love. Pope.

    5. That which causes crime; also, charge; accusation. Obs.

    The tree of life, the crime of our first father’s fall. Spenser.

  11. Forest Simmons says:

    In one way border/immigrant control is like gun control. It doesn’t deter the bad guys.

    Narco-traficantes are hardly slowed down by the border/documentation requirements. They can easily pay for counterfeit documents, bribe officials, or when all else fails, get a job with the CIA.

    CEO’s of wage slavery are not slowed down by the border laws. They cross back and forth freely with plenty of lawyers to take care of the tramites/documents.

    On the South side of the border they run their maquila’s. On the North side of the border they love having the compliant undocumented workers that are so easy to exploit.

    The wholesale welfare parasites are not kept out; I’m talking about the corporate bankers, the war profiteers, etc.

    These documentation requirements do not keep the death squad leaders of Latin America from attending The School of the Americas. Our military makes sure that they are not bothered by red tape, red blood, rednecks, or red anything.

    These laws only discriminate against working class people.

    Yes, in case you haven’t heard there is a class war, and workers will continue to lose this war until we establish solidarity with workers of all countries.

    The great and abominable class of concentrated power and wealth has always ruled by dividing the workers against each other.

    You naïve supporters of Arizona’s SB1070, how are you so easily fooled by the corporate media? Don’t you know that they are owned by the ruling class?

    Whose side are you on? Why do you want to side with the enemy of your soul?

    Wake up!

  12. Forest Simmons says:

    Their was a class war in Captain Moroni’s day, too. The Kingmen formed the ruling class, and they were always trying to concentrate more wealth and power than they already had. Moroni blamed the length of the long war against the Lamanites on them. The working class people weren’t fighting to get power and gain, they were fighting to pull down power:

    Alma 60:36 Behold, I am Moroni, your chief captain. I seek not for power, but to pull it down. I seek not for honor of the world, but for the glory of my God, and the freedom and welfare of my country.

    From their introduction in First Nephi to the end of the Book of Mormon the “churches” [i.e. institutions] built up to get power and gain are equated with the great and abominable church of the devil. And we are repeatedly warned against letting them get control, let alone worshipping them.

    1.
    1 Ne. 22: 23
    23 For the time speedily shall come that all churches which are built up to get gain, and all those who are built up to get power over the flesh, and those who are built up to become popular in the eyes of the world, and those who seek the lusts of the flesh and the things of the world, and to do all manner of iniquity; yea, in fine, all those who belong to the kingdom of the devil are they who need fear, and tremble, and quake; they are those who must be brought low in the dust; they are those who must be consumed as stubble; and this is according to the words of the prophet.
    2.
    2 Ne. 26: 20
    20 And the Gentiles are lifted up in the pride of their eyes, and have stumbled, because of the greatness of their stumbling block, that they have built up many churches; nevertheless, they put down the power and miracles of God, and preach up unto themselves their own wisdom and their own learning, that they may get gain and grind upon the face of the poor.
    3.
    4 Ne. 1: 26
    26 And they began to be divided into classes; and they began to build up churches unto themselves to get gain, and began to deny the true church of Christ.
    4.
    Morm. 8: 33
    33 O ye wicked and perverse and stiffnecked people, why have ye built up churches unto yourselves to get gain? Why have ye transfigured the holy word of God, that ye might bring damnation upon your souls? Behold, look ye unto the revelations of God; for behold, the time cometh at that day when all these things must be fulfilled.
    5.
    Ether 8: 22-23
    22 And whatsoever nation shall uphold such secret combinations, to get power and gain, until they shall spread over the nation, behold, they shall be destroyed; for the Lord will not suffer that the blood of his saints, which shall be shed by them, shall always cry unto him from the ground for vengeance upon them and yet he avenge them not.
    23 Wherefore, O ye Gentiles, it is wisdom in God that these things should be shown unto you, that thereby ye may repent of your sins, and suffer not that these murderous combinations shall get above you, which are built up to get power and gain—and the work, yea, even the work of destruction come upon you, yea, even the sword of the justice of the Eternal God shall fall upon you, to your overthrow and destruction if ye shall suffer these things to be.
    6.
    D&C 10: 56
    56 But it is they who do not fear me, neither keep my commandments but build up churches unto themselves to get gain, yea, and all those that do wickedly and build up the kingdom of the devil—yea, verily, verily, I say unto you, that it is they that I will disturb, and cause to tremble and shake to the center.

    If you don’t think that The Book of Mormon prophets were referring to Enron and similar corporations as “churches built up to get gain” check out the movie “The Smartest Guys in the Room.”

    In this documentary film, what qualifies more for the Temple of Mammon than the New York Stock Exchange?

  13. Derek says:

    I find it amusing that people would use the lack of any official, codified law among the native American tribes living here prior to the European invasions to rationalize that invasion as compared to now. The fact that those peoples did not have the same concept of land ownership we do means there was nothing wrong with Europeans taking those lands, and doing so without respect for the culture, language, and values of the prior inhabitants (those being the charges I frequently here regarding the current crop of illegal immigrants–complaints leveled against every wave of immigrants to the US, whether or not they were “legal”)?

    Whether or not these people are “criminal” is rather a bit of semantic quibbling. Yes, they are all technically criminal in that they have broken laws–just as I suspect each and every one of us who drive cars have broken laws and are therefore technically “criminals.” But I suspect that the vast majority of these illegal immigrants, like the vast majority of those who break traffic laws, are not evil people, but rather people of goodwill, who only want to make better lives for themselves. If we want to condemn them as criminals, we’d best remember the warning of Matt 7:2.

    The history of the planet is one of the movement of people. People move from where resources and opportunities are restricted to where the same are more available. It can’t ultimately be stopped. Those nations which have tried have failed, frequently suffering greatly in the process (that was a significant contributor to the fall of the Roman Empire; Rome had to spend more and more to try to keep the “barbarians out,” and still failed). We can either look to voluntarily share our resources with those seeking them (ie, reduce the restrictions which impede legal immigration and therefore encourage illegal immigration), or we can deplete those resources in the vain attempt to wall the seekers out. I would prefer the former option. It is less violent, and more in harmony with the direction of the Lord to “Love therefore the stranger (Deuteronomy 10:18; see my post “Immigrants and Strangers”: http://aliberalmormon.wordpress.com/2007/07/26/immigrants-and-strangers/). Xenophobic rationalizations of keeping out the unwashed foreigners only serve to stir up hate.

  14. tariq says:

    I always enjoy your comments, Forest.

    As for the white supremacists who have slithered in to the conversation: Personally, I don’t care at all if something is illegal or not. My criteria for judging an action has nothing to do with whether or not authority sanctions the action; rather, it has to with whether or not an action is oppressive or not. Does it lead to social harm or social benefit. Does it lead towards liberation or towards oppression. I view all this anti-immigrant hysteria as leading to oppression. We’ve already seen it lead to oppression. We’ve seen families torn apart by uniformed ICE thugs and dark-skinned people harassed and or brutalized by racist or xenophobic police. We see school yard bullies growing up to be armed vigilantes on the border giving immigrants a hard time. Even legal immigrants are harrassed and pushed around by white supremacists posing as defenders of law and order. I don’t see people coming to the U.S. without papers as something that hurts me in any way whatsoever. I don’t care at all if someone has papers or not and I think it is just a mean, bully thing to do to kick around people who are already down and out. The Christ-like thing to do is to lend a hand of support and love to our undocumented brothers and sisters. All you right-wing phonies who blab on and on about immigrants draining our tax money, you need to realize that most undocumented immigrants work long hard hours. They are not leeches. If you are truly worried about tax money getting sucked away, look no further than the military industrial complex, the prison industrial complex, the law enforcement industrial complex, and the corporate capitalist industrial complex. Immigrants are a scapegoat used by powerful people who are up to no good to divert your attention away from all the trouble the rich and powerful are causing. The scriptures are filled with warnings and condemnation for those who oppress the poor and the meek. You anti-immigration bullies are just tools in the hands of the rich and powerful; easily manipulated by anything that appeals to your pre-existing prejudice, fear, and hatred. Your white-supremacist fantasies belong in a toilet.

  15. Forest Simmons says:

    Thanks, Tariq, and I always look forward to your incisive and informative comments.

    I think that you are more informed than I am on many topics. As a mathematician I depend heavily on exploiting the logical relationsships among the facts with which I am aquainted. Also mathematicians strive for incisiveness, i.e going directly to the logical heart of the matter.

    I realize that sometimes in my attempts to be incisive, I may step on a few toes, and alienate some of my readers. I always feel bad when it becomes apparent that somebody has taken one of my logical arguments as a personal attack.

    I was thinking about how some people have accused Nibley of excessive sarcasm in “No Ma’am That’s Not History,” and other responses to anti-Mormon writings. Could that tone alienate some readers? I suppose so, but, as a mathematician, I appreciate proof by “reductio ad absurdum.” Sometimes, as in proving the non-existence of a largest prime, for example, it is the only technique of logic available. You suppose that there is a largest prime p and then show how that assumption leads to an absurdity, e.g. that p!+1 is neither prime nor has any prime factor.

    For the proof of the theorem to be convincing you have to expose the absurdity of its logical conclusion without sparing it any embarrassment. Sarcasm helps to reinforce the absurdity at a psychological level so that the false idea is clearly pigeon-holed as such in the memory.

    Last Sunday sitting in Stake PH meeting, I was praying that my remarks about class war didn’t alienate any of my priesthood brethren.

  16. Natassia says:

    Joseph, I’m still waiting for my comment to be approved.

  17. SUNNofaB.C.Rich says:

    Obviously using WWJD to determine U.S. govt policy concerning anything is problematic. I’m sure Derek would agree with that. Right? Take that aspect of any argument out and were left with what policy would be best for the legal citizens of the United States. From what i’ve seen it is slightly not in our best interests.

    In my opinion any immigration policy should be fair to all the citzens of the world. A policy of allowing unchecked illegal immigration from Mexico simply because of their geographial closeness is certainly beneficial to Mexicans but it’s not a fair policy for the rest of the citizens of the world. Simply allowing it to continue and arguing that it’s a matter of government neutrality to a particular language or culture is completely bogus. The situation as it presents itself is 100 percent the result of geographical closeness.

    In any case, can anyone explain (barring any imploration of WWJD) why allowing the unchecked illegal immigration of persons simply because of their geographical closeness is somehow benefical to the legal citizens of the United States?

  18. Derek says:

    I agree that government policy should not be based on imposing religious doctrines. However, it is perfectly acceptable to allow basic human decency to influence our policy opinions.

    It may not be “fair” that Mexicans and Latin Americans are closer in proximity and therefore more likely to attempt to immigrate. But, as my conservative friends like to point out, life isn’t fair. If you are suggesting that government policy should be used to equalize immigration levels, attempting to ensure that we have no more immigrants from Mexico than from some small, distant Asian nation (for example), that would be absurd. Government policy shouldn’t favor Mexican and other Latin American immigration, but it shouldn’t be discouraging it in favor of others either. Our policy should be neutral as to the origin of the immigrants. If Mexicans are more likely to immigrate than Uzbeks, so be it.

  19. SUNNofaB.C.Rich says:

    A policy of inaction on the matter of illegal immigration does exactly what you said policy shouldn’t. It favors (illegal) immigration from Mexico. Maybe you should acknowledge that there is a difference between legal and illegal immigration, mr. government intervention.

    Unless you really think a policy of “If you can walk here, you’re in” is fair. How about “If you can fly here, ride a boat here, etc etc. You’re in.” That would be more consistent but i’m sure you realize how problematic that would be.

    As for the supposed injustice of being able to walk here but not be a legal citizen. Hey, life’s not fair. Right?

    Anyways, anybody want to tell me what the U.S. has to gain from illegal immigration primarily from Mexico?

  20. Derek says:

    Yes, Sunn, it’s quite a shock that government neutrality on immigration would lead to more immigration from nations with a natural advantage (in this case, proximity). Amazing.

    I didn’t say anything at all about government neutrality not allowing more immigrants from Mexico. What I implied is that there is nothing wrong with that. I’m sorry it’s harder to immigrate from Mali, but that’s life. I wish it were as easy for me to visit London as it is for my friend from Liverpool, but them’s the breaks. As long as there is no hard immigration cap (which I oppose), neutrality and the greater ability of Latin Americans to immigrate in no way disadvantages those from farther afield.

    It isn’t for us to explain what the US has to gain from widespread immigration from Mexico. In this nation, we believe in innocent until proven guilty. If some want government action restricting immigration from Mexico, the burden of proof should be on them to prove that Mexican immigration is harmful. We’ve heard the vague warnings about threats to our language, values, and culture. Yet no one has provided significant objective evidence that Mexican immigration threatens the English language, or that English has some special advantage over other languages which merits protection, or that being a multi-lingual nation would be disadvantageous. No one has provided any objective, concrete evidence that Mexican immigrants are rejecting “American values.” No compelling evidence has yet been submitted that Mexican immigrants are harming our culture (or even defined that culture). So far, it’s all pretty much just ethnocentric bigotry.

  21. SUNNofaB.C.Rich says:

    the mass numbers of illegal immigrants coming from Mexico is not the result of government neutrality, it’s the result of government inaction. Legal immigration policy is or should be neutral. Allowing illegal immigration as long as someone can hop skip or jump over the southern border is not a policy of neutrality. I think you have a problem differentiating between legal and illegal immigration.

    Illegal immigration has a detrimental effect to the poor in the U.S. In my opinion that’s legitimate enough reason to be concerned and if what youre arguing is that selective enforcement of existing laws is justified then the burden of proof should be on you.

  22. Derek says:

    Nope, no difficulty differentiating between legal and illegal. The primary reason these immigrants are entering illegally is because the current immigration and naturalization process are particularly onerous. Were the process more open and more accessible, I suspect these people would happily immigrate through legal channels. That is what I’m arguing: not “selective enforcement,” but changing the laws to allow these people to immigrate legally. Problem with illegal immigration solved.

    • deano32 says:

      Uncontrolled immigration will create far more problems than it will solve and suggesting this as a solution is totally irresponsible. The Constitution requires the Federal government to provide for the common defence and general well being of American citizens – not citizens of Latin America, Europe, or Asia. Immigration must be controlled to support our economy, national security, and standard of life. Put too many people in the lifeboat and everyone drowns. Where the “legal” immigrants come from is irrelevant, as is their assimilation to our culture. But just managing to cross our border undetected is not enough to allow someone wanting to immigrate to stay.

      So what stance should members take regarding immigration laws? Remember, during WWII, members living in Nazi Germany were counseled to adhere to the 12th Article of Faith.

      As for WWJD about the poor in Mexico… I do believe He would feed them and clothe them in Mexico. Not put them in the back of a van and send them off to the USA.

  23. SUNNofaB.C.Rich says:

    It sounds like youre proposing a free for all, show up and youre in immigration policy. In other words if you can catch a boat, plane, truck, ride a bike or walk to the U.S. youre a citizen. I can see a few problems with that. Especially in the year 2010.

  24. Joseph says:

    I don’t see what Derek is proposing as a free-for-all. Making something easier does not mean that it requires no effort or that it’s “free.” But if it is easier it does mean more people are likely to do things legitimately.

    In terms of hurting U.S. poor: how? I can see how things like NAFTA and companies sending work to other countries with weaker labor laws hurts American poor, but I don’t see how migrants coming and doing work very few Americans are competing for hurts any U.S. citizens.

    I lived in a small town in Southern Arizona (and was actually born in Imperial Valley in California) and spent most of the summers of my high school years working on farms. I just couldn’t compete with how efficient and quick the migrant laborers were at those jobs. If U.S. workers can compete, they get those jobs, but the wages aren’t going to get anyone very far. The wages were okay when I was living at home and the money just went into a savings account, but you can’t live off of those wages. For the migrant laborers farm work doesn’t provide a great living either, but it does keep them from starving.

    But I do believe that, in addition to making the process of legal immigration more feasible, conditions in Mexico need to be improved by tossing out NAFTA, and the U.S. needs to stop propping up corrupt government officials in Mexico. The rest would be up to the Mexican people.

  25. SUNNofaB.C.Rich says:

    http://www.nber.org/digest/may07/w12518.html

    there’s a link concerning detrimental economic effects of illegal immigration.

    I believe immigration policy should always take into consideration the effect on the legal citizens of the U.S. as top priority. Also any loosening of immigration restrictions is something that should be done on OUR terms. Not Mexico’s.

  26. Joseph says:

    From the link given:

    “It’s small enough to suggest there’s far more their data can’t explain.”

    And, oh yeah, correlation doesn’t prove causation. I’m surprised an organization like NBER would be guilty of such shoddy research and then make sweeping conclusions from narrow evidence. The authors need to go back to grad school.

  27. Joseph says:

    Also, from a slate article discussing the NBER’s overall evaluation of detrimental economic impact on American workers:

    http://www.slate.com/id/2266025/

    “Immigration is responsible for 5 percent…

    Wall Street and corporate boards’ pampering of the Stinking Rich is responsible for 30 percent.

    Various failures in our education system are responsible for 30 percent.”

    So it looks like putting more effort into reigning in Wall Street, as well as improving U.S. education will address far more in the way of economic problems than creating a police state to stop immigrants(60% versus 5%).

  28. SUNNofaB.C.Rich says:

    Sure, 5 percent is no big deal huh.. I don’t see how that is justification for non enforcement of existing immigration laws or a good reason for drastically easing existing immigration laws in a manner that primarily benefits Mexicans. Would 10 or 15 percent matter? It’d be great if someone could answer my question. How is illegal immigration beneficial to the United States? All i’ve heard is excuses and nonsense like Jesus wants us to not enforce immigration laws. If you want more Mexicans in the U.S. do it legit because as long as the issue is ILLEGAL immigration then youve got nothing.

  29. Derek says:

    I agree, illegal immigration is in no way beneficial to the US, which is why I propose we change the laws so that those who enter illegally would no longer be forced by circumstances to do so. I want people to have the freedom to be able to come enjoy the same blessings we do here, which is why I’ve suggested making it easier for them to do it “legit.” Whether or not those people happen to be Mexican is entirely irrelevant.

  30. SUNNofaB.C.Rich says:

    bad idea sport, the lifeboat can only hold so many. Unless your goal is to sink it. Any idea what a policy like that would do to the economy, infrastructure, education, social services etc etc etc? Not practical.

  31. Deano32 says:

    The falacy here is that The Sutherland Institute is only a court of public opinion – not public policy. They have their own agenda – to justify their existance. This in no way suggests they have yours, mine, or the general population of United States best interest at heart. Their opinions should be held with no higher regard as those of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Bill Mahr, or Al Franken.

  32. deano32 says:

    If 1,000,000 foreigners aimed at doing harm and committing crime upon Americans entered our country with guns and knives and drugs, we would be quick to call out our police and military. Well its happening, and the 95% of illegal immigrants that are “good, hard-working people looking for a better life” are the trojan horse in which these criminals hide.

    Illegal immigration IS a crime. And as Americans, it is a crime to employ them, transport them, harbor them, and provide refuge for them. When in doubt about what is the proper things for Mormons to do, please refer to the 12th Article of Faith.

  33. Derek says:

    What evidence is there that we have a million illegal immigrants hellbent on harming the US? If, as you concede, the vast majority of illegal immigrants are peaceful and well-intentioned, does it not behoove us to treat the immigrants by the long-standing American principle of “innocent until proven guilty,” and simply allow the justice system to work on those found guilty of aiming to do harm and commit crime upon Americans?

    • Joseph says:

      The problem is that even U.S. citizens aren’t considered innocent until proven guilty anymore. We’ve been made so paranoid by T.V. news that law enforcement can treat us as guilty until proven innocent, and we thank them for “protecting” us.

      Of course, I do agree with you. It makes no sense to punish people for the crimes others are doing. Whatever happened to Benjamin Franklin’s notion of “I’d rather let 10 guilty people go free than punish 1 innocent person.” Joseph Smith said essentially the same thing. Now we would rather punish 100 innocent people just to get 1 guilty individual. At least, that’s what Deano and Sasoc seem to want. It’s ultimately self-defeating. Welcome to police state U.S.A.

    • sasoc says:

      How dare you call them “immigrants”. They ARE NOT immigrants. They are ILLEGAL trespassers who wish to BECOME immigrants. You either misuse the term intentionally or innocently, but in either case you are wrong to do so. They do not belong here and must be made to leave. Their non-assimilation is the principal reason (even more so than the crime that they bring with them).

      • Joseph says:

        Ummm…They are called immigrants because that’s what they are.

        Immigrant: one who enters and settles permanently a foreign country

        American Heritage Dictionary 1983 pg 346 (combining the entries on immigrant and immigration)

        Pretty daring. So why do you object to the use of the word? Your attempt to dehumanize any group of people reveals quite a bit about you.

        So, can you trace your family history back to when your ancestors first became human here on this continent? Didn’t think so. Guess someone in your history must have immigrated, legally or illegally. And you are writing in English, a language not native to these shores, so obviously someone didn’t assimilate. At least, not to any native culture.

        I can guess at the type of response I’ll get for pointing that out (“that was then, this is now, etc. etc., I’m protecting MY country”). It will be things that have already been stated. I find it interesting that right now this is the issue the Mormon Worker seems to come under the most fire for. Why is that? Why, after Wall Street has suffered a fall that should have been the equivalent for capitalism that the fall of the Berlin Wall was for communism, why is it that so many come here claiming that immigrants, legal or otherwise, are the main source of our economic troubles. Those claiming that may want to check their sources, and what the agenda there is.

        Well, this was long, but it’s about all I have left to say on the immigration issue. I’m growing weary of this smoke-screen issue being used to stir up fear and anger. I find the scriptures quoted below by Joshua clear my head on these issues. You can believe them or disbelieve them, but they are a guide to me, and they’ve always proven to be a good guide.

  34. Deano32 says:

    “Show me the evidence” is the battlecry of those who fight with only emotion as their ammunition. Those truly educated and knowledgeable would have their own evidence to refute my assertions. But I digress…

    Since you asked, here is my evidence.

    Total violent crimes reported in 2009: 1.3M (www.fbi.gov)
    Total arrests for violent crimes: 0.6M 46%
    Total property crimes reported: 9.3M
    Total arrests for property crimes: 1.6M 17%
    Total drug crimes committed (reported): who knows? nobody reports drug crimes >>1.6M
    Total arrests for drug crimes: 1.6M
    Total arrests for serious crimes: 4.5M
    Total serious crimes committed: who knows? but it must be a lot higher than 12.2M

    Total US population 301M (www.census.gov)
    Estimated illegal population 12M 4%

    Illegal immigrants in jail (UT) 5% (www.ksl.com)
    Illegal immigrants in jail (USA) 6.4% (bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov)

    Since data about immigration status of people arrested for serious crimes has not been collected, I used the ratio of illegal immigrants in jail as a close approximation to a percentage that committ crime. The total number of violent and propery crimes is 10.6M. The total number of drug crimes is only a guess – but I assumed 3X the number of actual arrests (more than violent crimes and less than property crimes). That is total of 15.4M serious felony crimes. I should point out I did not include many other felony crimes. 15.4M x 0.064 = 985K committed by illegals – pretty close to 1M. If you want to argue about the 15K or so discepancy, be my guest.

    As far as the other 95% are concerned, they are not innocent. They are guilty of entering MY country illegally. Not because US Code Title 8 expressly forbids entering the country without inspection, but because I see the bigger picture that immigration needs to be controlled to ensure the financial stability, health, and security of MY country, My family, and MY way of life.

    Imagine the disappointment on all the Saint’s faces if God should decide to let everyone into the Celestial Kingdom.

    • Your number analysis is fundamentally flawed. It ignores the reality of structural racism that plays into why certain groups are arrested and prosecuted more (countless studies demonstrate this, you can look at crack v cocaine for a good start into how our drug policy affects these things). As an aside, I am for the legalization of most drugs and the war on drugs is a sham. Furthermore, you cant just multiply by 3 and say look its a million.

      I appreciate your last two paragraphs because they illustrate perfectly the narcissism that has taken root in most faiths. ME, ME, ME. It runs directly counter the the teachings of Christ since you want to bring God and his kingdom into this. Jesus specifically condemns this selfish individualistic gospel that you and others are preaching.

      Matthew 25 makes it clear

      42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
      43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
      44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
      45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the aleast of these, ye did it not to me.
      46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

      Lets not forget we are hypocrites if we wish to shut the kingdoms doors.

      for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

      Chris Hedges explained this well when he noted that

      the Christian right, which peddles magical thinking and a Jesus-as-warrior philosophy, hijacked the language and iconography of traditional Christianity. They have busied themselves with the boutique activism of the culture wars. They have failed to unequivocally denounce unfettered capitalism, globalization and pre-emptive war. The obsession with personal piety and “How-is-it-with-me?” spirituality that permeates most congregations is narcissism.

      And as for me and Celestial Kingdom, I sure as hell hope God lets everyone in who wants to come in. How can any decent Christian feel disappointed that more are saved and let into the Kingdom than less?

      • Deano32 says:

        Again, more emotional bullets, but no real evidence to dispute my analysis.

        Since keeping statistics about crimes committed by illegal immigrant is politically incorrect and I’m sure some would say racist (why racist I don’t know, nationality has nothing to do with race), I can only do my own research and draw my own conclusions about actual numbers. I feel my numbers are reasonable – perhaps even conservative. I would be willing to hear your numerical analysis if you dare.

        As for theories about why people get prosecuted/convicted or not, we can talk OJ until the cows come home and it doesn’t change the facts that illegals commit crimes. What number is acceptible to you? What is not acceptible? Have you ever been a victim of a crime committed by an illegal?

        As for the hypocracy, yes its everywhere. That’s my point exactly. Judge me as you like for wanting to protect what’s MINE. But, until you stop locking your car and front door and inviting homeless people to sleep on your living room floor, you’re really not so different.

  35. With greater immigration, crime rates drop. If the overall number of crimes committed increases, the chance that you will be a victim of crime still decreases, because the number of crimes committed relative to the population drops. If you are upset that the number of crimes increases, then you should be concerned that people are having children. This increases the population of the US, and therefore increases the number of crimes committed. See the articles below.

    http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2007474,00.html

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704113504575264432463469618.html

  36. deano32 says:

    Thank you for digging up these articles – very interesting…

    Arizona crime rates drops 12% in one years.
    Arizona illegal immigrant population estimated to have fallen a third over the last two years.

    http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/07/30/20090730illegalpopulation0730.html

    Any possible correlation?

  37. gmm says:

    So, if illegal immigration is not a crime, how do you explain that illegal immigrants must steal someone’s identity to get a job. That includes stealing and disrespecting people who have passed away. I bet you would perceive it a crime if someone pretended to be you, bought things under your name, destroyed your credit, etc. This is one major factor of illegal immigration.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 256 other followers

Categories

Archives

%d bloggers like this: