LDS Freedom Forum

LDSLiberty.org recently released a podcast on Immigration and Natural Law w/ guest Brent Larsen (threepercentite on the forum). I was also on the show (Brian) with JC . We asked Brent some of the common questions and issues that come up regarding immigration.

Listen or Download here: http://ldsliberty.org/?p=294 or subscribe via iTunes: http://tinyurl.com/ldsliberty-podcast

What do you think of the responses and discussion? And tell us why you agree or disagree.

100% agree with everything said.

There were a number of good points that made me think of the situation differently, and no question much of the problem is from our own doing, but there were a larger number of things that were glossed over; stretched to make a point; or outright wrong, that it overshadowed the any points you might have made.

Honestly, the comments by Scott in the comments section pretty much summed up my feelings, but just a couple of the problems I had were:

-Making the argument that the US/Mexico border is no different than the Utah/Nevada border.
-Glossing over the fact that the US currently allows tons of LEGAL immigration but coming over the border illegally is a violation of the law, and no interpretive reading of the BOM can justify that.

coming over the border is a violation of the law, and no interpretive reading of the BOM can justify that.

But isn't that a law that should be changed?

SmallFarm wrote:But isn't that a law that should be changed?

I fixed my post to read "coming over the border illegally." But to your question, change what law? We already welcome any and all to come here and deny just about no one. It isn't illegal to come over the border and work here. You just have to follow the same procedure that countless others have done before.

We already welcome any and all to come here and deny just about no one

We do? Then why are people dying in the desert to come here? Oh I know, free health care

You just have to follow the same procedure that countless others have done before

Maybe the indians should of made the pilgrims on the Mayflower go through those same "procedure"

I have a lot of questions about what was said, but I liked the interview.

holyhabanero wrote:-Making the argument that the US/Mexico border is no different than the Utah/Nevada border.

How would you suggest they are different?

I think they have a difference, but I'm not sure I know all of them.

Some thoughts...

Each State is soveriegn. They have entered into a compact, or a contract called the "Constitution." This (Compact, Contract, Constitution) Covenant allows for members of each state to exchange and traverse freely.

7 And behold, there was peace in all the land, insomuch that the Nephites did go into whatsoever part of the land they would, whether among the Nephites or the Lamanites.
8 And it came to pass that the Lamanites did also go whithersoever they would, whether it were among the Lamanites or among the Nephites; and thus they did have free intercourse one with another, to abuy and to sell, and to get gain, according to their desire.
9 And it came to pass that they became exceedingly rich, both the Lamanites and the Nephites; and they did have an exceeding plenty of agold, and of silver, and of all manner of precious metals, both in the land south and in the land north.

The States were intended to compete. If one state imposed bad laws or heavy taxes, people could move to another state. This competition would keep restrictions to a minimum, because people would move away to another state if you oppressed them to heavily.

How would we create a similar scenario with another country?

The benefit of the Covenant relationship is protection of "The Law." If you break the covenant and neglect to restore what was broken, you are then "Outside the Law" you become an "Outlaw." You are no longer protected by the Law. "Not only was the subject deprived of all legal rights of the law being "out"side of the "law", but others could kill him on sight as if he was a wolf or other wild animal." This is what happened to Cain.

So if we do not have some sort of agreement with Mexico how can the Law protect you, and how can it protect the immigrant?

SmallFarm wrote:

We already welcome any and all to come here and deny just about no one

We do? Then why are people dying in the desert to come here? Oh I know, free health care

You just have to follow the same procedure that countless others have done before

Maybe the indians should of made the pilgrims on the Mayflower go through those same "procedure"

I can't tell if you are just trying to be silly or sincere, but I'll go with the latter and hope I'm right.

I can't answer why people are dying in the desert, but maybe I'll go ask my next door neighbor, who came here with his family last year from the Mexican state of Tabasco, LEGALLY. They filled out the papers, got a work visa, and contrary to your perception, drove their car across the border and now they are working on citizenship. Or the family down the street from Jamaica who did exactly the same thing 15 years ago.

We have an open border for those who want to follow the laws. For those who choose not to, it is and should remain closed. No developed country in the world just allows people to just sneak across their border and start claiming the same rights and privileges as its citizens. And there is no justification for people who break the laws of that country.

As to the pilgrims, that's a straw-man argument and is in no way relevant to the current situation.

Interesting discussion. I agree with most of what was said, but like others, I don't believe the states border is a good comparison, because of the mutual agreements we have with one another, but at the same time, it was never proposed as something that would work among the wicked. It wouldn't.

I agree that the ideal system is as described - the dole is eliminated, we are welcoming to the huddled masses, we have a law which we enforce... but the gulf between here and there isn't something laws will fix. Only repentance will.

There's nothing really complex here to me. It always boils down to the same thing - when we are righteous, we don't need nations. The less righteous we are, the more bondage we require. I think we deserve socialism, and in our state of wickedness chaos would reign without it.

As to the pilgrims, that's a straw-man argument and is in no way relevant to the current situation.

I don't see why it's not relevant but I'll agree to disagree. What about all of us that were born here? What hoops did we have to jump through to get here. More importantly, how can we claim the right to keep other people out when we as Latter-day saints claim that G_d is soveriegn and we are only stewards here?

SmallFarm wrote:

As to the pilgrims, that's a straw-man argument and is in no way relevant to the current situation.

I don't see why it's not relevant but I'll agree to disagree. What about all of us that were born here? What hoops did we have to jump through to get here. More importantly, how can we claim the right to keep other people out when we as Latter-day saints claim that G_d is soveriegn and we are only stewards here?

Legal vs. Illegal

ChelC wrote:There's nothing really complex here to me. It always boils down to the same thing - when we are righteous, we don't need nations. The less righteous we are, the more bondage we require. I think we deserve socialism, and in our state of wickedness chaos would reign without it.

You're right...

In the episode it was discussed that borders really only to need serve a purpose of distinguishing one city from another, a state from another, and a country from another, not to separate righteous people. And even if everyone was righteous there would still be need of nations, states and cities... at least some kind of orderly division of authority... though it might be organized differently... Moses and the Israelites come to mind with their division of 10's, 50's, 100's, officers, captains and so on. ...Or Areas, Stakes, Wards, etc... always a need for borders for administrative purposes, but not necessarily for dividing people.

LDSConservative wrote:

ChelC wrote:There's nothing really complex here to me. It always boils down to the same thing - when we are righteous, we don't need nations. The less righteous we are, the more bondage we require. I think we deserve socialism, and in our state of wickedness chaos would reign without it.

You're right...

In the episode it was discussed that borders really only to need serve a purpose of distinguishing one city from another, a state from another, and a country from another, not to separate righteous people. And even if everyone was righteous there would still be need of nations, states and cities... at least some kind of orderly division of authority... though it might be organized differently... Moses and the Israelites come to mind with their division of 10's, 50's, 100's, officers, captains and so on. ...Or Areas, Stakes, Wards, etc... always a need for borders for administrative purposes, but not necessarily for dividing people.

I agree.

I think one of the biggest problems we have in politics isn't necessarily that we vary about the ideal scenario - it's that we fail to recognize that different scenarios are appropriate for different degrees of righteousness/wickedness. Some of us argue over our ideals with people who have in mind only the logistics of how to make our current system better within the scope of reality, and further we each view "the scope of reality" differently.

For example - if I am a politician who will only vote for a perfect law - I'm going to be ineffective in office, because the majority of voters aren't looking for someone who will hold out for perfection. For the sake of simplifying my point, let's say that:

Complete wickedness = totally anarchy
Overwhelming wickedness = tyranny
Overwhelming goodness = capitalism
Complete goodness = Zion

Again - this is overly simplified, but I'm putting out there to clarify my point.

In each scenario, the behavior is what brings about the state of lawfulness/lawlessness. A wicked people cannot create Zion. A Zion people cannot create a state of anarchy.

Let's again make a hypothetical conversation about the dole. In this conversation the participants will vary little on the ideal. For most people, the ideal is eventually Zion. Let's say we have three participants, person A, person B, and person C. For the sake of argument, let's say they are all LDS and all strive for Zion.

We can have person A who thinks socialism isn't ideal, but since we've got it, they would like to give more money to cancer research. Person B can at the same time be focused only on the ideal scenario, and absolutely appalled that person A, an LDS person could ever "support socialism" by voting for a socialist program. Person C can be arguing in favor of eliminating federal money for cancer research as what they view as a logical step down from the level of socialism we have. Person A might think person C is cruel to hold back on cancer research in favor of other social programs. Person B may think person C is a sellout for not holding firm to the utopian scenario which has NO place for socialism.

Even though each person agrees on where we are headed, there is a complete disconnect on how to accomplish it politically. That's because it isn't the laws that create the state of Zion. It's the behaviors that gradually change the laws. For a mostly wicked society, socialism is the best workable solution to provide the greatest amount of order.

So, it's my opinion that political ideas will evolve naturally as a byproduct of repentance. The people who say my vote for a third party today will likely have little impact on society are correct, but they should also know that expending their energies to bring to pass a better brand of socialism, or a little more capitalism will fail without missionary work, which is really the only hope we have until the return of Christ.

Legal vs. Illegal

But is a law that prevents anyone from coming here a just law.

I should say that it's my point of view that under the system we currently have, the borders should be protected, but LEGAL immigration should be easier.

ChelC wrote:I should say that it's my point of view that under the system we currently have, the borders should be protected, but LEGAL immigration should be easier.

This is how I felt until I listened to the LDS Liberty podcast linked above.

See, this is what I meant with my hypothetical above. You and I probably basically agree, but we could have a heated debate about this if we wanted to.

I LOVE immigrants. I have one sitting on my back porch right now. It was ridiculous trying to do it legally. It was HARD. Failing to enforce our own laws, baiting illegals with dangling carrots and then having a hands off attitude about enforcement is in fact causing the problems pointed out in the podcast... they are second class citizens in many ways - better than first class in other ways, and WE are causing the division, which is bound to end in bloodshed.

But we can't have socialist policy about the dole and a Zion policy on immigration. Yin and Yang. It won't work.

SmallFarm wrote:

ChelC wrote:I should say that it's my point of view that under the system we currently have, the borders should be protected, but LEGAL immigration should be easier.

This is how I felt until I listened to the LDS Liberty podcast linked above.

In the BOM scriptures you quoted about lamanites and nephites traveling freely to each others lands, those nations were both righteous at the time.. correct? We are dealing with mexico, a land that is overflowing with drug cartels and gangs (gadiantons). If you just wide open the border all those problems spill over into our nation. Look at the border towns that have been taken over by the cartels and all the violence? Do we want more of that here? The quotes taken from 3 nephi that tell us to exchange freely do not apply because the nations then were righteous, we live with great wickedness and like ChelC said more laws are neede when people are wicked. (paraphrasing her here)

I noticed nobody quoted the story from alma 60, where Moroni was dealing with invading lamanites who were killing and kidnapping nephites while the govt looked the other way, a govt' that was being taken over by King-men. (sounds like a direct parallel and warning to me)

17 But behold, now the Lamanites are coming upon us, taking possession of our lands, and they are murdering our people with the sword, yea, our women and our children, and also carrying them away captive, causing them that they should suffer all manner of afflictions, and this because of the great wickedness of those who are seeking for power and authority, yea, even those king-men.

Why arent the podcast makers who quoted Capt Moroni, quoting this ideal?

p51-mustang wrote:

SmallFarm wrote:

ChelC wrote:I should say that it's my point of view that under the system we currently have, the borders should be protected, but LEGAL immigration should be easier.

This is how I felt until I listened to the LDS Liberty podcast linked above.

In the BOM scriptures you quoted about lamanites and nephites traveling freely to each others lands, those nations were both righteous at the time.. correct? We are dealing with mexico, a land that is overflowing with drug cartels and gangs (gadiantons). If you just wide open the border all those problems spill over into our nation. Look at the border towns that have been taken over by the cartels and all the violence? Do we want more of that here? The quotes taken from 3 nephi that tell us to exchange freely do not apply because the nations then were righteous, we live with great wickedness and like ChelC said more laws are neede when people are wicked. (paraphrasing her here)

I noticed nobody quoted the story from alma 60, where Moroni was dealing with invading lamanites who were killing and kidnapping nephites while the govt looked the other way, a govt' that was being taken over by King-men. (sounds like a direct parallel and warning to me)

17 But behold, now the Lamanites are coming upon us, taking possession of our lands, and they are murdering our people with the sword, yea, our women and our children, and also carrying them away captive, causing them that they should suffer all manner of afflictions, and this because of the great wickedness of those who are seeking for power and authority, yea, even those king-men.

Why arent the podcast makers who quoted Capt Moroni, quoting this ideal?

Exactly. Time and again we are told that prosperity comes with obedience and NO OTHER WAY. There is no political scheme that will allow us to escape the judgment of the Lord. Opening the borders right now would be suicide for the nation. I know many here would see that as a step toward the rebuilding, but the rebuilding doesn't happen until repentance happens. IMO it would only hasten our suffering. It may in fact also hasten repentance, BUT I kind of would rather let Heavenly Father preach his own sermons, which He is doing even now. The best way to hasten it is to spread The Word.

I guess I do agree that we couldn't open the border right now do to the other unjust laws and policies that are in place (socialism, gun laws, I'd even add drug laws), but how long will the Lord tolerate us pushing these people at arms distance before he destroys the whole system and we have to live with the consequences?

Apparently we already ceded 80 miles of the Arizona border to Mexico and U.S. Citizens are not allowed to be in those lands today.

Soon, "we" apparently will not be able to go within 200 miles of the Gulf coast, because it is being rapidly turned into a no-man's land.

Apparently, there are Saints who would allow others to enter the Kingdom by some other way than baptism.

Yes, if someone has committed a grievous sin or have certain diseases, they are not allowed to come into the United States.

There are also certain sins that prohibit a person from getting baptized too.

Most of those coming into this country illegally, are doing so either as mules and carrying illicit drugs or are being used as sex slaves. Many are repeat offenders. They have no respect for the law.

I've personally helped people become citizens of this country.

(See my other comments on the Immigration and the Book of Mormon thread on the other website.)

I believe in the Articles of Faith and have a testimony of them.

We are already living and dying with the consequences of lack of enforcement of our laws and borders. Children of illegal alien parentage are destroying our society as gang members.

I believe if we just opened our borders our country could become as great as mexico, maybe even worse..

The real root of the problem is our social programs.

The whole problem is people coming here illegally and not paying into the sytem but getting the benefits that the taxpayer supports.

Get rid of ALL and yes I mean ALL social programs, let people spend their money as they see fit, pay for their kids education (or provide it themselves) Pay their health care costs (and have charities to help provide for the needy that people can voluntarily support the ones they want.)

Do that and throw open the borders.

SmallFarm wrote:I guess I do agree that we couldn't open the border right now do to the other unjust laws and policies that are in place (socialism, gun laws, I'd even add drug laws), but how long will the Lord tolerate us pushing these people at arms distance before he destroys the whole system and we have to live with the consequences?

I can understand your pov. yes, it is easy to see those who suffer and have a bleeding heart about it. my heart stops bleeding when i see crime and who causes it. and when my wife wracks up over 6k in doctors bills for jsut visits and tests (no surgeries involved) doubling our debt in one fell swoop, but immigrants dont have to pay for the same things cuz "they need a chance". heck i dont have health insurance. where is my handout?

if we got rid of our socialized programs, maybe the illegals wouldn't have as much of a reason to take advantage of you and me - the tax payers.

and i don't believe that the Lord is holding us at odds because we are trying to keep people from coming over illegally. I don't feel guilty because i want to see the troubles caused by this whole issue out of my back yard.

no im not racist. I have latin american friends and family. all legals, interestingly enough. and some still live in their respective countries.