How are “law and order” conservatives to make sense of the Church’s recent statements on illegal immigrants? The Church’s call last month for “compassion” has been understood as a call for leniency on illegal immigrants, at least in Utah.
This has confused some members. (Some of our brothers and sisters who are accustomed to being on the other side of the Church on politically social issues are probably entitled to feeling a little schadenfreude right now).
Most questions about the Church’s position center on the need to uphold the laws of the land. However, Elder Marlin K. Jensen has explained that the Church’s attitude towards immigrants is not a matter of legality.
“The church’s view of someone in undocumented status is akin, in a way, to a civil trespass,” said Elder Marlin K. Jensen of the Seventy, relating it to coming onto someone’s property uninvited. “There is nothing inherent or wrong about that status.”
Regardless of criminal status, the established presence of some 12 – 20 million people make the issue of simple law enforcement quite complicated. With so many illegal immigrants joining the Church (a stake leader in the DC area estimated that more than 70% of members in our local Spanish-speaking units are undocumented – and that’s not mentioning non-Hispanic immigrants in our English units), what is the Church to do?
Church leaders have arrived at an approach that, naturally, best serves the purposes of the Church. The Church refuses to deny the Gospel to anyone, regardless of their legal status. Elder John Pingree spoke to the Deseret News in 2005 and explained that the Church’s policy on immigration is to help immigrants make the best of it once they are in the U.S.
“It’s not a problem for me,” Pingree said. He made clear that immigration enforcement “is not the role of the church.”
Church leaders do not ascertain potential converts’ citizenship prior to baptism or temple attendance. They look for commitment to live the tenets of the religion, Pingree says. The church, he says, does everything it can to encourage its members to stay in their home countries to strengthen local stakes and wards. “But once they’re here, we want to make them feel like part of the community, a valued part of the community,” Pingree said.
In sum, legal status does not affect one’s ability join the Church, go to the temple, serve as a leader, or even go on a mission. In fact, the church is currently lobbying Congress to make sure it can still allow undocumented missionaries to serve without subjecting the Church to criminal liability.
Regardless of the Church’s call for tolerance towards illegal immigrants, its general policy on immigration clearly encourages members to stay and help establish the Church in their native countries. The Church established the Perpetual Education Fund as a means to create greater opportunities for members who might otherwise look to move to the U.S.
Even though it may require sacrifice, President Uchtdorf has counseled members to stay and help establish the Church in their native lands.
In many countries the Church is still in its beginnings, and the organizational circumstances are sometimes far from perfect. However, the members may have a perfect testimony of the truth in their hearts. As the members will stay in their countries and build the Church, despite economic challenges and hardships, future generations will be grateful to those courageous modern-day pioneers.
Likewise, a 1999 First Presidency statement discouraging immigration recognized that immigration poses its own challenges [Church News subscription required].
Remain in homelands, members counseled
Dear Brethren:In our day, the Lord has seen fit to provide the blessings of the gospel, including an increased number of temples, in many parts of the world. Therefore, we wish to reiterate the long-standing counsel to members of the Church to remain in their homelands rather than immigrate to the United States.
Experience has shown that those who relocate to the United States often encounter language, cultural, and economic challenges, resulting in disappointment and personal and family difficulties.
As members throughout the world remain in their homelands, working to build the Church in their native countries, great blessings will come to them personally and to the Church collectively. Stakes and wards throughout the world will be strengthened, making it possible to share the blessings of the gospel with an even greater number of our Heavenly Father’s children.
We are confident that members of the Church throughout the world will be blessed as they heed this counsel and work to strengthen their local Church units and communities.
Sincerely yours,
The First Presidency
The Church’s general approach to immigration is to encourage members to not immigrate, but focus on strengthening the Church and its members. Once in the U.S., the Church’s goal does not shift to law enforcement but continues to make the best of a challenging situation and help its members wherever they may be.
The Church has been careful to not endorse a specific federal approach to immigration. Unfortunately, like too many other institutions, it is has had to grapple with the challenging realities brought on by the government’s inability to deal with illegal immigration.
The impact of sudden, get-tough immigration policies may seem justified after a long period of lax enforcement, but they could have devastating effects on families. The Church’s call for compassion reminded me of that. Whatever direction the immigration debate takes, it’s necessary to remember that illegal immigrants are our neighbors too and deserve respect.
However, I hope that compassion is also extended towards those who patiently wait to legally immigrate and the others who are hurt by illegal immigration.
(Possibly) Related posts:
Tags: immigration, Marlin K Jensen, missionaries, mormon church policy
-
Nice summary of the issue. I don’t think it’s quite accurate to characterize the church’s stance as “anti-immigration,” though. It’s too broad. It implies that the church has a problem with the idea that people cross the border to live here no matter what their motivation.
That’s not what the 1999 statement says. The statement speaks only to immigration of church members, not immigration in general. And the context shows that it was a response to the erroneous idea that the saints should gather to the US, not an opinion on immigration in general. There may be other prudent reasons to oppose immigration in general, but this isn’t one of them.
-
JKC,
That’s true. I over-simplified the headline to contrast the Church’s approach between members who are in the U.S. and those who are not.
But you’re right, the Church’s policy is not one of strictly anti-immigration.
I actually think a better U.S. policy would be stronger enforcement with the borders, visas, and employment but make it MUCH easier for legal immigrants to come. So that may be the opposite of the Church’s approach is, at least for members.
-
I agree with the first commenter that the issue of migration generally is one about which the church has expressed no opinion. The statements encouraging church members to remain in their native lands seem intended to counter any vestiges of the old “gathering to Zion” doctrine, when Zion meant Utah, or to stop the “faithful drain” of motivated church members from places where they are sorely needed to Utah, where, frankly, they are not.
The encouragement to stay where one is could apply as easily to the convert born and raised in Bedford-Stuyvesant as to the convert from Puebla. International migration seems to be only part of the issue.
Arguments against immigration to the United States (they’re ruining our culture, our language, our economy, our American polity; they bring disease, crime, noise, pollution; they’re not like us; they might be terrorists) are all subject to vigorous debate; most of them would have applied equally well to our Mormon immigrant forebears, so it seems unlikely that the church would involve itself in those debates. (Why, pray tell, would the church go to the mattresses to defend American culture?!) Besides, I would expect that the church sees states and their boundaries as temporary, man-made constructs, which are inconsequential in the light of our belief in the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man.
-
Yeah, I absolutely agree that the most effective solution to the “immigration problem” is to make legal immigration easier.
As far as border security goes, I think our biggest problem is that our priorities are all out of whack. Our biggest focus seems to be on the southern border, but our biggest weakness is in our ports. But that’s security, not immigration, and I don’t want to change the subject.
Thanks again for this nice summary.
-
Whatever happened to obeying the laws of the land? People who come into the US undocumented, work undocumented and are paid unreported money are not obeying the laws of the land. This is part of the reason why the immigration problem is out of hand, we have too many people not obeying the rules which are there for a reason. When we have people paying into the system, the system can work correctly. When people use the resources without paying into the system, the system becomes broken and everyone suffers.
To me, the immigration issue isn’t about families or people who want to come to America and how they assimilate into the country but the simple fact that they are not obeying the laws of the land by being here undocumented. I can understand that the church doesn’t want to play the role of enforcer and deny people entrance into the church or temples based upon their legal status. Yet this does happen to people who have pending criminal charges or a conviction.
Just because we don’t have enough people to enforce the sheer number of people who have come undocumented doesn’t make it any more “right” for them to be here and for the church to “go easy” on them. It seems to be that there is a double standard going on here. So should the church not place restrictions on church membership or temple status to those who have pending charges or even convictions?
-
Some day I hope to ask John Taylor what he felt about “obeying the laws of the land.”
Jenn makes a common error in conflating immigration law violations with violations of the criminal law. Sadly, almost no amount of quiet reasoning can help people overcome that error. But, I’ll say it again: most violations of the immigration laws (including entering the country without inspection and overstaying one’s authorized period of stay in the U.S.) are not crimes. I know DHS tries to make it look otherwise, with detention (jail) for persons arrested on suspicion of immigration law violations, etc. But, they’re not crimes.
Jenn also suggests that the laws are there for “a reason.” If there is reason behind the immigration laws, it has been buried under 150 years of bigotry, stupidity and failure of imagination.
-
it is very obvious that the church is simply pandering to the latino community.
if there was a sudden influx or an explosion (no pun intended) if you will in conversions among the muslim community to mormonism you would most likely see the church lobbying our politicians to ease up on the ‘Patriot Act’ and current global security issues.
-
Mark B,
First I would like to see where it says that “entering the country without inspection and overstaying one’s authorized period” are not crimes. Second, even if those actions aren’t crimes in that they alone don’t constitute a trial by a jury of peers, the actions of working undocumented and not reporting your income to the US government is illegal. I know people personally who have been disfellowshipped because of charges of tax evasion for not reporting their full income. It is also illegal to use someone else’s social security number as your own as many illegals to. I have worked for many years in social services and I can tell you the problems that illegal immigrants are causing all of our resources- everything from schools to police to community cash assistance to hospitals and everything in between.I never said there was a reason for the immigration laws, I haven’t studied the history of how immigration has changed over the years enough to know exactly why they are what they are. I was suggesting that there are reasons for immigrants to come into the country documented and to work here documented. It is to prevent exactly the problems that we are having now. Too many people are here using the resources and not enough of them are paying into the system to support them. Even the poorest of the poor documented worker will pay into the system, partly by their own paycheck and partly by the employer matching. When large amounts of workers and employers decide to disregard this rule, our society starts to break down because many of these people become oppressed and taken advantage of.
I personally don’t care how many people come into the country or where they come from, as long as they are documented and obey the rules. If they stop obeying the rules, they don’t deserve to be here. There are fundamental laws that were established by the founding fathers that we just can not go against or else this nation will fall. I believe this issue of loose immigration enforcement is part of what is causing our great nation to falter to its knees. I’m starting to wonder if there is any hope of it ever getting up and standing for what is right again.
-
“it is very obvious that the church is simply pandering to the latino community.”
Since the white racist community felt so comfortable for so long in the Church, I could see why they might be nervous.
George, it is principled position. National borders are nothing in the eyes of God.
-
“Too many people are here using the resources and not enough of them are paying into the system to support them.”
JennVan, that is completely untrue. They receive few benefits and most pay social security taxes and other taxes that they will never get back. Saying it over and over again does not make it true.
“There are fundamental laws that were established by the founding fathers that we just can not go against or else this nation will fall.”
What do the founding fathers have to do with this current debate? Congress is given the power to regulate immigration and naturalization. This means that they also have the power to grant amesty.
-
While it is true that many do not receive benefits, its mostly because of their status that prevents them from having them. It is untrue that they pay social security and other taxes, if you aren’t documented, you can’t pay them. These workers also become marginalized because when they come into the country undocumented they have no power to receive benefits or to “force” others to obey the rules.
The founding fathers understood that there are certain laws that a country must obey in order to function, among those are that we must all pay into a central government (taxes) in order for it to continue to exist.
If these illegal immigrants can choose to not pay taxes, then why can’t I choose to not pay taxes because I don’t think the government/congress is doing what they should and have no criminal liabilities from such?
-
Undocumented workers often use fake numbers (not a great thing) and therefore pay those taxes. They do not get any of it back. You act as though all illegal immigrants are under the table day laborers and that is not true. Most of them are on the payroll like everybody else.
“The founding fathers understood that there are certain laws that a country must obey in order to function,”
True, the seperation of powers, checks and balances, and the bill of rights. Those were the principles and laws that are the cornerstone of our republic. You are evoking the founders in a way that the founders would have found ridiculous.
“among those are that we must all pay into a central government (taxes) in order for it to continue to exist.”
They pay taxes. I am a liberal and am all for people paying taxes. The only place where they do not pay taxes is in your head.
-
The following article discusses a number of myths about illegal immigrants and provides links to the studies that he cites.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/29/AR2007042901322.html
David,
“Law and order” conservatives should have not problem with the Church’s position. Racist conservatives are a different story. -
Chris,
It’s unfair and irresponsible for you and others to keep suggesting that anyone who has problems with illegal immigrations is a racist.
I’m sure you have anecdotes of intolerant people who oppose immigration, but it is a serious problem.
Come back to Montgomery County and see how much it has changed. I attend at the Silver Spring Stake center and go to my ward’s welfare committee. Each month we struggle with how to help our brothers and sisters who need our help. Many of them are immigrants. That’s not necessarily a bad thing as I believe it’s our christian duty to help them.
But the county has become a very attractive place for illegal immigrants and it has caused serious strains on the government and the local infrastructure, including the Church.
The flipside of your argument is that illegal are being hosed by unscrupulous employers and not getting enough back from the government, for those who do pay taxes. I’m sure you want some way for them to be be able to come out of the “shadows.”
And not doing anything about it is not the solution. Raising questions about it is not racism.
-
David,
I agree with you. That is why Bush proposed a reasonable solution that the right blocked. Comments like JennVan’s above are not just policy disagreements and that is obvious. The primary obstacle to finding a reasonable solution is racism.
A serious guest worker program (YES AMNESTY) with a path to citizens ship would go a long ways toward solving these problems.
For me this is our generations segregation. We are still early 1950s stage.
-
Jenn asks to see where it says that entry without inspection or overstaying one’s visa is not a crime. I suggest that you set aside a good part of the day for reading, since proving a negative requires that you read all the relevant laws to determine that there is no law making a certain behavior a crime.
Start with Title 8 of the United States Code, where the Immigration and Nationality Act is codified. Then move on to Title 18, which is where the federal criminal laws are codified.
You will find that some violations of the immigration laws are crimes, but overstaying visas or being here after entering without inspection are not.
As I suggested in my previous comment, it is common for people to assume that immigration law violators are criminals. That just is not the case.
And, Chris H. is right about the relative levels of contributions to and “withdrawals” from the system. Undocumented immigrants as a whole contribute more to the government through taxes and to the economy through the value of their labor than they take out.
This doesn’t mean that large numbers of immigrants do not place burdens on the community. A good way to help ameliorate those burdens would be to stop treating immigrants as criminals and potential terrorists, and to provide them a way to legalize their status, without the draconian penalties that now apply. (For example, a person who is here out of status for one year is subject to a 10-year bar on re-entry into the U.S. Thus, for millions of people who could otherwise be sponsored for lawful residency by their employers, that path is subject to a 10-year detour.)
-
Chris H.
That wasn’t the “right” who blocked immigration law reform.
It was the “wrong.”
-
Mark B,
I was sticking with the ideological meaning. Unforturnately, the Kantian meaning of “the right” is ignored i n politics (and foreign to the political “right”). Thanks for the above explanation, as a political philosopher, I appreciate the assistance of legal experts.
18 comments
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link: http://asoftanswer.com/2008/03/27/church-pro-immigrant-anti-immigration/trackback/