Thursday, April 26, 2007

LDS and Illegal Aliens or as I like to call them, "outlaws."

Tom Tancredo Gets It While Bennett Is A Moron

Notice I said "moron," not Mormon. Bennett is probably a Mormon too, unfortunately for the rest of us in the Church. In this regard he's about as patriotic as Harry Reid a notorious coward and LDS anti-patriot.

Note the flags to the right. This was done by Reconquista types in Maywood, California at the U.S. Post Office. It's symbolic of the love illegals have for our Nation.......

Press Releases :: April 11, 2007
Carlos Espinosa 202-225-7882; T.Q. Houlton 202-225-7882

Tancredo to Block Religious Groups from Harboring Illegal Aliens
Congressman will reintroduce legislation to close Sen. Bennett’s immigration loophole
(WASHINGTON, D.C.) – U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO) today criticized a loophole in U.S. immigration law that was quietly created by U.S. Senator Robert Bennett (R-UT) in 2005. The “Bennett Loophole” created a broad exemption that allows religious organizations to knowingly transport, aid, abet and harbor illegal aliens.

Bennett must have lost his mind if he can't see the danger here. Muslim groups in this country already use Mosques harboring illegal aliens to seek terroristic opportunity. Albany NY and Buffalo have had such notable incidents. This begs the following questions: Why on earth do we as a church want to participate in any way in lawlessness? Why aren't we all about compliance with the law? Why should we send outlaws on missions, baptize them or give them temple recommends? The rest of us are required to be law abiding citizens why not illegal aliens?

“Allowing this law to remain on the books encourages terrorist networks disguised as religious groups to hide behind this ill-advised provision of law,” Tancredo said. “Does it really make sense to allow Imam’s and Mosques in this country a blank check to transport or harbor foreigners in this country illegally?”

Yeah well I think Tancredo is being way too nice here. It's not so much that there are Muslim terrorist groups disguised as religious groups as that Islam itself is simply a vast terrorist organization. It's own scripture demands it and with no central authority it's easy to see why terrorism follows Islam like stink follows a skunk.

Tancredo, who was extremely critical of the provision in 2005, renewed his criticism of the “Bennett Loophole” amid news reports that a number of churches in Los Angeles, Chicago and elsewhere are intentionally acting as sanctuaries for illegal aliens. The high profile case in Chicago of illegal alien Elvira Arellano and her son, Saul, is an example of the abuses the “Bennett Loophole” allows.

Yes and these aren't benign U.S. citizen wannabes, they are reconquista types.

In fact the “Bennett Loophole” has spurred Cardinal Roger Mahony of the Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles to begin a sanctuary movement within religious organizations. First by instructing his priests and lay employees last year to ignore the U.S. House’s immigration bill (HR 4437) if passed into law, and then inspiring an L.A. church to begin construction of an on-site facility designed to harbor illegal aliens facing deportation for violating federal immigration laws.

That cardinal ought to be arrested and summarily tossed into a Mexican prison. What a jerk! Why isn't this just overt political activity implicating the tax exempt status of the Church?

After Tancredo raised objections to the provision in 2005, the House passed legislation that would have closed the loophole. The legislation died, however, after the Senate failed to consider it. Sen. Bennett’s law was passed as part of the Agriculture Appropriations bill in 2005. The Senator claims he authored the far-reaching provision to assist the Mormon Church in utilizing illegal alien missionaries and volunteers. Representative Tancredo plans to reintroduce the legislation next week when Congress is back in session.

Just great :p Now the LDS Church is directly linked to outlaws and terror threats.

Tancredo concluded, “This law has set a dangerous precedent by giving terrorists a tool to attack the United States. No organization – religious or not – can be permitted to disregard our immigration laws and endanger public safety.”

Speaking of Tools, Mr. Bennett (hopefully Bennett is not LDS but I get the sinking feeling that he is) needs to get a clue by four upside his vacuous head.

Institutional Cognitive Dissonance

Here are some articles on the topic with some commentary:

LDS faithful wrestle with illegal immigration
Richard de UriarteThe Arizona Republic Jun. 4, 2006 12:00 AM

It is hardly surprising that the main sponsor of the Arizona Legislature's get-tough immigration measure is the indomitable Russell Pearce, a state representative from Mesa. Pearce has been the face of the anti-immigrant movement across Arizona - co-author of Proposition 200 in 2004 and a vocal proponent of putting both a fence and National Guard troops along the border. But before that measure ultimately passed and was sent on to the governor, several fellow Republican lawmakers rose in dissent, countering with a more modest and less costly measure, one that didn't call for the state to finance a radar fence along the border or pay for the National Guard. The alternative legislation also dropped language making Arizona's undocumented immigrants guilty of felony trespass. Two of those who challenged the Pearce proposal within the House GOP caucus were state Reps. Bill Konopnicki of Safford and Lucy Mason of Prescott who, like Pearce, are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In an arena in which political shorthand becomes etched in stone, Mormons in Arizona have long been subject to a stereotype, an unspoken but well-established caricature: hard right, Republican, usually East Valley, voting in lockstep, with outsized influence within the state Legislature and in the Republican Party. But the stereotype is overly broad, masking significant differences among individuals with varying life experiences, governing philosophies and personal styles. The controversy over immigration from Mexico has been vexing to several major American religions, revealing ethnic fissures among Catholics, Protestants and other denominations across America. This is not at all new in American history. But disagreements among Mormons strike us as unusual somehow. The LDS Church is a strongly structured operation, after all. As one member says, "If LDS President (Gordon B.) Hinckley declared all men should wear lime-green striped pants, I might find it strange, I might mutter to myself, but I would wear lime-green striped pants." The church itself has steered away from doctrinal pronouncements on immigration. "On this immigration issue, we don't have clear doctrine," says Kevin DeMenna, a prominent legislative lobbyist and LDS member of the Phoenix Biltmore Ward, a geographic church subdivision. (Uh yeah ....well that might be because it isn't a matter of doctrine.)

So individual "saints" can go their own way. And as a result, striking differences in policy reveal themselves, for example, between lawmakers here and those in Utah, where 70 percent of the population and 75 percent of the voters are Mormon. In Utah, for example, the Legislature created a driving-privilege card last year so the state's estimated 95,000 undocumented immigrants could legally operate motor vehicles. How could this be?

(That's a good question. Off-hand I would say it's because the legislature in Utah seems to be full of twits who evidently don't see the problem with granting entitlements and rights to people who are manifestly hostile to law and order.)

Those same Utah Republican lawmakers approved an in-state tuition rate for non-citizens last year. Really. What gives? Even with the increasing national political backlash, Utah laws and practices remain rooted in a curious mixture of compassion and pragmatism compared with Arizona, where citizens adopted Proposition 200 in 2004 and state lawmakers have opted almost exclusively for punitive and restrictive measures.

(That would be because Utah isn't Arizona so it doesn't suffer from these outlaws to nearly the same degree Arizona does. But why anyone LDS or otherwise would accord driving privileges to outlaws is quite beyond me. )

Contrasting visions

But even here, Russell Pearce's is not the only LDS voice on immigration. Maricopa County Supervisor Don Stapley says he is "baffled" by the strong anti-immigrant positions of his fellow East Valley elected officials. "I am opposed to criminalizing undocumented immigrants," he says.

O.K. Don, why would you be opposed to state criminalization? It's already a federal crime. But I do admire your blithe politically correct slide by: "undocumented immigrants;" which is sort of like calling a rapist an "unexpected lover." Incidentally, Don these folks aren't undocumented, they have plenty of documents it's just that they are forged:

Section 1325. Improper entry by alien
" (a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. (b) Improper time or place; civil penalties Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of - (1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or (2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection. Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed."

It's absolutely not merely a civil matter, it's a federal crime. We don't arrest and imprison for civil matters in this country with the exception of contempt of court and the reason we arrest and imprison there is because the party found in contempt has the key to the cell and can open it at any time by voluntarily purging the contempt.

Illegals are by law committing criminal violations punishable by imprisonment for up to six months. Repeat offenses can bring up to two years in prison (anything more than 1 year is a felony). Additional civil fines may be imposed at the discretion of immigration judges, but civil fines do not negate the criminal sanctions of the offense.

And he is "concerned" about the current round-'em-up efforts of County Attorney Andrew Thomas and Sheriff Joe Arpaio. "They're not necessarily headed in the right direction."

(Spare me Stapley, as long as the outlaws are headed back across the border they are necessarily headed in the right direction.)

As an officer in the National Association of Counties, Stapley brokered a bipartisan compromise resolution on immigration that won praise from Democrat Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox, a visible immigrant rights activist. And U.S. Rep. Jeff Flake, who represents a large swath of the East Valley in Congress, has taken what is arguably Arizona's most gutsy, or foolhardy, position by co-sponsoring the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill in the House, with its "path to citizenship." It earned him a Republican primary challenger in 2004. Flake admits his bill, scorned as amnesty by critics, has made for some uncomfortable moments at district GOP meetings. But he has no regrets. "Ultimately, good policy is good politics," he says. "Sure, we need to enforce our laws, but we need to have laws we can reasonably enforce.

So when our borders are overrun with outlaws and invaders to the degree that the police can't stop them all we decide to just turn the country over to the outlaws???

Where on earth are your cajones?

Where is the evidence that the law can't be reasonably enforced?

Just because a lot of Mexicans choose to violate the law and we don't catch them all?

By this moronic standard we should never, ever prosecute anyone on drunken driving or drug charges because we have seen clearly nationwide the failure of the "war on drugs," which drugs and alcohol are freely available everywhere and DWI arrests expanding every year.

Just because we have a lot of non-citizen outlaws violating the law doesn't mean the law can't be enforced.

Some laws conflict with the reality of the American economy. They need to be modified. (Um no, rather it is that some people conflict with the requirements of American law and they need to be corrected.)

"These contrasting visions of Mormons are anchored in the LDS faith, shaped by personal experiences and political realities. State Sen. Karen Johnson, R-Mesa, an ally of Pearce, explains her position in clear, carefully reasoned phrases. "Obeying the law is a core principle of the LDS Church," she says. "This isn't just a nice thought or a reasonable idea." She cites the church's 13 Articles of Faith, one of which states: "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers and magistrates, in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law." That simple tenet, obeying the law, resonates among those LDS lawmakers like state Rep. Laura Knaperek, R-Tempe. It strikes a chord with much of the American public, as well. But other spiritual sentiments tug at policymakers, especially Mormons like Konopnicki, Mason, Stapley, Flake and St. Johns Democrat Jack Brown. The church's worldwide proselytizing mission, for example, has won more converts in Mexico and Latin America than on any other continent. (So what? What entitles non-member criminals to overrun the border or members to commit crimes here with impunity?)

"My faith is at the core of my beliefs, and it dictates that we are all God's children. We should not discriminate," Stapley says, adding that he has shied away from the harsh, restrictionist policies. "It is not consistent with biblical Scripture or the Book of Mormon."

(Beg to differ. The Book of Mormon and Bible contain strong teachings about the right to sovereignty, the need for law and order and both condemn the outlaw mentality and practice expressly. Besides, nobody is discriminating except with regard to criminal behavior. It is absolutely correct to discriminate against criminals and outlaws it is the whole point of law to begin with. )

The book is the faith's companion scripture to the Old and New Testaments. Jeff Flake doesn't think his religion has much to do with his own views on immigration. He harkens to growing up on a ranch in northeastern Arizona. "We had illegals working on the ranch and farm. It wasn't against the law to employ them at the time, and I would see them hide when the Border Patrol would come." (O.K. why were they hiding then if it was perfectly legal? Oh, wait now I see, you mean to say that while you weren't breaking any laws by hiring them, they were breaking laws by being hired. Isn't that a truly special distinction?)

Back then, before the border turned to such a forbidding place, Mexican nationals would come and go with the seasons and holidays. "I've never been able to get angry at a father who crosses the border to feed his family," Flake explains. "We have benefited from the immigrants who take the jobs we would not do ourselves. We have allowed the situation to become what it is."

Where to begin with this horse pucky? First of all, it isn't a matter of jobs Americans won't do as the meat packing plant round-ups and deportations followed by actual citizens seeking those jobs in lines stretching around the block clearly demonstrated. Second, the benefit historically has been from LEGAL immigrants, not illegal ones. You know, people who came here because they wanted dearly to be U.S. citizens whatever the hurdles and did what was necessary within the law to become citizens.

But outside of that and from a purely LDS perspective it sure as heck ought to have a lot to do with whether or not we allow them to be baptized (if we do) while they are illegal aliens. Lawlessness in this regard is dishonesty.

Want some doctrine? O.K. here it is: Repentance comes before baptism as a fundamental matter of doctrine.

An individual choice to violate the laws of the land is a choice to do wrong. In this case it's a choice to commit a federal crime. If they are being baptized it would be more accurate for them to wear a CTW than a CTR ring. What the government's stance is with regard to enforcement of existing law should not have anything to do with how the Church views personal decisions to violate criminal statutes -if we baptize outlaws without repentance we are tacitly saying that violation of federal criminal statutes is not wrong. Contrast that fact with these words:

President Marion G. Romney in “The Rule of Law,” Ensign, Feb 1973, 2 said:“The law of Christ” is all-inclusive. It concerns not only rules that shall govern beyond the grave, but also the law of nature here and now-local, national, and international. Latter-day Saints should strictly obey the laws of the government in which they live. By our own declaration of faith we are committed to do so, for we declare to the world that “we believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” (A of F 1:12.) This we do in harmony with the Lord’s command: “Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land. “Wherefore, be subject to the powers that be, until he reigns whose right it is to reign, and subdues all enemies under his feet.” (D&C 58:21-22.) “Civil authority is of divine origin. It may be more or less adapted to the needs of man; more or less just and benevolent, but, even at its worst, it is better than anarchy. Revolutionary movements that aim at the abolition of governmentitself are contrary to the law of God. …” (Doctrine and Covenants Commentary [Deseret Book Co., 1954], p. 339.) When the “rule of law” breaks down in a family, a community, a state, or a nation, chaos reigns.”

In light of President Romney's remarks which are fully consonant with my understanding of membership requirements, it seems very clear that at a minimum potential members of the Church ought to be showing by walk and talk as the D&C states that they are worthy of it.

With their first act upon entering our country being a federal crime subsequently compounded by chronic violation including dishonesty in a host of ways as it continues, their actions don't exactly inspire me to believe that they are going to take the laws of God any more seriously than they take the laws of the land. Blatant, purposeful, chronic lawlessness doesn't seem to be consistent with membership in the Church.

This one would be just a hoot were it not so discouraging:

Hispanics get LDS assurance over license bill

By Carrie A. MooreDeseret Morning News

Hispanic political leaders met Thursday with representatives of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for assurance regarding the church's neutral position on a bill dealing with illegal immigration.
(Why the Church should be neutral with respect to member's compliance with the law of the land is a question not answered. Why the Church should be neutral even with regard to the general concept of obedience to law by all within a country's borders regardless of their faith is also a curiosity. And such a sought assurance stands in contradiction to the expectations the Church has articulated in the past regarding the rule of law and in particular the conduct of its own members warning them to not only be law abiding but also to avoid even civil disobedience. )

Tony Yapias, (official state immigration moonbat) director of the state's Office of Hispanic Affairs, said he and other Hispanic leaders met for two hours with public affairs representatives of the church after a firestorm of accusations erupted earlier this week on Capitol Hill. Some conservative lawmakers have been pushing passage of a bill that would limit the ability of illegal aliens to get a Utah driver's license. (limit?? how about prohibit?) A member of one group pushing the measure said earlier this week that illegal aliens are breaking the law, (which in fact they are.) and as a result those who are members of the LDS Church should have their recommend to attend LDS temples taken away by their church leaders.

He's absolutely right about that. One of the questions in a Temple Recommend Interview is: "Do you strive to be honest in your dealings with your fellow men?" Illegals cannot possibly be striving for that since their illegal status requires them to strive to cover up their status to the government. Lying and deceit are part and parcel of being illegal and many of them have and possess forged identity documents allowing them also to deceive their employers which is a separate crime. No illegal aliens ought to be attending the temple. It's absurd and goes as far back as Jesus Christ: "Render to Caesar." Another Temple recommend interview question is: Have there been any sins or misdeeds in your life that should have been cleared up with priesthood authority but have not been? -or words to that effect. How is this to be answered by an illegal: "well just the little thing about my committing an ongoing federal crime and lying and deceiving employers and others on a chronic basis. But it's all good because it's not really about choices I have made it's about my nationality?"

"We were assured by the church that the members don't need to worry about temple recommends, that they're issued on the basis of personal worthiness and not nationality," Yapias said.

Well what do you know? evidently personal worthiness is now unrelated to personal decisions about whether or not to obey the law because of a person's nationality.

"This won't be something bishops or stake presidents are going to be asking about" regarding immigration status.

Why not?? There certainly ought to be bishops and stake presidents worried about their congregations being whited sepluchres. Thankfully at least the police in LA are finally getting at the sort of people we are talking about:

The remarks made on the Hill sparked anger (What business do "Latinos" have getting angry about this? Illegals aren't citizens, they don't participate in the political process and at best are outlaws in our land. To the extent "Latinos" (presumably citizens) have any anger at all it ought to be directed at the government corruption in the home land of the illegals which is causing them leave. Illegals themselves (likely part of this "Latino" group) can take their anger and stuff it.) and fear among some Latinos that somehow the church was involved in the legislation or was trying to send a message through informal channels. A press conference called Thursday morning by the Mexican Consulate at the State Capitol on the issue included a statement from an LDS spokesman, who clarified that the church is not supporting the bill. Great. Now Mexico is interfering not only in our federal affairs but also in the affairs of state governments.

Yapias said he was gratified by the symbolic nature of the move. "We have the utmost respect for their courage. That in itself was a tremendous boost for morale, making the statement the spokesperson made. We couldn't have asked for anything more."

And there it is: He's happy because from his perspective the Church is facilitating lawbreaking and making illegals feel like their behavior stands uncondemned by Church authority. Well I for one as and LDS person condemn their behavior and in absolute terms. These are not refugees nor people coming here because they love the U.S. We have the right to keep them out and we should, absolutely. Yes I am LDS but I am also a patriot. Rule of Law matters. Sovereignty matters. President Romney was 100% correct.