Illegal Immigration and the Fulfillment of Book of Mormon Prophecy

I want to begin this article with the disclaimer, instead of putting one at the end. The opinions expressed here are my own. They don’t represent an official position of the Church. The interpretation of the scriptures I’ll site are my own. My approach is always to take the scriptures, particularly the Book of Mormon, at face value. I believe we come closer to the truth than trying to make holy writ match a political or social agenda.

The remarks I make here are not intended to be partisan in any way. If you’ve been a reader of my past articles, particularly those that touch on political parties, you’ll see that I don’t have any faith whatsoever in them. From my perspective as a Mormon, the political right is dominated by the same religionists that publish anti-Mormon literature and call latter-day saints “cultists.” On the other side of the spectrum, the political left has become so radicalized with a progressive, anti-religious agenda, that they have also turned hostile to latter-day saints. This is because we hold to standards of morality and decency they consider antiquated at best and discriminatory or hateful at worst.

This is a peculiar situation for us latter-day saints. I’ve had conservative Christians defend the assassination of our founder, the Prophet Joseph Smith, who was murdered by a mob of some 200 men with their faces painted black. Because of their religious bigotry, they condone the historical mob violence that was practiced against Mormons until the beginning of the 20th century. Yet, most latter-day saints are politically conservative because of the other shared values like freedom of religion, opposition to abortion, support of traditional marriage, and a belief in limited government.

However, we also find common ground with those on the left. We believe in equality for men and women, racial equality, being good stewards of the earth, volunteerism, and humanitarian service. Our scriptures tell us that God ordains that the poor shall be “exalted” by humbling the rich, which most definitely involves redistribution of wealth. (Doctrine and Covenants 104:16) We seek “social justice,” not by pushing for draconian regulations, but instead by bringing men and women unto Christ, which will lead them to keep his commandments to care for those in need. This hasn’t stopped gay marriage activists from defacing our churches and making personal threats against individual latter-day saints, their families, and their businesses.

Since we don’t fit neatly in the exclusive boxes of the political left and right, we tend to draw fire from both sides. It is all the more unfortunate when latter-day saints align themselves too closely with the worldly political factions, sacrificing the unity of the faith that should typify those who believe in the restored gospel. A latter-day saint who practices his religion fully will always find himself just a little uncomfortable having unfettered fellowship with those who otherwise would destroy our religion. Those people exist on both the right and the left.

I desired to elaborate on this “disclaimer” because the remarks I make here will prove to be somewhat controversial among those who have a vested interest in preserving the political status quo. My intent is to explore the territory between left and right and provoke discussion among my fellow latter-day saints about what is just and correct, not what is politically expedient. The human aspect of the issue goes beyond politics. That issue is illegal immigration, particularly illegal immigration from Mexico and other nations south of the US border. Although I have respect to the opinions of non-LDS people regarding immigration, it is my conviction that their rejection of the gospel does more to exacerbate the problem than any other single factor. I’ll explain this perception later in the article.

As is often the case, the issue has been distorted by the false dichotomy between right and left. One side declares that undocumented aliens are lawbreakers and should be deported. The other side points to the problems with deporting millions of people who live among us and contribute to life in the United States in some fashion. They claim it would be inhuman to potentially divide families and forcibly dislocate people from homes and schools. They demand amnesty and a path to citizenship for these people because it would benefit their party politically. The other side, seeing the potential gain for the opposition, hunkers down and calls for fences on the border and increased funding for immigration enforcement. The left calls the right racist. The right sees the left as undermining the borders, language, and culture of the United States. There appears to be no middle ground.

The recent signing of a controversial immigration law in Arizona has generated a lot of media attention. While passions run high and the two sides trade epithets, protests are being organized that have the potential to turn violent and further polarize the nation. Meanwhile, attention is diverted from other progressive moves to change banking regulations, force socialized health care on us, and pass “cap and trade” legislation that will drive our energy costs sky high. If you see where this is going, it’s time to look for a different way to address and solve the issues at hand. Media coverage of this hot-button issue is intended as a smokescreen to the progress of other progressive agenda items.

The scriptures of latter-day saints and the teachings of its founder give us a unique perspective of America and its role in the world. The Lord has told us in a modern revelation, given in 1833, that America was raised up for his own purposes. It was our Creator who raised up the Founders of this land and inspired them.

“And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.” (Doctrine and Covenants 101:80)

The Book of Mormon relates the account of a Jewish family that migrated to the Americas around 600 B.C. One of their prophets, Nephi, was shown the future of this land (North, South, and Central America). He foresaw the demise of his own people, the arrival of Gentile nations, and how the land would be a land of liberty to them. Nephi wrote:

“But behold, this land, said God, shall be a land of thine inheritance, and the Gentiles shall be blessed upon the land. And this land shall be a land of liberty unto the Gentiles, and there shall be no kings upon the land, who shall raise up unto the Gentiles. And I will fortify this land against all other nations.” (2 Nephi 10:10–12)

Another Book of Mormon prophet, known as the “brother of Jared” led a group that came to the Americas more than 2000 years before the birth of Jesus Christ. He was given to know regarding this land that it “…is a land which is choice above all other lands; wherefore he that doth possess it shall serve God or shall be swept off; for it is the everlasting decree of God. And it is not until the fulness of iniquity among the children of the land, that they are swept off.”

Latter-day saints regard the lands of North, South, and Central America as this choice land. It has been foreordained by God to be a land of freedom. In 2 Nephi chapter 1, we read the words of Nephi, where he rejoiced that God had given his posterity this land by covenant.

“…[W]e have obtained a land of promise, a land which is choice above all other lands; a land which the Lord God hath covenanted with me should be a land for the inheritance of my seed. Yea, the Lord hath covenanted this land unto me, and to my children forever, and also all those who should be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord.

Not only were Nephi’s descendants the benefactors of this covenant, but all who the Lord would lead to America from other nations. Nephi goes on to explain that his posterity would be blessed with great knowledge of the Lord, yet they would ultimately reject those teachings and fall away. They would “dwindle in unbelief.” The Lord would bring Gentile nations to the “land of promise” and they would prosper for a time. He said the Lord would do a “marvelous work and a wonder” among them. He would bring forth the Book of Mormon–the record of his own people, and that it would be a blessing to the Gentiles who would accept it. This process would lead the remainder of those who dwindled in unbelief–his descendants who intermarried with the indigenous peoples of the land–would begin to believe the gospel and it would bless them.

The growth of the Church in Mexico, Central, and South America has been miraculous–so much that more members of the Church speak Spanish than English as their primary language. This is the fulfillment of prophecy. Yet there are other prophecies that are yet to be fulfilled. Regarding the remnant of the Nephites and Lamanites that would blend in with the indigenous peoples of the land, Nephi wrote:

“And they shall be a scourge unto the people of this land. Nevertheless, when they shall have received the fulness of my gospel, then if they shall harden their hearts against me I will return their iniquities upon their own heads, saith the Father.” (2 Nephi 5:25)

The Lord Jesus, when he appeared to his “other sheep” (see John 10:16) on this continent, foretold of the coming forth of the record of the Nephites to the Gentiles in the last days. If they would reject the fullness of the gospel that would be contained in the Book of Mormon, the Lord would bring chastening judgments against them.

“And they shall be a scourge unto the people of this land. Nevertheless, when they shall have received the fulness of my gospel, then if they shall harden their hearts against me I will return their iniquities upon their own heads, saith the Father.” (3 Nephi 20:28)

The “scourge” or judgment that is promised to come upon those Gentiles who reject the restored gospel is linked to the “remnant of the house of Jacob”–the descendants of the Book of Mormon prophet Lehi and his sons. Perhaps it is the case that the “scourge” is the social, political, and cultural perplexity caused by massive, uncontrolled migrations of that “remnant of Jacob.” It is an issue that very much resembles the divisions in the Middle East. Every man-derived solution has only made the problem worse. The solution requires God’s intervention.

Referring to this remnant of Lehi’s seed, Jesus said in 3rd Nephi 20:

“And the Father hath commanded me that I should give unto you [the Nephites and Lamanites] this land, for your inheritance. And I say unto you, that if the Gentiles do not repent after the blessing which they shall receive [the Book of Mormon and the restored gospel], after they have scattered my people—Then shall ye, who are a remnant of the house of Jacob, [people from Mexico, Central, and South America] go forth among them; and ye shall be in the midst of them who shall be many; and ye shall be among them as a lion among the beasts of the forest, and as a young lion among the flocks of sheep, who, if he goeth through both treadeth down and teareth in pieces, and none can deliver. Thy hand shall be lifted up upon thine adversaries, and all thine enemies shall be cut off.” (3 Nephi 20:14–17)

During the 2008 presidential race, there was an enormous spike in anti-Mormon activity due to the presence of Mitt Romney in the race. Rejection of Romney as a candidate because of his politics was certainly fair game. (I didn’t support him and many other LDS members did not as well.) However, much of the opposition to him was the result of anti-Mormon bigotry. Many polls showed that nearly half of Americans would not vote for Romney simply because he was Mormon. I would venture to say that, if a person would not vote for a Mormon to become president, the chances of their accepting the Book of Mormon and the restored gospel is almost zero. America’s rejection of Romney led to the election of a progressive Democrat who has surrounded himself with Maoists, Marxists, and other radicals

The policies of this and previous administrations have placed America on a path towards decline. Amidst the current efforts to “fundamentally transform” America into a corporatist system, we risk total financial collapse from the unsustainable deficits. This is the very purpose of the Cloward-Piven strategy that has been employed. In addition to a climate of government corruption, another factor of which the world is ignorant is the failure to failure to give redress to the losses the Church sustained in Missouri in the 19th Century. Joseph Smith gave prophecies on several occasions to that effect. America is in decline and Zion will emerge in the vacuum of power left by the collapse. The ascendancy of Zion will lead to the construction of the Great Temple in that city. According to the words of the Savior to the Nephites, the “Lamanites” that are coming here will play the major role in building the Temple in Zion. It is we “Gentiles” who join the Church who will assist them, as stated in 3 Nephi Chapter 21.

“And they [the Gentiles] shall assist my people, the remnant of Jacob [Lehi’s posterity], and also as many of the house of Israel as shall come, that they may build a city, which shall be called the New Jerusalem. (3 Nephi 21:23)

Illegal immigration is a contentious issue because it brings into conflict those with racial prejudices, constitutionalist loyalties, social justice and humanitarian activists, new world order proponents, liberals, progressives, conservatives, labor unions, you name it. One controversial set of headlines that emerged (and has since gone onto the back burner for the time being) is what was called the “NAFTA highway.” Congress approved funding for a free trade “corridor” to be built from Mexican container ports to an internal U.S. distribution hub. There would be an open border for trucks coming from these container ports to a the hub. Where was that hub to be built? In Jackson County, Missouri, not far from Independence. The hub would be sovereign Mexican territory–in Jackson County, Missouri. That should set some alarm bells off for latter-day saints. We already know where that Great Temple is to be built. Prophecy tells us who will build it and who will assist.

Illegal immigration will remain a hot-button issue for the foreseeable future. It assists those who wish to transform America and subvert it into a transnational federal government to keep the populace polarized and incapable of resisting their machinations. Meanwhile, in my opinion, in light of the Book of Mormon’s statements, anyone who invests their energies to confront and fight against illegal immigration misspends his energies. This is part of the Lord’s plan that will chasten the wicked Gentiles in America and ultimately establish Zion in Jackson County, Missouri. God himself has placed this problem among us to bring to pass his own purposes and fulfill covenants made to ancient and modern prophets. The descendants of Lehi were given the land by covenant. The rest of us are just tenants and squatters. Only those Gentiles who repent and accept the fullness of the restored gospel will find an ultimate solution to the problem of illegal immigration. That solution will be realized only when we are “no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God. (Ephesians 2:19)

About Greg West

Greg is a self-professed "opinionated blowhard," Mormon activist, teacher, author, blogger, husband, father of five, grandfather, musician, judo black belt, and computer geek. He is a former national LDS examiner for He is the author of four LDS-oriented books. His current mission in life is to conquer the achievement gap in an inner-city school as a 2012 Teach For America corps member. His books and blog posts are available on his website, the Society for the Prevention of Anti-Mormonism.
This entry was posted in Articles and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

377 Responses to Illegal Immigration and the Fulfillment of Book of Mormon Prophecy

  1. Whatever happened to obeying honoring and sustaining the law? If we ignore the fact that those here that broke the law in order to live here and not where they came from, how do we baptize them without them becoming legal first,or do we also ignore the fact that they will break other laws as well, while living here?

    Arizona only is enforcing the laws that were passed at the Federal level even as they are being bankrupted on all fronts because of those same people who are taking advantage of social services made available to them.

    The Saints obey law and do not disobey it.

    These are not refugees from their countries due to war. These are those who are here because they break laws and are getting away with it. They are an invasionary force intent on destroying this nation. God has consequences for those who do not obey law.

    We should live above reproach and do everything in our power to help lawbreakers become legal.

    • Jaxon says:

      Church Supports Principles of Utah Compact on Immigration: We can mold laws to favor immigration in a reasonable manner. The AZ law is not reasonable. See:

      • Nunn says:

        Only the First Presidency has the right to speak for the Church (Handbook 2, 21.1.29), and even then there must be unanimous consensus among the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve (D&C 107). The Church statements in support of the Utah Compact are utterly devoid of any express invocation of of the specific authority of the First Presidency. In fact, they bear no name or signature at all. Therefore, these completely ANONYMOUS statements, issued by the Church’s Public Affairs Department, do NOT constitute official Church doctrine, policy, nor position. They are someone’s personal opinion — nothing more. Much better to consult ACTUAL Church doctrine and policy, as found in the Church scriptures, and official Church Handbooks, respectively. Remember that bona fide authority, and invocation of authority, are major cornerstones of LDS doctrine and policy.

        • erin says:

          i don’t see how something released BY THE CHURCH for the public does not constitute evidence of where the church stands on an issue. they mean what they say.

        • Ignacio says:

          Thank you so much for getting this right. It is exactly what I am thinking that is happening here. This article is right on and no matter what other people think, the Book of Mormon prophecy’s will be fulfilled, the poor shall inherit the earth of which these my people are literal descendants of Israel and will build the Temple in the New Jerusalem.

  2. Clark says:

    Lehi’s family wasn’t Jewish!!!

    • John C. Clark says:

      Mulek’s family was Jewish. Perhaps other groups were led to America from who-knows-what tribes. The known list of Jaredites, Mulekites, and family of Lehi (Nephites and Lamanites) is not necessarily limited to them only. I believe modern scientific evidence has certainly suggested Mongolian genetics, as if some were led across the Bering straits. There is also a Book of Mormon scripture referring to the MIX of the seed of Lehi’s descendents.

      • faanunu says:

        There is evidence that they could have come from Mongolia or vice versa from here to Mongolia. There have been immigrations back and forth from the pacific but scientists only suggest that they came over the strait bering first… there has been recently uncovered pottery on the oregon (if I remember correctly) coast that suggested people came by boats rather the straight.
        however there are jewish researchers and even tribes all over that suggest some hebrew tribes arrived in africa, india, pakistan and even as far as japan. The only downside with genetics is that the further you go back the harder it is to find those ancestors. we must remember that millions of natives died when the europeans came and many others blended with immigrates from other countries.
        After all if we came from adam and eve couldnt we trace it back to them? (or for the evolutionists… back to your monkey ancestors? lol)

      • Ignacio says:

        Your going back too far in time. That is the only defense that most white people who are against immigration say on most posts. Hogwash is what I say to all these remarks. Please try to stick with the last 2700 years, if you can with any accuracy; no need to go back 50,000 years which is impossible to get right.

        • John C. Clark says:

          No problem accepting that others came across the Bering Straits or any other way. We do have a record of three groups coming by vessels across the sea. The point is that those who are allowed to come to and stay on this continent are subject to special expectations.

    • Leah Hollett says:

      Lehi’s family WAS Jewish. Jewish is a term that is misused in today’s world. Jewish means “of or from Jerusalem.” Lehi’s family was not of the tribe of Judah and so was not Judean, but was rather from the tribe of Joseph. However, Lehi’s family was from Jerusalem, thus they were Jewish. Many people today claim to be of the Jewish faith. But this is an incorrect label. They are of the Hebrew faith.

      • George Schultz says:

        The Lord in Revelation 2:9 refers to those calling themselves Jews but are not (by bloodline) and probably means those central and eastern European converts to Judaism or Ashkenazi Jews. Many of these are certainly now “of Jerusalem.” As a Hungarian and German I could emigrate to Israel and live in Jerusalem, my children being born there become Jews?

        So I think it is not quite so clear.

    • Jonathan says:

      From the “mouth” of Nephi: “I have charity for the Jew—I say Jew, because I mean them from whence I came.” (2 Nephi 33:8)

  3. Rachel says:

    D&C 104:16 – “But it must needs be done in mine own away; and behold this is the way that I, the Lord, have decreed to provide for my saints, that the bpoor shall be exalted, in that the rich are made low.”

    Care to explain how you get the slghtest thought that this scripture says ANYTHING remotely close to redistribution of wealth?

    • Venette says:

      Your article was very well put together concerning the Church and the Lord’s hand in preserving this free and Constitutional Republic. We do have very unrighteous leaders trying to destroy this sacred land but two wrongs don’t make a right, so to speak.
      God is a God of order and does not tolerate any degree of sin. There are many other descendants of Jacob besides the Lamanites and Nephites so your justification of ILLEGAL doesn’t hold true. Yes, there are many of those descendants who have accepted the Gospel and obeyed the laws of the land to get here. But, as I recall they are not the only descendants of Jacob, better known as Israel. So wouldn’t it stand to reason that the illegals are not here to build the New Jerusalem, they are not worthy law abiding immigrants.

    • John C. Clark says:

      I believe the Savior encourage the rich to redistribute their wealth to the poor. In some societies individuals voluntarily organize their efforts to help the needy in the forms of both private and public charities.

      I also acknowledge that help is not always best in the form of money, or any form that encourages “the evil of the dole.” There are many ways we can help any able-bodied person to raise him/herself to the highest degree of self-sufficiency anyone can reasonably expect.

      However some may defend great disparities in wealth, we have not succeeded in becoming a Zion society until those disparities shrink to equality.

  4. Melody says:

    I take issue a bit with the following paragraph from your article: “However, we also find common ground with those on the left. We believe in equality for men and women, racial equality, being good stewards of the earth, volunteerism, and humanitarian service. Our scriptures tell us that God ordains that the poor shall be “exalted” by humbling the rich, which most definitely involves redistribution of wealth. (Doctrine and Covenants 104:16) We seek “social justice,” not by pushing for draconian regulations, but instead by bringing men and women unto Christ, which will lead them to keep his commandments to care for those in need.”

    I, personally, don’t think a true conservative finds any common ground with the left on the issues you mention. Everything they do is about controlling all of those areas with government intervention, and we are about being good stewards and voluntarily helping our neighbors, as you pointed out. Their goal is complete socialism, which is the exact opposite of what the gospel is all about.

    • DFM says:

      I agree with Melody here. Don’t kowtow to the left. They don’t deserve kudos for any of those beliefs that they claim they subscribe to. Sure there are good people among the left that are just being deceived, but the authors of the liberal philosophy/agenda do not have any of those principles in mind. I would argue that the left proclaims these values with their mouths, but not with their actions, and that their true intent is far from it.
      We believe in equality for men and women, but it depends on your definition of equality. Feminists say that a woman can do anything a man can do. That is just simply a lie. Gender is sacred and it is God-given. Men and women’s roles and abilities are different. That’s the way we were created, and we should find joy in who we are. Their intent to make women “equal” is deceptive, it distorts the roles of men and women, destroys the intent of God’s creation, and promotes women to leave the home to work, which in turn hands our future generation over to the government to raise and indoctrinate (notice I didn’t use the word educate).
      If the left really cared about racial equality, they would stop pushing for reparations. All it does is keep African Americans in poverty by feeding them the idea that it’s somebody else’s fault (namely Caucasians) that they’re in the situation that they’re in. If they really cared about racial equality they would get rid of affirmative action, they would not promote “minority” associations, and they would quit using the word “minority” altogether. They would stop touting diversity, they would stop pressuring companies, universities, government agencies, associations, and any organizations of any kind to be “diverse.” Race would simply not be a factor.
      Liberals by nature are selfish and self-centered. They do not care about being good stewards of the earth. They use that argument to impose regulations, and in the name of “man-made global warming” they want to restrict and downgrade our way of life, when really if global warming really was caused by man the only way to solve global warming is the elimination of the human race. We can never restrict our way of life enough to curb “man-made global warming.” Aside from that, I’ve seen the way liberals litter and throw their trash around. They don’t mind throwing trash on someone else’s land, just like they don’t mind “redistributing” someone else’s money.
      Crediting liberals with volunteerism is empty and you’re just trying to appease them and to esteem them with something. I won’t even argue with that one.
      As far as humanitarian service goes, I had a simple experience with a co-worker, who was a self-proclaimed liberal. Another, self-proclaimed conservative, co-worker had shared a mint with both me and him, and had then, a little while later asked for a little piece of the chocolate bar that my liberal friend had. My liberal friend didn’t want to share; my conservative friend said “I just want a small mint-sized piece.” My liberal friend said: “You see, I’m not as liberal as you think I am.” I said: “A liberal is a liberal until it comes to giving up their own stuff.” Whether you like it or not, that is the truth. My liberal friend finally ended up giving the other guy a piece because he was pressured into it, but he was not happy about it. I have a feeling that if you compare the amount money that conservatives give to charity versus the amount of money liberals give to charity, you will really find out who is a proponent of humanitarian service. I know you’re going to tell me that I can’t make general statements like that, or that that was just one guy, but I think we need to speak the truth for what it is and call out these liberal communist bums for what they are or soon enough, we won’t have a country.
      They’re also collaborationists. I mean look at them, they welcome Adolf Ahmadinejad into our country and have dinner with him at Columbia University rather than arrest him for harboring our enemies!
      I believe that these “liberal” values that you mention are really conservative values that are just kind of a given. Liberals claim them as their own in order to hoodwink the people, but in reality those are a given for conservatives. We don’t have to tout them as our own.
      It’s time to stop the political correct speech, and the deference we show to the left as a political philosophy that’s just different from ours. Liberalism is not a political philosophy, it is a mental disorder. The authors of the liberal ideology are not good people who think differently from conservatives, they are criminals that want to take over our country and turn it into a Soviet-style government of the government where the government officials are the elite and they live off they taxpayer (i.e. Michelle Obama with all of her assistants, and her many vacations), as opposed to a government of the people. The few good people who actually follow that ideology are just being duped. It’s time to follow the example of Representative Wilson who had the guts to yell out “You lie” when it was completely called for. It is unfortunate that his fellow congressmen pressured him into apologizing for it. Talk about restriction of speech. Again, we need to call out the liberals for what they are: amoral, anti-American, baby-killing, murderer/rapist/pedophile coddling, union-supporting, superficial, collaborationist, politically correct, selfish, racist, anti-freedom, anti-gun, moronic, communist scum.

  5. focus says:

    Nowhere in the Book of Mormon that I have found states that the natives of Mexico and Central/South America are descendants of Lehi or the brother of Jared. I have never heard a prophet in the church state that either. Most LDS people just assume that is where the decedents of Jerusalem settled – but nowhere as far as I know has there been anything written or stated by a latter day prophet stating such. In fact, Brother May in his book ‘This Land’ gives some sound evidence that the people of Lehi and the brother of Jared landed here – in the north American continent and specifically here in America.

    As previously commented on, we as LDS need to support and defend the law, and those who cross our borders are law breakers – else why are they called illegals? Where is the line drawn where we can condone some broken laws and not others? And just who is the great judge to decide which broken law is OK and which is not?

    • Uriel says:

      Was Laman descendant of Lehi?

      Wasn’t he his son?

      The Book of Mormon is a sacred record of peoples in ancient America, and was engraved upon sheets of metal.

      “After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians” (Introduction to the Book of Mormon – every English edition since 1981).

      • Nunn says:

        Ah, but in 2006, the Church changed the official Introduction to read, “…and they are AMONG the ancestors of the American Indians.” (upper case mine)

    • Michael says:

      Well said, focus.
      Illegal is illegal no matter under “any circumstance”. My house is a house of order, said the Lord; why can’t our nation be a nation of order or any other nation for that matter?
      Simply my opinion.

      • Germandarius says:

        I wonder, then, if the Mormon pioneers had visas when they ventured across the plains and settled what was then Mexican territory.

    • Gregory says:

      Here Here!!!!!!

  6. Rachel says:

    In agreement with Melody, I invite you to read the talk by Elder Marion G. Romney, of the Council of the Twelve Apostles, in the April 1966 Conference, regarding the difference between Socialism and the United Order. NOWHERE does the church teach redistribution of wealth… NOWHERE!!!

    • John C. Clark says:

      From his talk I quote, “,,,The following are similarities [between Socialism and The United Order]: Both (1) deal with production and distribution of goods; (2) aim to promote the well-being of men by eliminating their economic inequalities….”

      I suppose he didn’t say the exact words, “redistribution of wealth.” But how else would you interpret the “distribution of goods…to promote the well-being of men by eliminating their economic inequalities?”

  7. Greg West wrote:

    “Meanwhile, in my opinion, in light of the Book of Mormon’s statements, anyone who invests their energies to confront and fight against illegal immigration misspends his energies. ”

    La Raza is a Secret Combination. No one EVER misspends his energies by fighting such Satanic forces….

    Sunday, May 2, 2010
    Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa of SANCTUARY CITY LOS ANGELES – A Mexican Supremacist









    “Wherever there’s a Mexican, there is Mexico!”… President Calderone.

    As an American living under Spanish speaking Mexican occupation, I would add to this “Where there’s a Mexican, there’s a violent Mexican gang!”





    Agendas of MEChA, La Raza, MALDEF, and Southwest Voter Registration Projects These are transcripts of live, recorded statements by elected U.S. politicians, college professors, and pro-illegal alien activists whose objective is to take control of our country “by vote if possible and violence if necessary!” 1. Armando Navarro, Prof. Ethnic Studies, UC Riverside at Latino Summit Response to Prop 187, UC Riverside, 1/1995

    “These are the critical years for us as a Latino community. We’re in a state of transition. And that transformation is called ‘the browning of America’. Latinos are now becoming the majority. Because I know that time and history is on the side of the Chicano/Latino community. It is changing in the future and in the present the balance of power of this nation. It’s a game – it’s a game of power – who controls it. You (to MEChA students) are like the generals that command armies. We’re in a state of war. This Proposition 187 is a declaration of war against the Latino/Chicano community of this country. They know the demographics. They know that history and time is on our side. As one community, as one people, as one nation within a nation as the community that we are, the Chicano/Latino community of this nation. What this means is a transfer of power. It means control.”



    9. Antonio Villaraigosa, Chair of MEChA (student wing of Aztlan movement) at UCLA, former CA assemblymember, former CA Assembly speaker, currently Los Angeles City Mayor, and formerly Councilman at Southwest Voter Registration Project Conference in Los Angeles, 6/1997 “Part of today’s reality has been propositions like 187 (to deny public benefits to illegal aliens, 1994), propositions like 209 (to abolish affirmative action, 1996), the welfare reform bill, which targeted legal immigrants and targeted us as a community. That’s been the midnight. We know that the sunny side of midnight has been the election of a Latino speaker – was the election of Loretta Sanchez, against an arch-conservative, reactionary hate-mongering politician like Congressman Dornan! Today in California in the legislature, we’re engaged in a great debate, where not only were we talking about denying education to the children of undocumented workers, but now we’re talking about whether or not we should provide prenatal care to undocumented mothers. It’s not enough to elect Latino leadership. If they’re supporting legislation that denies the undocumented driver’s licenses, they don’t belong in office, friends. They don’t belong here. If they can’t stand up and say, ‘You know what? I’m not ever going to support a policy that denies prenatal care to the children of undocumented mothers’, they don’t belong here.”



    LA RAZA:

    Posted by The Mexican Invasion & Occupation at 7:50 AM

  8. I think instead of left and right, it should be what is lawful or not. Otherwise we live in chaos and unrest –

    • climber says:

      To refine your statement a little more, it shouldn’t be a matter of left and right or even lawful or unlawful, it should be a matter of justice or injustice according to natural law. Whatever is lawful isn’t necessarily right. Everything Hitler did was legal. Social Security is legal. The Federal Reserve is legal.

  9. ImLDS2 says:

    I can see your points about the young lions coming forth and tearing to pieces. Are these wicked lions? Certainly they couldn’t be righteous lions. I assume it will be the wicked slaying the wicked as in ancient times.

    So, America has sinned many great sins and now she is being punished. At the same time, the prophesies of kings and queens being the nursing mothers and fathers of the seed of Jacob has surely come to pass. We feed, clothe, house and educate them so that they are in position to accept the gospel. Satan gets his way with the destruction of old America as does the Lord when he promised: if they do not serve the God of this land, who is Jesus Christ, they will be swept off; and the Lord brings to pass the prophesies of the blessings of the seed of Jacob and the righteous Gentiles.

  10. Arline says:

    I think you are dead on with you article except the leftist stuff. The Lord has made it very clear that we are to care for the poor but always voluntarily.

    Robert, I enjoyed your comments but you should seriously consider studying D&C Section 134.

  11. Craig Richards says:

    Greg, you make some very good points that has open my eyes a little more concerning what is going on here. I have mixed emotions on the illegal immigration thing and I fear amnesty will be granted whether we like it or not. This whole Obama( Sorretoro) administration has gotten every thing he asked for so far. So I won’t be surprise.

    We need to look at things spiritually than trusting in arm of the flesh or the world. Listen to the Church leaders they are still talking about avoiding sin, growing your faith, built hope and charity and so forth. Maybe I am wrong about this, but I am not hearing the Prophet and Apostles speak against illegal immigration but work on growing closer to the Lord by keeping the commandments.

    Thanks Greg for your insights and those who commented on this topic.

  12. For more proof that we should NOT be sitting on the fence, nor hiding our heads in the sand, please watch this video about the riots in Santa Cruz, CA. This Pro-ILLEGALS and pro-anarchists are about 200 miles away from my small farm town of Marysville, CA. And I live only 130 miles from San Francisco which is a SANCTUARY CITY which welcomes law-breaking criminal-aliens into their city. It is reported that 50%-70% of all illegal aliens have a criminal record in Mexico. They are either known smugglers, known drug trafficers, or sexual predators.

    Watch this film:

    I, for one, seem to compare THESE MODERN-DAY LAMANITE DESCENDANTS with their ancestors of old…those who fought against their lighter skinned brothers…the NEPHITES.

    Greg, are you saying…”LET’S GIVE SATAN A CHANCE?”

  13. drawlr says:

    Social justice is a socialist term and has many implications that are contrary to Church teachings and gospel principles. You’d be better served to refer to equal/blind justice. Social justice is subjective and implies forced re-distribution of wealth.

    I’m a little torn by the immigration issue. On one hand, it bothers me some that the Church has turned a blind eye to illegal immigration. It doesn’t seem to me that a Church member that is here illegally should be worthy of a temple recommend, yet they get them. I don’t think that our laws should be flouted.

    On the other hand we have the words of Lehi in 2 Nephi 1:6: “Wherefore, I, Lehi, prophesy according to the workings of the Spirit which is in me, that there shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord.” How often in the BoM were the Nephites told that if they didn’t repent, their land of promise would be taken from them and given to another people? In the end, Europeans inherited it, and now that we have become wicked as a nation, we are on the brink of being displaced also. I don’t like illegal immigration. We have laws for a reason; but could this not be the workings of the Lord?

    On a side matter, I disagree with the panamerican interpretation of the Promised Land. I believe that the Promised Land is where the gold plates were found, namely the United States. It is the only country in the Americas not to have been ruled by tyrants, i.e. kings. Colonial America was technically ruled by King George, but has had no such rulers since Independence. This is not true of the rest of the Americas, North, Central, or South. It is true that Lehi’s descendants must be among the inhabitants of Central and South America, for if we have accounts of some migrations in the BoM, isn’t it probable that there were others? Just because Central and South America are inhabited by Lehi’s descendancts doesn’t mean that that is where the BoM account took place. In reality, no one knows where it was, nor is it important to the message of the BoM. It is merely a curiosity.

  14. RWW says:

    Wow. Why do we need the Book of Mormon (or the Constitution for that matter) to tell us whether we have the right to exercise control over the property of others? If my neighbour wishes to employ “illegals,” or house them, it is not my rightful concern.

  15. Ron Shirtz says:

    “A latter-day saint who practices his religion fully will always find himself just a little uncomfortable having unfettered fellowship with those who otherwise would destroy our religion. Those people exist on both the right and the left.”

    I agree with that statement 100%. One only has to study the history of the Church, to see how capricious both parties in the US government has treated us. Latter-Day Saints need to be wise as serpents so as not to be suckered into political traps that will make them compromise the principles of the Gospel. We may have to render under to Caesar, but we certainly don’t have to cheer for him.

    As far as immigration, I too have mix feelings. I do not like the influx of immigrants into our country, who tax our resources and social systems without letting go of the false traditions of their fathers, and take up the constitutional covenants of a US citizen. But I also do not want to see the equivalent of a US iron curtain, because it will serve as much as a means to keep us in as to keep them out.

    In any case, too much water has gone over the dam. Even when the Elders of the church rise up and save the Constitution, it will still take a new world under the reign of the Savior to restore what we have lost .

    • John C. Clark says:

      I believe you will find immigrants to be a great benefit to our economy, despite the claims you have hear otherwise. For a more balanced viewpoint and for better statistical support, investigate the websites of the Immigration Policy Center. You’ll find that immigrants, including undocumented ones, use government resources less than citizens, pay most taxes (including ones that they cannot benefit from like social security), create more jobs than they fill, are more generous, have better family values, would more likely vote Republican (were it not for our harsh treatment of them), and provide us with the next generation of workers, since the birth rate of the dominant culture here is beginning to resemble that of Europe (hollow, and dependent on immigrant labor). They are the answer to the looming burden of us baby-boomers who are retiring without enough children and grandchildren to keep our social security system solvent. Their adults who come to work and then return home are workers for whom we didn’t have to provide public education.

      • Mike says:

        I don’t believe that illegals are a beneffit to our country. I see daily evidence to the contrary. I am LDS and a Border Patrol Agent.

        I do believe that they are the scourge that has been prophicied of because of our wickedness.

        I do have an issue with illegals taking leadership roles in the church. Anyone in church leadership needs to set the example in keeping the commandments and obeying the laws of the land. but if the church sees the some laws as not being moral than maybe thats way the church accepts illegals into the fold.

        I still don’t like it.

  16. Randy says:

    I have had some of the same observations and thoughts on the issue of the lamanites. One thing that bothers me though is just how wild and lawless and uncivilized these people can be, while there are those who are good i see many who I consider to be savages. How can God use total animals in the wild behavior of wickedness to punish those who are less wicked?

    • What a racist comment. (Randy’s)

      • Jeffrey says:

        To Skyler Collins. Skyler, Randy’s comments are NOT racist. When one speaks the truth, it is JUST THAT, THE TRUTH. By your logic, many of the BoM prophets are RACISTS because they made such comments about the lamanites: a dark, filthy and lothesome people. They also make comments about us that we are a fair and delightsome people as they were as opposed to the dark and loathsome lammanites. I could go on and on. Does God make prophets out of true racists? NO. The propehts spoke the TRUTH so let the chips fall where they may. I am always amused at whites running around calling other whites racists. I RARELY find that behavior among the other races when they deride US.

  17. Shelly says:

    Have they broken any of the ten commandments by comming here? Just by comming here? Sure there are the criminals who traffic in drugs and murder and do break the laws, but what about the ones who are good and productive? There are only three laws after all, do not harm another person, do not harm or steal his property, do not commit fraud.

  18. Craig Richards says:

    Ron Shirtz wrote: “Even when the Elders of the church rise up and save the Constitution, it will still take a new world under the reign of the Savior to restore what we have lost .”

    Can’t disagree with that statement. Meantime, expect a very rough ride from here on out. The collapse and destruction of the United States as we know it will be gone soon enough, to bring forth a New World Order. Illegal immigration is one method the globalist are making sure it continues this will breakdown and breakup the United “States” as well as the collapse of our currency. This all by design. Don’t expect the two-party system is going to help us but continue the process to bankrupt the country.

    Beaware of what is going on in the world. Stay strong in your faith.

  19. G. West says:

    I knew this topic would really push some buttons. My purpose is to disassociate telestial politics from the Church. Just take a look at the “Pavlovian” reactions of some of the commentators above. For example, I intentionally used the term “redistribution of wealth” to test your responses. So much of what we accept as education is “programming.” We hear a word or a term and we instantly react instead of using our reason. It happens on both the right and the left.

    When the topic of abortion is raised, the liberal half the population instantly reacts with the programmed response “woman’s right to choose.” Similarly on the right, terms like “social justice” and “redistribution of wealth” instantly cause a predictably programmed reaction. Those reactions aren’t necessarily gospel-centered. Often, we codify attitudes that are incorrect by trying to link them to gospel principles. This is the result of being “educated in Babylon” as John Taylor called it.

    If one were to read my books on the United Order and the coming New World Order, he or she would know that I don’t support socialism and that I know perfectly well that socialism is a counterfeit of the United Order. Nevertheless, the Lord does intend to redistribute wealth. Entry into the United Order, which we are told is the celestial economic system, requires the consecration of all property and the surrender of all “surplus property” to one’s bishop. (See D&C 119)

    Consider the following scriptures:

    D&C 84: 112
    “And the bishop, Newel K. Whitney, also should travel round about and among all the churches, searching after the poor to administer to their wants by humbling the rich and the proud.”

    D&C 42: 39
    “For it shall come to pass, that which I spake by the mouths of my prophets shall be fulfilled; for I will consecrate of the riches of those who embrace my gospel among the Gentiles unto the poor of my people who are of the house of Israel.

    D&C 56: 16
    “Wo unto you rich men, that will not give your substance to the poor, for your riches will canker your souls; and this shall be your lamentation in the day of visitation, and of judgment, and of indignation: The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and my soul is not saved!

    Giving, it appears, is only voluntary in the sense that we can choose to be saved in the celestial kingdom or not. It is a mandatory observance for those who which to obtain exaltation. Just like now, one can choose to not give his tithes and offerings, but he can’t choose to get a temple recommend.

    There is a process of redistribution of wealth that is associated with consecration and the United Order. It just isn’t a socialist one; it’s a celestial one. When those programs are restored in their fullness in Zion, participation will be a requirement. D&C 76 says, referring to the principles of union and the failure of the Missouri saints to obey the celestial law:

    2 Behold, I say unto you, were it not for the transgressions of my people, speaking concerning the church and not individuals, they might have been redeemed even now.
    3 But behold, they have not learned to be obedient to the things which I required at their hands, but are full of all manner of evil, and do not impart of their substance, as becometh saints, to the poor and afflicted among them;
    4 And are not united according to the union required by the law of the celestial kingdom;
    5 And Zion cannot be built up unless it is by the principles of the law of the celestial kingdom; otherwise I cannot receive her unto myself.

    So we see that obedience to the “redistributive change” required to live in Zion isn’t voluntary. The Lord can’t receive us until we do it his way. There is nothing in my remarks that indicates that socialism or communism is God’s way. On the contrary, like sectarian Christianity is a counterfeit of the true gospel, communism and socialism are counterfeit “Zions” that Satan has devised to lead people astray with good intentions. Nevertheless, even in the Lord’s system, wealth gets redistributed.

    Another predictable reaction is for us to quote D&C 58:21 and other scriptures that oblige us to be obedient citizens to the law. There is always the possibility that man’s laws will run afoul of God’s laws. Consider plural marriage as an example. How many years did Church members run afoul of the laws of the land on that issue. Many went to jail rather than obey the law. The issuance of the Manifesto did not say that we were ever wrong to practice plural marriage or that the practice was ungodly. It was with some reluctance that we submitted to those laws.

    A similar thing happens today in the Church regarding illegals. As a branch president, I am prohibited by Church policy to ask about the immigration status of my members. I think some of my flock may very well be “undocumented” workers. Yet I am not allowed to ask them about it in a temple recommend interview, for example. I’ve had some members ask me how can someone answer the question about “honest in your dealings with your fellow man” can be answered truthfully if one is an illegal alien? The answer is that it’s only dishonest if one represents himself as being legal when he’s not. They might be breaking the law, but they do so without deception or subterfuge. As far as the Church’s policy goes, it’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” regarding one’s citizenship.

    As an illustration of the Church’s policy for example, if one of their sons desired to serve a mission, if I have concerns that this might be an issue, the Church will permit him to serve a mission and assign him within the United States, so he does not have to cross a border and risk deportation, arrest, etc. We received a letter from Church headquarters a couple of years ago outlining this. To me, that speaks volumes!

    As citizens of a Constitutional government, we have the obligation to obey the laws. We expect and hope that non-citizens will obey our laws. If there was some huge calamity, like a smallpox outbreak, or a civil war in Mexico, would we not have compassion on those who come here seeking a refuge? Perhaps our immigration policies make it too complicated to become a citizen.

    What if it were the other way around. Imagine that Obama and his radical advisors somehow create the conditions that cause a bloody revolution in the USA. Suppose the civil war that would result drove Texan and Californian “refugees” south across the border to find an escape. What kind of treatment would they hope to receive there?

    Our immigration policy definitely has some racist overtones to it. Nobody is up in arms about building a fence or sealing the border with Canada. (And a bunch of the 9/11 hijackers came through that border, not the southern one!)

    “focus” wrote:

    “Nowhere in the Book of Mormon that I have found states that the natives of Mexico and Central/South America are descendants of Lehi or the brother of Jared.”

    Be careful excluding possibilities because something is not explicitly laid out in a book of scripture. That’s the approach that sectarians use to exclude the Book of Mormon altogether as scripture.

    If you keep up with the current studies of archaeology and the Book of Mormon, the prevailing attitude is that the Nephites were down in Mexico. I have a map hanging in the hallway near our Seminary class that was provided by the Church Education System that shows likely locations of various cities according to the most recent scholarship on the subject.

    Recent scholars also subscribe to the idea that the Nephites did not exist in isolation. Their cities are believed to have been on likely trade routes where they would have had interaction with the peoples of the Olmecs. In fact, one of their militaristic cults very closely resembles Mormon’s description of the Gadianton robbers of his time. (You’ll recall that their secret oaths were on the plates contained on the 24 plates of Ether and that Moroni held them back from the people and didn’t include that part.)

    Intermarriage between early Lamanites and the indigenous peoples would do a lot to explain the change of skin pigmentation among their descendants. It also explains why their skins became lighter when they embraced the gospel, because they would intermarry with their lighter-skinned Nephites who were faithful believers.

    Brother Noonan above wrote:
    “I, for one, seem to compare THESE MODERN-DAY LAMANITE DESCENDANTS with their ancestors of old…those who fought against their lighter skinned brothers…the NEPHITES.”

    If you will pay close attention to the text of the Book of Mormon, you’ll realize that during the 400 years of peace that followed the Savior’s appearance, there was a complete integration of the Nephites and Lamanites. They became one people. Through intermarriage, skin color would not have been the identifying characteristic. If you will read 4th Nephi carefully, towards the end of this first century of total unity, there began to be divisions again–religious divisions. In 4 Nephi 1:20 we read:

    “20 And he kept it eighty and four years, and there was still peace in the land, save it were a small part of the people who had revolted from the church and taken upon them the name of Lamanites; therefore there began to be Lamanites again in the land.”

    The Lamanites at the end of the Book of Mormon were not a racial or ethnic group–they were apostates who revolted against the Church. They took upon them the name of Lamanites. Let me repeat that because we often misread this. From the time the Savior appeared, to the time of their destruction, the Nephites were the believers (of both “ethnicities”) and the Lamanites were those who rejected the gospel. They divided into competing religious and non-religious groups first and then political/social entities. The final battle was not a race war, but a political one.

    The Nephites were permitted to be destroyed because of their disobedience. They became as bad as the Lamanites. The modern day “remnant of Jacob” that will scourge the Gentiles isn’t necessarily righteous. The Lord uses the wicked to chasten the wicked.

    This is the whole point of my article: the problems we have today are upon the nation because the entire population is in need of repentance. Telestial policies will not solve our problems. The Lord has the solutions to terrorism, illegal immigration, economic instability, and all the rest. We need to do it his way.

    My repeated admonitions here are that the Republicans and Democrats are like the Nephites and Lamanites at the end of their history: when both sides were corrupt and ripe for destruction. Amidst those two parties, there were just a few believers left. That’s us, today. We need to provide a different alternative to the failed solutions that modern Nephites and Lamanites offer.

    Craig understood the point very clearly. The apostles and prophets aren’t addressing illegal immigration as a problem. They’re giving us what we need to prepare to live in a Zion society that will transcend borders and where the only “illegals” are those who lied to their bishops and stake presidents to get in the doors.

  20. President West,

    This is the first time I have been likened to a Pavlov Dog. But it is mostly a theory with little solid proof. Human conditioning is not an exact science and I challenge anyone to show that you can take a group of rebellious humans and condition them to do much of anything. Even in the church, it is hard to get the masses to do anything regardless of what “conditioning” you have up your sleeves. Anyway, in all my days of political activism I have never been able to “condition” the masses of those in my own American Independent Party, Nor was I able to CONDITION the members of my ward when I was a Ward Mission Leader. I was never successful in this endeavor. But maybe, as a Branch President you have been more successful than I?

    I cannot address the matter of the Celetial Law. It is too deep for me, I will let you lay it all out for us. I don’t understand it, and since we don’t live under it anymore, I am free to focus on other necessary matters.

    Like the matter of Illegal Immigration…this is a subject that I can and will comment on. And it is a matter that I have had concerns about. It pains me to hear that you, as a Branch President seem to be muzzled about asking for proof of citizenship from illegals.

    I, for one, have sat many times (in my earlier years) and have been asked by my ward Bishop, Priesthood leaders, and stake leaders “IF MY CHILD SUPPORT WAS ALL PAID UP.” It was a temple recommend question. There was several times when my temple recommend was HELD UP when I told the Bishop “I was behind in my payments.”

    However, the illegals can come in and get a free ride but I (as a citizen) HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW and ILLEGALS DON’T? It is all about fairness and justice.

    • John C. Clark says:

      There is a large population we are guilty of ignoring–all those worthy Americans south of the border, children of the promise, obediently suffering in poverty as our overly restrictive visa quotas grind their faces in their poverty because of our own unwillingness to share our abundance. We avert our faces from those who are both poor and who are respecting our laws. We ignore them while only pointing at those others who choose in desperation to risk a civil violation in order to feed their families. We ignore these law-abiding paupers. Meanwhile our U.S. drug habits and gun manufacturers feed the cartels with the money and guns that corrupt their governments and destabilize their societies.

      And even those who do come over in violation of our artificial quotas end up being a blessing to us. They create more jobs than they take. They pay more in taxes than they use in services. They are more law-abiding than the average U.S. citizens. They are more giving and charitable to the poor than the average U.S. citizen. They have a stronger work ethic than the average U.S. citizen. And they are more conservative in moral and social values than the average Republican.

      • Mike says:

        “And even those who do come over in violation of our artificial quotas end up being a blessing to us. They create more jobs than they take. They pay more in taxes than they use in services. They are more law-abiding than the average U.S. citizens. They are more giving and charitable to the poor than the average U.S. citizen. They have a stronger work ethic than the average U.S. citizen. And they are more conservative in moral and social values than the average Republican.”

        This is False. I should know. I catch them for a living.

        • John C. Clark says:

          I understand that you accept the misinformation that has been widely published. I invite you to view the studies that support my claims. Please respond with any evidence you have found to the contrary.

          I. Job Creation.

          A. Immigrant workers usually take different jobs than local workers—they complement each other. Immigrant workers and their families are consumers who create more demand for goods and services, stimulating the economy. They are less likely to take management jobs. They instead create white-collar jobs for locals who supervise them and do related administrative work for them. They are more likely than our native born to be entrepreneurs, creating jobs for the native born instead of taking then away. Areas with increased immigration experience increases in wage rates for the native-born.

          B. “The research has found that immigrants – including the poor, uneducated ones coming from south of the border — have a big positive impact on the economy over the long run, bolstering the profitability of American firms, reducing the prices of some products and services by providing employers with a new labor source and creating more opportunities for investment and jobs. Giovanni Peri, an economist at the University of California at Davis, estimated that the wave of immigrants that entered the United States from 1990 to 2007 increased national income per worker by about $5,400 a year on average, in 2007 dollars. He also concluded that the wave had a small positive impact on the average wage of American workers, by lifting the overall economy.”
          C. “The idea that foreign-born workers are stealing American jobs should be turned back at the border.” .

          I’ll send support information on my other claims later.

          II. Taxes.
          III. Use of Government Services.
          IV. Respect for the Law.
          V. Charitable nature.
          VI. Work Ethic
          G. Conservative Values.

  21. melli50 says:

    Brother West,

    I live in a Mesa AZ stake where we have illegals on our high council. When I asked my stake president the church’s policy on this he read me a letter from our area authority that stated that stake presidents were not to ask the legal status of individuals who wanted to be baptized into the church. It is apparent then that the Lord is not concerned about borders or man’s laws, but that all of His children have an opportunity to hear the Gospel and join His Church. I’m still having a hard time getting my heart around this policy in light of the 12th Article of Faith. Aren’t all of the members of the Church supposed to honor the laws of the land in which they live? Do you have any insights on this matter you could share with us? Thanks.

  22. G. West says:

    To Melli50,

    I would not presume to know the Lord’s reasonings and for the way the policy is implemented in the Church. I’d defer to Isaiah as the best answer for it:

    “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

    The Lord loves his children without respect to national borders or the laws of mortals. Church members believe in obeying the law. Part of the testing of mortality includes us sometimes having to choose between two “goods.” Joseph Fielding McConkie tells of a young woman from India who came to him at BYU asking for advice. She wanted to join the Church, but her Hindu father wanted her to come home and enter an arranged marriage according to the custom of her people. Her father used a scripture for “leverage” over her decision: honor thy father and thy mother.

    Which commandment would be more important to keep? The one to honor father and mother or the one that says to repent and be baptized? Similarly Eve, Abraham, and Nephi were placed in situations where they had to choose to obey one commandment (eat the fruit, lie to Pharaoh, kill Laban) or keep the one that said to do the opposite.

    God not only demands our loyalty, but he tests it also. Joseph said that many people “set up stakes for the Almighty.” By this explained that they drew a line and said, “This far and no farther.” It was one thing to say Brother Joseph was a prophet, another to leave your family and serve a mission in a faraway land without purse or scrip, and yet another to take an additional wife.

    For some people, as is obvious from this discussion so far, this topic tests their faith. We can “set up stakes” for God and say, I’ll go this far and no farther. I’ll keep my principles and reject the Lord’s invitation to the next level. The day will come when many will refuse to enter a United Order “on principle” because they are unwilling to let go of their property. Others will cling to outdated telestial modes of thinking and resist changes (just like there were members who called President Kimball a fallen prophet after the 1978 priesthood revelation).

    To Brother Noonan: It’s not my place to comment on your interaction with your priesthood file leaders, but I will say that there’s more to paying child support than obeying the law. If no law required you to pay child support, you would still have a moral and covenant obligation before the Lord to take care of your children. That’s the purpose of the temple recommend questions regarding child support.

    Does a person have a covenant obligation to remain in a poor, corrupt, crime-plagued country for his entire life when freedom and opportunity lie just a few miles across an imaginary political boundary? Knowing that the Lord intends to “make a full end of all nations” (D&C 87:6) why should we expend such passion and resistance to keeping people out?

    It’s time to consider that there’s a Zion way of doing things and letting go of the telestial solutions that really aren’t solutions at all. There has to come a time when we must question whether defending a telestial system is counterproductive to the Lord’s purposes.

    As for living the celestial law, we should each try to implement the celestial law as fully as we can in our own lives now. That will prepare us for living it when the time comes that we will have the blessing and opportunity to live it in its fullness. We build that strength by paying tithing, living within our means, avoiding debt, having some food and water stored, paying a generous fast offering, and offering our time in service to the kingdom.


  23. Ron Shirtz says:

    G. West

    Your comment above is losing me, and making my wrestling with sticky wicket issue much harder.

    If the church stresses its members to support the Constitution, where does that leave illegal immigrants who are neither learned on the subject, or have NOT sworn an oath to uphold it? I can realistically conceived of a situation were illegal immigrants as baptized members supporting the cause of La Raza, to secede the southwest from the US. Think about it–as illegal immigrant, such members are neither fish nor fowl , nor hot nor cold. How can they stand with the Elders of Israel to save the Constitution when it hangs from a thread, if they are not legal citizens?

  24. Sarai says:

    I’ve been a member all my life, was in fact born into the covenant. I am also a Mexican immigrant. It is very disappointing to read all this hateful comments. I’ve been reading many other newspaper articles along with their readers comments only to feel repugnance by them (the comments) Reading this article was very uplifting unti I got to the comments. Is there really not any difference between those people’s thoughts and what I am assuming are LDS member’s thoughts? I am very much in disbelief to see that there is not any difference. Makes me wonder what people will be thinking about me when they see me and other Mexican/Hispanic members at church on Sunday. I’ve often felt there is a disconnect between the english and the spanish wards and liked to believe it as a language barrier more than anything else, but I’m starting to lean towards the idea that I might have been wrong all this time. I also believe that is the fulfillment of a prophecy, in fact heard it from an area authority. I can begin to understand why all of you feel this way and urge you to educate yourself on the issue. Talk to your hispanic/mexican friends, if you have any, and asked them how all of this affects them and their families and maybe, if you are willing, you will begin to understand.

  25. Ron, I don’t think the Church is stressing support for the Constitution, and it’s definitely not part of it’s 4-fold mission. I would also add there are probably more citizen-members ignorant of the principles of freedom than there are illegal-alien-members. At least they’re practicing “vote with your feet” and “live free or die”.

  26. G. West says:

    Well said Skyler!

    Will the Elders of Israel save the Constitution or its principles?

    Orson Pratt’s recollection of the famous “when it hangs by a thread” statement includes the word “IF.” Pratt recalled that the Prophet said, “If the Constitution is to be saved…”

    Everything I’ve read tells me that the political kingdom of God will embody the principles of liberty that the Constitution enshrines. However, Zion will not be the government of the United States. Again, I encourage the reader consider D&C 87:6. The Lord will make a “full end” of all nations.

    There will come a point when nationalism will be an obstacle to founding a global kingdom of God. Let me draw a parallel here. I wish I still had the quote, but years ago I read a statement by one of the presidents of the Church who said that the Lord would use communism to “break the back” of the Russian Orthodox Church and prepare the way for the preaching of the gospel. He said that when that task was accomplished, it would simply fade away. We have seen that come to pass.

    Similarly, although I oppose the concept of a “new world order” as being a false, counterfeit of Zion, I believe the Lord will use the efforts of those who promote it to break down barriers between nations that might hinder the establishment of the Lord’s earthly government.

    Until we become “no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;, but fellowcitizens…,” (Ephesians 2:19) our own attitudes will prevent the advancement of Zion’s cause.

    Perhaps, instead of wanting to make criminals of these people and deporting them, it would be more in tune with the Lord’s way to take them in and teach them the gospel, adding their faithfulness and strength to our own. Of those who might well be “illegals” in my branch (I don’t know their status because I follow Church policy and I don’t ask), all of them are wonderful home teachers and full tithe-payers. They show up for service projects. They contribute to the work of the Lord by serving in callings. They honor their priesthood and teach its doctrine to their sons by example.

    These folks have proven so valuable to our little branch that, in the summertime, we have sent our elders and Spanish-speaking members into migrant camps to find the members among the migrant workers.

    In terms of self-sufficiency and willingness to sacrifice for the rising generation, they represent what America was like 100 years ago, not what we have become today.

    • Nunn says:

      Malarkey. The global kingdom of God is inaugurated at Christ’s Second Coming — not before. And illegal-aliens in this country may be taught the Gospel in their home countries and can help continue to build the Church up there. The Church is fully established in Mexico.

  27. Ron Shirtz says:

    I am not unsympathetic to the plight of the illegals–If I was in their shoes, I’d come to America too. I appreciate the “universal-brotherhood-Zion-all nations-shall-flow -unto-it” vibe as well. At least the Church cannot be label racist for assisting those south of the border.

    But it still puts this issue at odds with waht former prophets told Saints overseas to stay where they are, to build up the church locally instead of coming to ZIon in the States.

    Another question–How would you feel if the illegals came from other countries, such as Iraq, Pakistan, or Iran, and joined the church? I’m not a Islamic-phobic by any means, but it does the beg the question–are those from the South America given preference over everyone else, on the same issue of being illegal in this country?

    In any case, the church needs to be proactive on this issue, real soon, because in time it will be publicized–in some cases it already has. Otherwise it will blow up in our faces,and sow doubt and confusion, if not contention, among the Saints. Many who will have the same concerns as expressed here as to why WE are admonished to obey the laws of the land, yet a free pass is given to “illegals”–which is a technical legal term as define by the law of the land, not mine.

    It’s a legal and political issue, and the church needs to address it. Otherwise the covert “Don’t ask. Don’t tell” method now practiced will cause more outrage than the issue of giving the illegals a free pass.

  28. melli50 says:

    A few months ago my husband had a conversation with a Justice of the Peace in our city of Mesa, AZ. The Justice said that for one year (I believe it was 2008) he kept a tally of felony warrants he had to issue. 80% of those indicted on felonies had no legal papers and nearly 100% of them were repeat offenders. In 2009 my husband sat on a grand jury for Maricopa county to indict individuals for kidnapping and extortion. Of the 157 cases brought before them in that 4 month period of time, 156 were Mexican on Mexican crime, most of whom were here in this country illegally.

    Phoenix is the kidnapping capital of the world after Mexico City. Our sheriff has told the media that these are Mexican gang on gang kidnappings over drug territories. So what I’m hearing here on this forum is that these people are here by the hand of Providence? I would say in all confidence then that you do not live in southern AZ or TX if that’s what you think.

    I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with any honest hardworking person coming here, learning our language, our founding and our culture and becoming a part of this great nation. But what I am living every day is a great influx of people coming from Mexico who feel it is a right for them to be here not a privilege. They do not care to learn our language or our culture and certainly do not care a wit about our founding. What they want is a handout and to rob us of this great sovereign nation.

    If I moved to Mexico I would never require that I have all the rights and privileges that come with being a Mexican. I would not require that everything be printed in English so I did not have to learn their language. I would not try to force my culture on them, but would graciously learn theirs. I would not sponge off the taxpayers and live on welfare, free medical and a housing allowance.

    Those of you living in the north or east of our country need to come here to the southwest and live for a year then we’ll talk. I’m with Ron. The church needs to address this soon. The Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy isn’t working.

  29. I wrote the first comment about this article. I brought my wife out of El Salvador as their civil war was getting hot. I brought her here legally. She later became a naturalized citizen. She is of Mayan descent.

    I spoke with her about this issue of “fulfillment” regarding illegal immigration and her first comment was as mine; When did we begin to denounce the 12th Article of Faith and do we as Saints really believe it?

    Do we uphold the law or wink at it?

    This stance of allowing illegals to be baptized without following the law will blow back on the church.

    What happened to correct principles?

    When I served in East LA as a full-time missionary during the bicentennial of this once great nation, I seemed to be more a social worker than anything else, because we helped those (around 4 million who were here without papers) to find jobs, get married and otherwise get legalized BEFORE they were baptized.

    Have we decided as a church that it is more important to disobey law than to repent, get baptized and excel in the Gospel towards a temple sealing?

    Is paying tithing more important than honoring, obeying and sustaining the law?

    I hope not.

    If I were to go to any other country illegally and demand that their governments give me a free house, free clothing, free medical help and feed me, I would be jailed, killed or sent back here as a disgraced ugly American.

    By the way, this once great nation IS filled with crime and is a dangerous place to live. Just ask any victims of the illegal Salvadorean MS-13 gangs, who terrorize and control many of our cities already.

    I do not want to see a civil war here. We used to be civilized, honorable men and women and self-sufficient and denounced wrong-headed thinking. Have we in the church also begun to believe black is white and use scripture to defend what is rightfully wrong?

  30. melli50 says:

    Amen, Robert.

  31. G. West says:

    Robert and Melli: Thanks for your descriptions of the situation. You very accurately describe the very fulfillment of the prophecy I mentioned in the original article:

    “And they shall be a scourge unto the people of this land. Nevertheless, when they shall have received the fulness of my gospel, then if they shall harden their hearts against me I will return their iniquities upon their own heads, saith the Father.” (2 Nephi 5:25)

    What you describe is exactly what I would expect the “scourge” to look like. It is coming upon your communities and the the nation because the people have rejected the gospel. The answer isn’t political. The answer is that the Gentiles need to repent and obey the gospel. If they don’t, it will just get worse.

    For members of the Church, we know the Lord makes the rain fall on the just and the unjust. Welcome to the last days.

    • DFM says:

      The people are wicked because of the liberal ideology being permeated into our society. I almost think that liberalism is the great and abominable church described in the book of mormon.

    • Nunn says:

      So did Captain Moroni say, “The ‘scourge’ (Amalickites and other dissenters) is the hand of God due to the wickedness of our nation; thus I am going to just sit back and watch it happen?”

      NO. He instead fought the country’s enemies like a dragon — “In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children,” while also encouraging his nation to repent.

      The notion that resisting illegal immigration is “misspent energy” is flawed.

  32. Members of the church hopefully are not like domesticated turkeys who stand in the rain, look up and drown, but use political umbrellas to protect themselves – such as the Constitution designed to protect us from others who would take away our freedoms.

  33. Craig Richards says:

    Whether people who come to this country here illegally and are being baptized or LDS members who migrated to this country illegally, who am I to judge the process of the Church policies. This is the Lord Church and the Lord will direct the Leaders of the Church on how to deal with this issue and any others issue at hand. We are all spirit children of God that is house in tabernacle of clay that is born from someplace in this world. The Gospel is suppose to help us be one in purpose, bring unity among the saints.

    Trust in the Lord, He knows more and knows what He is doing. He is at the Head of the Church and is directing our Prophet Thomas S Monson whom we have sustain as our Prophet, Seer and Revelator, to make things known to us members in the Church. Listen to the General Authorities of the Church, they are teaching and helping us become closer with the our Lord Jesus Christ that we may return home to our Heavenly Father

    Beside I have my own beam in my eye that I need to cast out before I can remove some little speck out of someone else eye. God forbid, let us not become the “tares” among the “wheat” in the Church.

    I am just coming out of 13 years of inactivity of the Church and had little or no contact from any members during that period of time. The Lord himself sent his servants to my home and one was from Mexico City to help me come back to Church.

    Thanks Greg for bringing this to light. You are right to say “Welcome to the Last Days”

  34. Ron Shirtz says:

    Craig said :

    “This is the Lord Church and the Lord will direct the Leaders of the Church on how to deal with this issue and any others issue at hand.”

    Craig, for myself, if that is what the Lord wants, I can deal with it. But the Church needs to put that policy in writing to all the leaders of all the units, so there is no mystery, no ambiguity to were the Church stands on the issue. The Church stands to be questioned about a controversial practice, and I will stand by the Church if it will come out and say :This is the Lord’s will” But unless the Lord also commanded the Church leaders to do this quietly, I cannot see how sooner or later it will become an issue that needs to be addressed as defined policy, and not a thing done by man.

    The Church has taken bold stands before. I don’t see why it should not come out and do the same here, and get it out in the open. I am not going to lose my testimony over this, but only concerned so I know exactly where the Church stands on this, so I get a spiritual witness to accept it even if I don’t understand it. I did not want to fill out my Census by the govt, but when the Church encourage publicly over the pulpit to do so, I felt the spirit. I overcame my own strong feelings against the Census, and obeyed.
    I did that same declaration to deal with this–Is that unreasonable to ask?

    • Nunn says:

      The Church’s statements on immigration of the last 15 months or so, including those in support of the Utah Compact, are utterly devoid of any express invocation of the specific authority of the First Presidency, requisite to set forth official doctrine, policy, and position.

  35. Craig Richards says:

    Ron, I understand what you are saying and more likely in due time the Brethren will release something on the matter. Just like some of the comments on this topic is something like “Hey, what is going on here, isn’t the saints suppose to follow the 12th Article of Faith?” It is raising concerns here and is more likely talked about in other wards and stakes that will or has been reaching to the top that it will have to be address openly soon. In either case it may cause some to have their faith shaken a bit.

    As illegal immigration itself is a hot issue for our country that our government leaders whether state or federal are having challenges on dealing with it. There are no easy solutions on how to deal with this fairly. In the meantime, the laws on the books should be enforce but it appears that isn’t happening very well. I think it because the system is overwhelmed and apathy on the enforcement part by government agencies has sort of giving up to slow the flow of immigrants coming to this country. This has cause a lot problems in many states and fiction among the population.

    In the meantime, seek the Lord for guidance and pray often. I don’t know what else I can say or do. Comments on this topic has raise my awareness on both side of the issue, and that I thank all that has commented here. Peace.

  36. Some can say it better than I. Anarchy and Chaos are not acceptable, as long as there are still Saints who respect honor and obey the Law. And Atzlan is not Fulfillment of Book if Mormon Prophecy. I outright reject that.

    It is time to take America back.

  37. Kevin says:

    I was very impressed with this article. I think there are many who are more “loyal” to their supposed nationality than to their God. Greg, I believe you are correct, the immigration problem is the fulfillment of prophecy. How many remember President Benson’s cries to remember the Book of Mormon, the new covenant. If we, the US would have hearkened to that councel better perhaps the scourge would have been more controlled. The immigration problem will stir to repentance or destruction.

  38. Rex says:

    Back on May 5, Shelly wrote, “There are only three laws after all, do not harm another person, do not harm or steal his property, do not commit fraud.”

    Well, Shelly, when people come here illegally and use social services, the steal tax dollars and commit fraud to do so, and in an inordinate number of times, they commit violent crimes. So, even by your standard, they strike out.

  39. Rex says:

    Re-distribution under the Lord’s economy and re-distribution under Satan’s economy are two very different things. Under the Lord’s economy, all property belongs to the Lord. It’s all his. He may do what he pleases with his property. He may pay a penny to those who worked only one hour just as he may pay the penny to those who worked all day, as they agreed. Nothing under Satan’s economy, however, belongs to him. He is a usurper and falsely lays claim to the Lord’s property. One thing is sure, there will need to be some re-education and/or sifting among the Saints before Zion can be established, perhaps something akin to the Israelites wandering in the desert until the Egypt-dwelling generation was dead.

    Mr. West, if you use socialist terms, you can rest assured that you will be branded a socialist. How else to be judged if not by our words, if our actions are not known to the audience. Very sneaky, kind of like the Serpent.

  40. G. West says:

    I’d like to reply to a couple of comments. Certainly this topic is a hot one, as shown by the number of replies and the passions involved. Many of you see my point of view. Entry into Zion necessitates the sacrifice of some “sacred cows.” We have to decide which values are the highest. Is patriotism more important than devotion to God’s kingdom? Is partisanship more important than the the affection for the brethren of one’s quorum? Will reverence for the American flag be more important than the “ensign to the nations” that the kingdom of God has already erected.

    When the pioneer saints celebrated their first year in the Valley, they had a feast and a patriotic celebration. They did not raise an American flag up on the flagpole. They raised the white flag, which they called the “ensign to the nations.” It was the flag of Zion. It has been advantageous to the building up of Zion for Utah to seek statehood and to participate fully in “Manifest Destiny.” D&C 82:22 says:

    “And now, verily I say unto you, and this is wisdom, make unto yourselves friends with the mammon of unrighteousness, and they will not destroy you.”

    The time will come when the Lord will make an end of all nations, as I’ve cited D&C 87:6 several times recently. I often question whether those who cling to the telestial kingdoms will doggedly go down with them rather than embrace Zion when it comes. Will some saints hang on like determined, stubborn Pharisees, unable to accept the “new wine” because of their inflexible views.

    Rex wrote:

    “Mr. West, if you use socialist terms, you can rest assured that you will be branded a socialist. How else to be judged if not by our words, if our actions are not known to the audience. Very sneaky, kind of like the Serpent.”

    I won’t respond to the suggestion that I’m like “the Serpent.” However, I take comfort in the fact that Jesus was called “Beelzebub” by those who should have discerned his spirit. You should be more suspicious of those individuals who are trying to strike out on their own path, by setting up militia groups and “patriot” web sites. They are way more likely to find themselves in conflict with the Church and its leaders. In visiting “patriot” boards and reading their posts, I am alarmed at the people who make statements like “the Church members won’t let the Prophet teach the truth” or that their particular party or group will become the salvation of the Republic. Beware pf anyone who criticizes Church leaders.

    As for me, I’m an “open book.” I’m the author of a couple of books and my writing is on You can read my books, read over 100 of my articles on Examiner, and over 400 articles on the Society for the Prevention of Anti-Mormonism. Nowhere do I defend socialism. I do get a lot of flack, however for identifying it on the Right as well as on the Left. The anti-Mormon bigots on Free Republic call me a liberal and the liberals who attack my Examiner articles call me a Republican shill. Funny how that happens! However, I know that it’s not about me. It’s about how the process of moving toward Zion will challenge us to leave our comfort zones. That process will demand of each of us to declare by our actions if we love anything more than our Heavenly Father and his Christ.

    Ron wrote:

    “Craig, for myself, if that is what the Lord wants, I can deal with it. But the Church needs to put that policy in writing to all the leaders of all the units, so there is no mystery, no ambiguity to were the Church stands on the issue. The Church stands to be questioned about a controversial practice, and I will stand by the Church if it will come out and say :This is the Lord’s will” But unless the Lord also commanded the Church leaders to do this quietly, I cannot see how sooner or later it will become an issue that needs to be addressed as defined policy, and not a thing done by man.”

    There has been written guidance given to stake presidents and bishops, particularly regarding temple recommends and recommending young men who might be undocumented aliens for missions. Not all guidance comes down to the rank and file members. I am convinced that the Holy Spirit will give anyone peace regarding such issues if he will simply sustain the General Authorities and his local authorities.

    If one studies the writings of the Early Church Fathers (the bishops who were still around after the deaths of the apostles) you’ll see instances where they were rejected and driven out by their own congregations. If the LDS people will stand by their appointed leaders, they will have peace and know that they’re the right path. Your example of filling out the census is a good example. In that specific case, we can surmise that there was cause for concern. On other issues, such as illegal immigration, there have been no “global” statements.

    Another thing that is a concern to me is the demand for written guidance for every controversial issue. It seems to be the tendency of man to try to tie God’s hands and those of his prophets by forcing them to put his word in a book. There was no book that told Moses how to part the water of the Red Sea. There was no book that Enoch used to move mountains and change the course of a river to preserve Zion from its enemies. There was no book that enabled Joseph Smith to heal hundreds of sick people on the banks of the Mississippi River near Quincy. There was no book that told Brigham Young how to organize the pioneer companies and manage the migration of thousands to the West. Living oracles of God are at our head and our willingness to follow them without hesitation may mean the difference between life and death.

    The Haun’s Mill Massacre is a case-in-point. Joseph didn’t write down the instructions for the saints there to abandon their homes and move to Nauvoo. Instead, he told them to do so. They rejected that counsel and their tragic deaths were the result. It’s not our place to tell prophets, seers, and revelators that we’ll only obey if they put it in writing.

    How do we respond? We have faith that God is at the helm, that the Prophet is receiving the direction that the Lord wants us to have, and that the local leaders have been chosen by inspiration. The Spirit will confirm that to us and we can then have peace in our hearts, even if we don’t know all the details.

    • Nunn says:

      False analogy. The saints heard counsel from Joseph Smith DIRECTLY — NOT in the form of an ANONYMOUS press release issued by the Church’s Public Affairs Department.

      Bona fide authority, and invocation of authority, are major cornerstones of LDS doctrine.

  41. Ron Shirtz says:


    I’m not trying to argue with you, but try to understand how much a certain culture of expectations has been created in the minds of many Saints, including mine, whether intentionally or not, by the church administration. This is not a criticism, only a personal observation.

    “Another thing that is a concern to me is the demand for written guidance for every controversial issue. It seems to be the tendency of man to try to tie God’s hands and those of his prophets by forcing them to put his word in a book.”

    Greg, the Church has sent alot letters and directives on many specific issues. I appreciate the admonition not to be commanded on all things, but I’m sure you have seen as many letters as I have. As a result, there is a tendacy for Saints, especailly in leadership positions, to tread carefully and look to the Prophet and Apostles for guidance, because the nuances in making judgements are becoming more tricky and difficult as the world becomes exceedenly more complicated due to wickeness.

    I think you make some good points, but feel you are way ahead of what is required of us now, based on our capabilties. We might as well try to practice the United order and Celestial marriage again in order to live up the greater law that you seem to encourage us to follow, in order to bring about a Zion that supercedes the current law of the land we have now.

    In your zeal you seem to me more like Parely P. Pratt, who got too far ahead of the the Saints main group during the Exodus, than the “Serpent” that some here have accused you of being. Hope you take that as a back-handed compliment, and not an insult!

  42. Let’s put this into a perspective the valiant may appreciate;

    To enter into the Kingdom of God, you have to repent and be baptized. (Desire to become a “member” of the United States as a Citizen. )

    You may lie in the interview, but hopefully your sins are washed away. (Illegally enter but hope the “amnesty” kicks in). Wait, you don’t get baptized, because you do not want to pay tithing or have broken a law that prevents you from being baptized (such as killing someone in cold blood.) (You hide from the law and live in fear of deportation by “La Migra”.)

    You attend church anyway and partake of the sacrament unworthily as a non-member. You harass the Saints, call them names, belittle them and demand to be a member after taking money for temporary housing and gas money and food from the Bishop’s Storehouse. (You rely on the goodness of others and take advantage of every opportunity you can, to live off of others.)

    You have a child who gets baptized into the church. (You have an “anchor baby”, so you are allowed to stay in the country). Because your child is a member of the church, you can be considered to accept services from the church (food, housing assistance, clothing, etc.). It becomes an “entitlement”.

    This land is a choice land, as long as those who live on it obey the commandments, Otherwise they will be removed from the land (reread Ether 12).

    Back to the metaphor; You do not need to learn “Mormon-speak” and demand that the Saints speak your language. (Se Habla Español” in the USA, instead of learning American English.)

    You demand that you be allowed to attend the temple, even though you have not paid tithing. (Not participated in paying taxes or paid into Social Security). Somehow, you get a temple recommend, because the Saints leadership says it is okay to break the law, dishonoring it is okay, and disobedience is just a phase. The leadership believes you will eventually turn around and repent, after you have enjoyed the fruits of temple worship. Or more perhaps to keep the metaphor going, you really snuck into the temple and have been hiding in there.

    You defile the temple and the temple presidency finally has had enough and throws you out. (The law enforcement officers finally take a stand.) You protest and fly the the flag of Lucifer on the steps of the temple.(You push for Aztlan.) The temple has to be reconsecrated because of your actions. (The citizens rebel and enforce the law against illegal immigration after the country is bankrupted, because of your demands on “social'” services.)

    In spite of everything that has transpired so far, you have some Saints who are going to be apologists and fight the church edicts that anybody can enter the temple, even though it is God’s House.

    I hope you were listening to the legal immigrants from all over the world who were on Glenn Beck’s Immigration program this week.

    One from Poland said that America is like the Ocean filled with fish, The scales on the fish (Legal Citizens) protect them from disease and helps them swim easily through the water. The Citizen fish have been loosing their scales, due to the diseases that have been infiltrating the water (illegal immigration). The fish are dying. The solution is to clean the water and make it healthy again.

    Get rid of the illegal aliens who are committing felonies and otherwise breaking the laws of the land. This is not their land. They have not earned the right to live on it.

    Just as God has His House and only worthy temple recommend holders may enter in, so is this country a sacred land and only those who are Legal Citizens may dwell here. Those who live here legally can help those who are breaking laws to repent (other Citizens) as we teach them the Gospel.

    All laws have consequences. God is not a respecter of persons and His house is not a house of disorder.

    Do I need to begin quoting scripture to get you to understand what I just wrote?

    “There is a law irrevocably decreed from Heaven…”

    We stop chaos and anarchy through more than prayer and fasting. We take a stand for truth and righteousness and do not wink at breaking the law. We become valiant.

  43. Matthew Metcalf says:

    I’ve lived in Texas and Florida, border states. I firmly believe in what
    president West is talking about. We ( existing americans ) are as a
    majority living in sin. Most these people coming here, not to mention
    the ones who are members, tend to be very family oriented. They
    work hard, their sons and daughters learn English, heck their parents
    half of the time can’t get them to speak their native tounge. There
    are always bad apples, but I’ve met and become friends with too many
    good apples t worry about the bad. Everyone deserves a chance to
    make a good honest living, definately deserve to give their children
    a future.

  44. G. West says:

    Thanks for the “backhanded compliment.” Don’t get me wrong. I’m not pushing for the Church to start living the United Order. If you were familiar with the content of my books, you’ll understand that various Church leaders have said that it will become necessary to do so in a time of economic distress. It’ll happen as a result of events in the world.

    One of the observations I made back when I used to teach Seminary, especially teaching the D&C, is that the Lord often hangs out little “nuggets” as bait for us, prompting to us to ask. For example, he told the Saints, if they would gather in Ohio, he would reveal to them “his law” and endow them with power from on high. When they got to Ohio, he revealed section 42, which became known as the “law of the Church.” We all know the marvelous endowment that took place in Kirtland Temple.

    When Section 42 was revealed, it contained another “nugget” or a “teaser” of sorts. The Lord promised that, “If we would ask,” he’d reveal the location of the New Jerusalem. That prompted the Prophet and his associates to ask. That opened the door to Missouri and Zion.

    In D&C 121, the Lord promised knowledge in a future time, whether there be one God or many gods. Perhaps that information led the Prophet to inquire and come to the understanding of the doctrine of plurality of gods, the nature of exaltation, etc.

    The Lord will reveal many things to us, but he expects us to ask. We know that he put out one of those little “teasers” to the Twelve in Jerusalem when he told them about the “other sheep.” They didn’t bother to ask, so he didn’t tell them anything more about the Nephites.

    Section 101, verse 75, tells us that, ” There is even now already in store sufficient, yea, even an abundance, to redeem Zion, and establish her waste places, no more to be thrown down, were the churches, who call themselves after my name, willing to hearken to my voice.”

    My persistent suggestion is that we are looking to the world and its political leaders for solutions to telestial problems. We have access to the Lord and he has no objections whatsoever to any person living the principles of the celestial kingdom now. If we want the Lord’s solutions, we should ask for them and be prepared to accept them. Perhaps we should prepare and ask for Zion to be established instead of continuing to waste our strength as partisans committed to building up Babylon.

  45. Ron Shirtz says:

    “One of the observations I made back when I used to teach Seminary, especially teaching the D&C, is that the Lord often hangs out little “nuggets” as bait for us, prompting to us to ask”

    I found that concept very interesting. It makes good sense. “Here a little, there a little”, like a trail of bread crumbs. I will add that to my store of knowledge, thanks.

    “My persistent suggestion is that we are looking to the world and its political leaders for solutions to telestial problems. We have access to the Lord and he has no objections whatsoever to any person living the principles of the celestial kingdom now. If we want the Lord’s solutions, we should ask for them and be prepared to accept them. Perhaps we should prepare and ask for Zion to be established instead of continuing to waste our strength as partisans committed to building up Babylon.”

    No argument there. I gave up on the arm of flesh long ago. Many think I’m a hopeless, cranky pessimist. But like you, I look to the Lord to make crooked paths straight, and not the corrupted system we have now to set things right. Many think our government can be straighten out with political reforms by voting the bums out.
    I say you cannot put new wine in old bottles. And just so no one misunderstands my meaning, I desire change to come from a divine source, and not by any human armed revolution or reform.

    My concerns with your views is more about the method, than the motive. I guess I desire it to be more plain, more black and white, more declarative. Something a bit more tangible. Guess that makes me a candidate as a doubting Thomas, huh?

  46. Here is a news release I got today. It talks about Senator Bob Bennett UTAH (R) (Mormon) pro-illegal immigration…How does this reflect on our church? How does Harry Reid’s pro-illegal alien beliefs reflect on our church?

    May 11, 2010

    CONTACT: Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC)
    (866) 703-0864

    ALIPAC is commending GOP voters in Utah for removing incumbent US Senator Robert Bennett from public office as his departure deals another critical blow to the radical Comprehensive Immigration Reform Amnesty agenda known as the “Open Borders Lobby”

    Senator Robert Bennett has recently been named by the Obama administration as one of the few Republican Senators, who will support Comprehensive Immigration Reform Amnesty. In 2007, ALIPAC launched a wave of over 1 Million robotic calls into targeted states such as Utah because of Bennett’s flirtations with Amnesty bills S. 1348, S. 1639, and S. 2611.

    Senator Bennett voted for cloture on and for Amnesty bills at least three times in 2007! ALIPAC is happy to see this Amnesty supporting sellout senator removed from office.

    “Senator Bennett was one of the Republicans who special interests in DC could count on to pass an Amnesty bill, which would turn over 12 million illegal immigrants into voters thus destroying any hopes of future immigration controls or borders for the United States,” said William Gheen President of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC. “We are glad to see that Senator Bennett is being removed by his own party and hope they will send someone to Washington who stands with the majority of Americans who favor immigration enforcement instead of Amnesty.”

    ALIPAC has endorsed over 300 Federal campaigns since 2004 and strives to endorse candidates who are aligned with the super majority of Americans who want secure borders and enforcement of our existing immigration laws. Enforcement can lead to a peaceful, gradual, and humane mass exodus of illegal aliens.

    Recent information from the Department of Homeland Security, the Pew Hispanic Center, and the Center for Immigration Studies shows a decline in the illegal alien population of 1 million per year due to the bad economy and increased state level enforcement of immigration laws.

    “The 2010 elections are critical to the survival of the United States and illegal immigration is a core issue,” said William Gheen. “Our theory that illegal immigration can be reversed through enforcement has been proven correct and now we need to throw these treacherous politicians who support Comprehensive Amnesty and Open Borders out of office on a large scale!”

    NumbersUSA gives Senator Robert Bennett a C- on immigration issues for his recent and career grade. Bennett received D’s and F’s for his legislative voting record for supporting Amnesty enticements, unnecessary worker visas, and rewards for illegal immigrants.

    ALIPAC has already endorsed 98 candidates for 2010 and will be making more endorsements in the near future. For more information please visit and sign up for email alerts at


    Paid for by Americans for Legal Immigration AMERICANS FOR LEGAL IMMIGRATION PAC
    Post Office Box 30966, Raleigh, NC 27622-0966
    Tel: (919) 787-6009 Toll Free: (866) 703-0864
    FEC ID: C00405878

  47. Deseretnews placed the following online. Then it linked to MORMON TIMES. See:

    Mormon Media Observer: Mormons and immigration
    Published: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 12:16 a.m. MDT


    I also diid a search of the DESERET NEWS online search for the word IMMIGRATION. The Salt Lake City Newspaper has not been silent on the illegal immigraton matter.
    The GA’s and church leaders definitely get the full spectrum of the controversy in their morning newspaper. These are are few of the 7,300 such articles during the last two years on the topic of immigration:

    The number: 32% — Mexican Immigrants
    Secure the border
    Loyalties have changed
    Let’s control borders
    Napolitano: Ariz. law could stretch fed resources
    Obama says immigration overhaul is essential
    Immigrants need aid
    Obama reverses Bush immigration lawyer rule
    Correction – Immigration report
    Hundreds rally in Salt Lake to protest Arizona law
    The number: 73% — Born in the U.S.
    Immigrants closed door
    Our present immigration laws are not part of the “constitutional law of the land.”
    Report says immigrants put more into economy than take out
    Immigration important to America’s future
    The number: 4% – Illegal immigrants
    Immigration law racist *
    The number: 11% – Mexico to America
    Immigrants avoid jail
    Alien Halloween costume spooks immigrants
    Tucson to sue Arizona over state’s new immigration law
    ‘Immigrant’ children a needy lot
    Immigration enforcement in Arizona could toughen
    Case shows new plan for illegal immigrants
    Immigration ‘reform’ has dismal record
    Immigrant kids under cloud
    Immigration activists diversifying ranks
    Thousands rally for immigration reform
    Chaffetz seeks tough approach on immigration
    Arizona law misguided
    Obama won’t force action on immigration
    Napolitano pronounces US border more secure now
    Open borders for Demos?
    Immigrants go to family
    SUV rollover kills 10 illegal immigrants
    Why oppose SB81?
    Immigration cases at record levels in 2009
    Activists hope Arizona law is catalyst for rallies
    There’s still time to put together immigration reform
    Activists hope Arizona law opposition boosts rallies
    Obama urges Congress to fix ‘broken’ immigration law

    This topic is not going away…Each person needs to form their own opinion and then act on it.

  48. G. West says:

    Ron wrote:

    “My concerns with your views is more about the method, than the motive. I guess I desire it to be more plain, more black and white, more declarative. Something a bit more tangible. Guess that makes me a candidate as a doubting Thomas, huh?”

    Not at all. We all would love to have a nice, clearly marked trail that says “Do this, but don’t do that.” It explains the success and popularity of Pharisees and sectarian Christianity over the centuries.

    Over my years in the Church, I’ve found that to be the lure that Satan uses to pull entire religions into apostasy. Almost every ancient religion seems to have begun with an inspired “oracle” who was simply seeking enlightenment or salvation for his own benefit. He struggled, fasted, prayed, had long periods in the desert, etc. Then finally his answer came. Many were inspired by the light of Christ.

    Others wanted to know the source of the wisdom and these great teachers shared it freely. Then, when they had passed from the scene, it was a natural desire to preserve a written record of some kind to document that knowledge. A priestly class would emerge to preserve the record. Almost always, as the centuries passed, that priestly class aligned itself with the secular government. That arrangement lent moral legitimacy to kings and empires and the association with political power granted protection to the priestly class. Apostasy against the religion made one a traitor to the state and vice versa.

    Inevitably, the priestly class would declare that their prophet or founder would be the last one God would ever send. Their book was the only record of that revelation. Since God would never speak again, the book became a substitute for God himself.

    Whenever God sent a new prophet to correct the situation, he faced an entrenched orthodoxy in league with the state. This is what happened to prophets like Jeremiah and Daniel. It happened with John the Baptist and Jesus. It happened with Joseph Smith. In fact, you can even see it a similar pattern in Islam, and Sikhism.

    Phariseeism (both ancient and modern) is the natural outgrowth of a human desire to box in God and draw boundaries for him. Living prophets and continuing revelation always seem to be an affront to it.

    The Great Apostasy largely occurred because ancient saints wanted something in writing and not living oracles who constantly stirred up the pot. It’s human nature. We want God do be predictable. How many investigators reject the Book of Mormon when they get to where Nephi has to kill Laban. They reject it because they can’t imagine that a God who commanded, “thou shalt not kill” would ever tell someone to kill. Of course we have examples in the Bible where God commands Israelites to destroy their enemies. But on an individual, personal level, Nephi’s story is very instructive. Sometimes God challenges the very elect to see if they’ll do whatever he commands them. That challenge usually comes to a person through direct revelation, not in writing.

    I appreciate your comments and hope I haven’t come across as dismissive of them. When we anticipate having the Lord school us through personal revelation, it is often unnerving. It is perhaps the greatest privilege that is available to us, to be tested and tutored by the Holy Spirit himself. But, it sure ain’t easy when it comes to us!

  49. melli50 says:

    I for one learned a great deal from this discussion. I thank all of you for your insights. Thanks to you, Brother West, for your patience. I think I get it now and can finally get my heart around the Book of Mormon prophecy and policy of the church on immigration. Rather than putting all my energies into man’s laws I can effect more change in my own life and in my country by standing in holy places and living and sharing the gospel.

  50. MC says:

    Some thoughts after reading the comments

    1) It seems Americans, in general, tend to use the term illegal immigrant/alien synonymously with dangerous criminal and/or welfare sponge. It would help the discussion if we distinguished between the two and articulated wherein our real frustration is- in the lack of government enforcement of immigration laws that results in violent criminals coming here freely and returning after being deported. If the government would make it easy for anyone to come here as long as they identified themselves and then deported the criminals and kept them out I do not see any problem with immigration. If government wasn’t in the business of welfare in the first place it wouldn’t be an issue. The real problem is the government.

    2) I understand that being here illegally is the equivalent of a misdemeanor. If you had a misdemeanor traffic violation would the church deny you baptism or a temple recommend? I know the two are not exactly the same but I am trying to view the situation from the position of the church to try and gain understanding.

    3) To my Hispanic brothers and sisters – I love you and appreciate your contributions in the church, I believe that most LDS in North America would agree.

  51. Yep, this is why we denounce illegal Immigration as being unlawful;

  52. Paumea Horton McKay says:

    Kia Ora Greg (More Godly Life to you) Maori (Native greetings from New Zealand!) I am a descendent of Lehi (Our Maori History (whakapapa) names him (Lehi) as Angi Angi Te Tu (translation Angi Angi means thin as in veil of the temple is thin Tu means to stand! Concept! The veil between the stander (person standing before thin veil that separates man and God! His son Nephi Angi Angi Te Rangi (Heavens)! The veil between this man and the heavens is thin!)
    Our name for America is Hawaiiki Roa or The Long Hawaiiki or long land( It stretches almost from the north to the south pole!) I am ex NZSAS (Special Forces) trained in Unorthodox (socio-economic physiological political warfare!
    After honorable discharge I “served” a full time Mission in Hong Kong and Philippines and I still believe)
    Your pre-amble is absolutely brilliant! Let the enquirer challenge your opinions with reasoned responses! As a Maori we naturally practiced “Communism” or (socialism) I deliberately choose to use those two words!
    In all your getting “get understood” says my Dad when I was 13yrs old (1953) Son if you wish to get understanding you must “define your terms” Words) and then agree on those terms or word usage! If you cant agree then you have no dialogue and therefore understanding to effect changes if changes were desired!
    Here is my take on “Living Godly Communism or in my terms The United Order!! Firstly my knowledge and understanding of Karl Marx’ and his Communism! (1) Karl Marx was a Jew! He knew or was intellectually aware of the Socio-Economic-political system given by God to his (Marx’s) people (of which Judah was only one 12th) (2) Karl Marx was also an Atheist!
    This modern Maori descendant of Joseph is a Deist and a Thiest! Karl Marx left out the God Principle! Joseph Smith did not and neither do we Maori today! This Socio-Political Economic system went with the Anglo-Saxons (Saxons are Isaac’s Sons who was led by Moses out of bondage and was finally lost in The Great Apostacy and momentarily restored by God via Joseph Smith!
    It didn’t work amongst you gentiles as it had been forgotten longer amongst you where as we Polynesians practiced it until the gentiles (colonialists) forced us to abandon it!
    Because they gentiles like Karl Marx and too many LDS today Do not acknowledge that! The earth is the Lords in the fulness thereof and (We Tenants in common are the “stewards” (Kaitiaki in Maori) I the Lord God has “prepared enough and to spare” (to satisfy each according to his needs and wants)
    We Maori and Amerindians (prior to colonization (Im Maori-Anglo Saxon McKay) are the natural believing blood of Israel; whose Blood has been sprinkled amongst the Japethites (gentiles) who did not have the written laws as we did, that’s why we are getting “punished’ today because our ancestors chose or were tricked (by Satan) to rebel against the God of our forefathers Jehovah or Jesus Christ whom we Maori call Rongo Ma Tane (The Man/God or Prince of Peace!)
    So to all bloggers! I declare that! This particular truth! That we are the :children of God” is the foundation of all truth and until we look at each other in that light we will fail to treat our brothers and sisters with love and kindness and fail to reap the light of Christ or the promises of the Holy Ghost to bring to our remembrances of who we are and recognize that Our Heavenly Father waits patiently for us to Look up to him for a way through all the problems!
    Until recently I was a Primary teacher (11 year olds) I had four pictures which I kept constantly before my class! (1) Picture of Christ dressed in Robes Red (That’s how he will appear at his second comming (2) Jesus Knocking on the Door! (I tell An art critic said what a useless artist he forgot to paint a handle on the Door! Replies the Artist! The handle is on the inside; Jesus can only knock!
    I ask! Since Jesus can make the red Sea stand up and bow its head as our people escape death; Since he has power to destroy cities (Sodom and Gomorrah) Doe he have the “power’ to smash down the door!
    Answer yes! of course! I teach that God is God because he chooses to obey all the Laws of The Universe He chooses to only knock! It’s our choice to open the door and invite him in! (3) Picture of Jesus talking to “little children”
    Except we become as a little child …we will not be able to hear what Jesus has to say regarding Illegal Immigrants et al and how best to act as Good Stewards to our bro and sis who may be escaping running from a poorly Stewarded Country to one which has a constitution which was Preapared by the “Property Owner” (God) for the protection of ALL All All (not some some some but ALL ALL ALL) of my children!
    (4) A Picture of “my” Yes my my my “Servant Leader” washing the dirty trail sore feet of his students! (like them I’m still learning) Master said Peter not just my feet but all over!!! Said Albert Einstein! Are we not all the children of the one Father!
    Einstein also stated! Man was not created to rule but to serve! I quote Einstein because he was a Man of The Mind and so are we all!
    Just think! We move our bodies by our minds! Everything you see about you from the tiniest micro-chip to a Mighty Aircraft carrier or Titan Space Rocket is the “frozen expression” of an “Idea” and ideas originate in “The Mind” So when one sees Love Kisses and cuddles, rapine murder, or a beatiful landsacaped park or magnificient cathedral or grass hut! All these things originated in Some Ones mind! (Steven Covey We have four characteristics that “other” animals do not have (1 Conscience (2 Imagination (3 Intelligence (4 Self Awareness which makes us uniquely human! A possible 5th is humour Light heartedness as apposed to light mindedness! Humour injects endorphines (good mood changing chemicals) into the brain!
    So ill conclude with a joke or maybe even two! This Mormon Elder loved to hunt and fish which involved Saturday and Sunday expeditions! Thus he became totally inactive! Not hostile but enjoyment just for him!
    One Sunday out hunting he suddenly realized that he was no longer the hunter but the hunted! He was being stalked by his intended prey! Knowing full well his inactivity and on the Sabbath Day and all!
    In desperation he called upon God to save him from immanent death! Oh God he quietly and disparately intoned in a hushed whisper so not to give his presence away to his stalking enemy! Oh God I know I’m not worthy to ask you for help! I know I should have attended to those things I covenanted to do!
    I know I don’t deserve you help; so I won’t ask you to help me God but oh please please Do Not Help The Bear!
    Sequel! He looks up and sees the Bear also kneeling as if in the attitude of prayer and says “Are you Praying too! No says the Bear I’m saying grace!.. Paumea McKay
    KIa Ora Greg “a self-professed “opinionated blowhard,” Mormon activist, author, blogger, husband, father of five, grandfather, musician, and computer geek. He is the national LDS examiner for His books and blog posts are available on his website, the Society for the Prevention of Anti-Mormonism”.

    • Paumea Horton McKay says:

      Kia Ora All. Error in last blog. Steven Covey four characteristics remove Intelligence (animals have intelligence). Replace with Independent Will. Jenni Foni is my neice. I married an American girl (Kathleen Mary Schall) from Pensylvania. She joined the church end of 1968 several months after I returned from my full time service in the Southern Far East Mission headquartered in Hong Kong where I was a Branch president until I was transferred to the Phillipine Zone when the Red Guards rioted end of 1967. Her forbears fought in the Revolutionary War. During my military service 1960-65 (1 Ranger Squadron NZ Special Air Service) we were teamed with the American Special Forces. As a non American I knew more about the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (I believe) than all the Americans that I served with during my two years (1957-59) full time NZ Temple College Labour Mission my six months (1962) with the American Special Forces and the 25th Wolf Hound Lightning Brigade stationed in Hawaii and my (for several years) until my American wife learned it from me. and now as I read these blogs I discover that, too you many of you so called “I love America, Land of The Free. Lite on The Hill Americans are ignorant of those most sacred writings. Too many of you don’t even know your history even down until this present day. That is my personal experience and I hope you don’t feel affronted by my voicing that experience. I as a non white Maori descendant of Joseph, the heir apparent to Jacob have a slight envy of you who were born within the immediate Jurisdiction of those most sacred documents. Even now I feel a very deep love of their contents. You see we Maori were colonized by the British King and still today come under the Jack Boot of their evil Feudalistic anti Christian Political tyranny. Your American Forebears paid with their precious blood to maintain unalienable God given rights for all of us (Not just for you who just happened to be born in that particular country) Where much is received much more is expected: Too many of you have never learned or never experienced or perhaps have forgotten the personal pains of your forebears immigration to that land. You have never experienced the awful pains of Mormons being subjected to extermination and pains of the pioneer plains. You today have fattened your selves upon the blood sweat and tears and the real wealth (natural resources) of my fellow Lehites (Amerindians) from the tip of Alaska to the straights of Magellan You and I mean savagely with bitter disappointment you have not spent one little drop of blood or taken one little moment to reflect upon the real intent of those sacred documents. Wake up Americans. Specially you Temple Robed High Priests who cross to the otherside of the trail to avoid a neer dead man set upon by the ungodly. You Temple Robed High Priests who sit comfortably in your P/Hood Quorums Pontificating upon The Parable of The Good Samaritans. Do you have the courage of that LDS German Priest Hlmuht Heubener The youngest (17 years old) person ever to be executed by the Nazis. He was so young that even the gestapo remonstrated and tried to get him some other penalty rather than beheading. He was execomunicated for violating the Twelfth Articles of Faith. We believe in being subject to Kings Presidents Rulers and magistrates IN IN IN obeying honoring and sustaining the law. Pakeha (english) is not my mother tongue so you LDS who insist that if I come to America I must (thats a threat of force) learn to speak english. Go and check the constuction of the twelfth Article of faith. Yes I will subject myself to any and every King President Ruler Magistrate IN obeying honoring and sustaining the law and if he wants to gas six million jews or exterminate mormons, or jehovah witnesses I refuse my consent to sustain him IN that activity. We fought a war in heaven around that very principle. God will force no man to heaven he’ll call persuade direct aright bless with wisdom love and light in nameless ways be good and kind but never force the human mind. Freedom and reason have made us men take these away what are we then, Mere animals and just as well. For ee’n animals may think of heaven and hell. Not too long ago a team of American Engineers visited our shores with a power point program that demonstrated that 911 was an Inside job. When I saw those Towers collapsing (imploding) so neatly I immediately recognised military disciplined placed explosives. After their presentation and a Q&A session I said to them. My military experience agrees with your program. I can also get another power point program that would pursuance the audience to the opposite opinion. I believe that you should have as a last frame the opening stanzas od the Declaration of Independence. Where in a the very first paragraph All men were created equal and endowed by their creator……. Back to those of you temple robed soft couch air conditioned popcorn munching puppets of prejudice stop pontificating upon so called riff raff that in your opinion are about to do to you what you have already done to their forebears when you saw THIS GREAT LAND and took it from their forebears. (remember the American Mexican War). You invaded their land. Unless you repent God is going to use these same people to re-invade their ancestral lands. Some of you complain that these illegal dole bludgers are sucking of your wealth. It’s not yours it’s our Fathers. You have the stewardship to work out ways and means for me to recieve my equity share of my fathers estates. You talk about paying taxes to build the roads and schools etc. You don’t build roads with taxes you build it with real wealth created by our father and converted by our energy (Brain and muscle) into user friendly roads etc. Money is simply a lawful claim for goods and services it’s utility is to facilitate distribution. You get a note from the Bishop and you gom tom the storehouse and exchange it for real waelth. Your Government was bankrubted to a Private Corporation The Federal Reserve Bank and by executive order (Roosevelt 1933: You all became collateral for the huge debt. That Exec Order means that all debts are prepaid everything is free. Christ literally paid the ransom At One Ment Atonement. Google up Walker Todd Affidavitt and learn. Also Tuscaroran Sovereign Trust Bank which links you to Magic Bank.
      I apologise for my terse remarks. We learned in our unorthodox warfare training of the WASP Paradigm which posited that White Anglo Saxon Protestants are Gods gift to the world mandated by divine decree to Christianize (Protestantize) the black brown (non white) heathens and civilize them to be hewers of wood and carriers of waters for their masters. I hear much of that coming through from too many of you for me to miss. Forever learning but never coming to an understanding of the truth. Go read the Declaration of Independence. Go pick up that tattered Constitutution and use it as for the very first reason it was mooted. That is to Protect We The People from our Government. Because you have been lazying in your easily obtained wealth you not held your Public Servants to count. So now they think or at least act as if they are the Sovereign Masters and We The People are their subjects. The other crime these Public Servants have committed is to create a Legal Fiction Person to achieve legally what their conscience refuses them lawfully. But thats another subject for another time. In the meantime. I mean every thing I have written and please forgive me if my words seem to be mean. If they will cause anyone to really examine his paradigms and measure them against outcomes. If you like the outcome give it heaps which is a choice. if you dont like the results. refuse it. Another choice. Over to you Kia Ora all. Paumea McKay

  53. Andrew says:

    This too has been an enlightening read for me. I am a professor who has studied Mexican- US immigration for many years. I work with thousands of Latinos across the country and I freely ask about documentation. I have to admit I am biased. I love these brothers and sisters dearly as I do my own family, they are the children of God we sing about at church too.

    Many of these men and women have come to my aid when I had no one to call on. They have lost work to be able to help my family in need. I love”MC”s comments that there are different types of illegals. Surely we have all dealt with a rotten apple or two even in our own church congregations.

    I know the Lord looketh on the heart and it is all going to work out in the Lords time. I am patient for things to work there way out, and maybe just maybe our church leaders have this long range vision that things will work out for these undocumented folks, maybe they even know the timeline, they are prophets. So I say lets focus on what we can do to make our communities safe and wholesome, starting in our own families.

    Just as an aside. Over the last ten years I have collected the reports from both sides of the issue (I literally have thousands of scholarly and lay articles), some talking of the actual economic advantage having undocumented folks in our country others reporting exactly the opposite, etc. I also take part in the demographic research alongside my colleagues who have made some of these very opposing claims about medicaid, social security, TANF, etc. I also know that depending on the way the question is asked, the sample gathered, the data analyzed, many flaws enter into the data. There is no doubt border states are hit hard. I grew up in Texas and I know first hand it is a battleground in some places, but still 98% of the Mexicans I grew up knowing were not the types of folks described in some comments in this post.

    I know it sounds like I sold out to the Liberals, but I consider myself more a tea party follower, I love America, I love the Constitution, I love the words of the prophets. I just hope to be able to understand and really love one another and not be divided as a church over laws of men. I have gotten my share of speeding tickets and I’m not proud of that, but they don’t define who I am. They are something I did. Though it seems like a stretch many of my undocumented friends would gladly return and many have, but many find it impossible to provide for their families in their countries, thanks to NAFTA, CAFTA, and the like. We subsidized the price of corn here in the states and put their farms out of business. You can hardly find Mexican grown corn in Mexico today. Crazy huh…

    Well l understand the frustration of those who have to deal day in and day out with this frustrating issue. My prayers go out to you and I really hope that you will be at peace with the imperfections of those around you. I really hope others will be patient with my frailties.

  54. Lauren says:

    Actually MC you are incorrect, being in the country illegally is a FELONY! A felony is definitely considered a serious crime.

  55. Ben says:

    There are lots of straw men arguments here and ignorance of principles. As I see it, immigration laws reject three basic principles
    1) Love thy neighbor
    2) Inherent and inalienable rights
    3) Free market economic principles

    Greg, I have been thinking about this EXACT thing recently and have come to many of the same conclusions that you have. I will be writing something shortly together with Shiloh Logan on the matter.
    I might add one point to your scripture chase: Alma 44:5 states:

    5 And now, Zerahemnah, I command you, in the name of that all-powerful God, who has strengthened our arms that we have gained power over you, by our faith, by our religion, and by our rites of worship, and by our church, and by the sacred support which we owe to our wives and our children, by that liberty which binds us to our lands and our country; yea, and also by the maintenance of the sacred word of God, to which we owe all our happiness; and by all that is most dear unto us—

    The phrase “that liberty which binds us to our lands” is fascinating to me. The concept that liberty binds us to the land fits very well with 2 Ne 1 which states that we will be a free people if we serve God. It follows that when we no longer espouse liberty, we will find that we are no longer “bound” to the land by natural laws. We will find that the Lord “will bring other nations unto [us]” to possess the land. This is what I see happening. We have rejected liberty in favor of socialism. As such, our welfare state has acted as a subsidy for immigration, creating a problem where none need exist naturally.
    The solution is a return to liberty, and we will find that it will bind us to the land. We will not worry about immigration because those who come will do so to work, not freeload. Those who come will come because they are likewise bound and drawn to this land by liberty. We ought to not forget the commandment to love our neighbors. We ought not to deny the existence of inherent and inalienable rights that belong to “all flesh”. We also ought not to do away with principles of free enterprise which are economic laws that naturally govern the immigration of people.

  56. The issue is not going to go away. See what Rep. Stephen Sandstrom, R-Orem had to say regarding the illegal immigration-friendly activities in Utah –

    “Utah is seen as state that welcomes illegal immigrants. We almost encourage it with driving privilege cards and in-state tuition for illegals,” Sandstrom told the Salt Lake Tribune. “With Arizona making the first step in this direction, Utah needs to pass a similar law or we will see a huge influx of illegals. The real issue is just establishing a rule of law in our state.”

  57. What would happen if 20 million illegal immigrants went home?

    Tina Griego wrote this 10/25/2007;

  58. ‘In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language.. And we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.’

    President Theodore Roosevelt 1907

  59. G. West says:

    Robert said: “What would happen if 20 million illegal immigrants went home?”

    The home teaching in my branch would drop about 50 percent! These brethren carry the work forward in our area to a large degree, Perhaps I have an exceptional bunch of “possibly undocumented” brethren, but all of them are full-tithe payers, all of them come to service projects, and do the heavy lifting that our more elderly brethren are too fragile to do. They are a blessing to us!

    If I was going to select a poster-child for the principle of self-reliance, I’d select one of them!

  60. MC says:


    I actually still think I am correct that illegal immigration is not a felony, unless you have been deported and return or have previously been convicted of a crime and are still here. And yes I realize that this means many here are felons, but many are not. A google search pulled up many articles reporting that proposals to make illegal immigration a felony did not pass.

  61. Lauren says:

    In Arizona and a few other states as well I believe, it is a felony to be in the country illegally. More than ten other states are preparing bills that are nearly identical to SB 1070 and so there is a good chance that illegal immigration will be a felony in many other states as well. Also, it’s important to remember that entering the country illegally aren’t the only laws these people have broken, it is a FELONY to steal someone’s identity. 1 in 4 Arizonans have had their identities stolen, so that’s an awful lot of people breaking that law- most of whom are illegal. It’s also fraudulent to collect state benefits intended for citizens as an illegal, yet most of them do. Now you might think that any crime that’s a misdemeanor isn’t a serious crime but I would disagree- in Arizona and in most other states DUI is a misdemeanor, even extreme DUI (.15 BAC) and Super Extreme DUI (.20 BAC). Just because illegal immigration isn’t a felony in some states doesn’t mean that it isn’t a serious crime, and when you combine it with identity theft, defrauding tax payers, driving without a license, unlawfully working in the U.S. you’ve racked up a series of VERY SERIOUS CRIMES.

  62. Renzo says:

    Mathew 12;10-14
    And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him.
    And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out?
    How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days.
    Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other.
    Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him.

    “he among you who support the deportation of illegal immigrants, let them have counsel and expell them of the land. for we know that he who has broken the law of the land has his punishment”
    does this conventional mentality referenced in the above paragraph support the teaching of compassion that Jesus Christ taught in the new testament?

  63. Jenni Foni says:

    I am from New Zealand, and 13 years ago my husband and I were fasting for a family that were being taught by the missionaries, my husband was the Ward Mission Leader.
    While we were fasting we received revelation that we were invited by the Lord to go to USA. From that moment on we started selling up everything we owned, paid off all our debts, said our goodbyes to our really upset families, packed 1 bag each, brought our tickets and left our home New Zealand. This took us 3 years to do… we have been here now for 10 years this October, we don’t know why the lord wanted us here, and we brought 5 of our 8 children with us. So far 4 of them have all graduated High School, our last child graduates this June, 2 have married and found their companions, 1 is serving a Mission in Idaho and 2 of my kids want to go to college, but they can’t, so they are home schooling themselves, is this the reason Heavenly Father wants us here…I don’t know!!. We claim nothing from the Government, we have no drivers licenses, and we have no SS#’s….we serve faithfully in our callings at church, and through our talents, we work and get paid cash, we pay no taxes, and as stated by the Constitution of America, it is against the law to pay taxes. I’ve studied The Constitution of America, the Declaration of Independence, and The Bill of Rights, and we are living free in the Lords land, abiding the Law of the Land, and Gods Laws.
    We are all Heavenly Fathers children, our Founding Fathers were inspired by God, and I believe that we have a right as Gods children to live free on this land. Tell me what laws have we broken??, who’s rights have we infringed upon??. Our Heavenly Father gave us Free Agency, and we choose to bring as many people to the knowledge of our Freedom and rights. We have made Covenants to follow in the footsteps of the Saviour . We are Peacemakers, the Lord said ‘Blessed are the PEACEMAKERS for they shall be called THE CHILDREN of GOD!!. It’s really sad to see big corporations putting in place statutes and laws that bound and restrict us (taking away your free agency to be able to Govern yourself). What rights do these corporations have when they put up borders and then say that the Lords people can not enter into his land!!. Who is to say that they weren’t invited here by the Lord like we were….maybe this is the reason why Heavenly Father wanted us here….maybe!!!

    • Nunn says:

      How do you reconcile your “revelation” with official Church doctrine and policy which forbids such blatant violation of the laws of this land and disrespect for the U.S. Constitution as you have described? God DOES respect international boundaries and laws and expressly expects us to do the same. You do misread the scripture.

  64. We have been taught in the D&C that we as Saints need to defend ourselves and protect our families.

    When we allow those who break the law into our society, we suffer the consequences.

    Here is one individual that has been deported 9 times and he came back to rape in WA State.

    Here is what happens when there is no respect for the land in the Arizona desert –

    How bad is it? Here in Richland, WA we had a mexican mother come into a clinic for a checkup of her child by a Chinese doctor about 2 weeks ago. She was given a bag of free products and a prescription. The mexicana spoke very broken English and was given an hour of the good doctor’s time. She left and came back and told the doctor that she would be reported for not having a bilingual receptionist (Spanish-speaking) and that it was illegal to not have one and this would give her more customers if she did so. The female Chinese doctor then went out to the parking lot and asked to see the prescription she had just given the Mexicana. She tore it up and took the bag of goodies back as well, after stating that she came to this country at age 20 and did not know English. She learned it, became a citizen and became a doctor. She told the Mexicana to learn English and become a citizen and told her point blank to never, ever come back to her Clinic again.

    America is a melting pot. Learn the language and get assimulated and do not threaten us with forced bilingualism.

    When in Norwalk, CT in 2001 I was in a Spanish branch. The Ward Clerk did not know English and I helped him learn the membership program on the computer. I also taught English as a 2nd language at the branch building during the week using the Book of Mormon as the text. I also helped members get naturalized who were here on refugee status. It is do-able.

    In Texas not too long ago a town decided to go all English. Crime of all kinds went down and instead of stores loosing business, they had more sales and a much nicer shopping experience.

    Here in the TriCities, WA the flea market is little mexico. You could buy anything – if you spoke Spanish. The former computer store in Kennewick, WA was used as a computer reseller of old computer stuff, including 10-year old Macs for astronomical prices. You had to pay $7 to get in the door and nobody, but nobody spoke English. It was a Mexican bazaar. A total rip-off.

    In a former job I took, I was required to speak Spanish to serve the customers who for the most part, only spoke Spanish (DishTV installer). The manager of the office was a (former) Mexican who treated us all like dirt and was a scoff-law. He was not interested in customer service. I was. That is what landed my current job.

    Here is what is happening when we do not protect our borders. It is not just illegal Spanish-speaking folks who are hell-bent on destroying us –

    According to the Border Patrol the public is being mislead as to WHO is
    coming into the US from Mexico. This IS THE TRUTH, as reported by WSBTV in

    Video 1

    Video 2

  65. BEn says:

    The last paragraph is sadly mistaken.
    IN fact the modern day prophets such as Bruce r Mcconkie and more recently Russel M Nelson have told the saints in Mexico to stay in Mexico and build the kingdom there, the saints in peru to stay in peru and build the kingdom there. It was in 2009 or 2008 general conference. Surely prophetic as I hope there are no illegally latter day saints from any country here in the US. If they are they are no listening to the prophets.
    THe saints believe in honoring and sustaining the laws of the land.
    Your article almost made sense but you through in the last part very sad

  66. Old news from WoldNetDaily:

    A 2006 congressional report on border threats, titled “A Line in the Sand: Confronting the Threat at the Southwest Border” and prepared by the House Committee on Homeland Security Subcommittee on Investigations, indicated that 1.2 million illegal aliens were apprehended in 2005 alone, and 165,000 of those were from countries other than Mexico.

    Approximately 650 were from “special interest countries,” or nations the Border Patrol defines as “designated by the intelligence community as countries that could export individuals that could bring harm to our country in the way of terrorism.”

    The State Department lists the following as “special-interest countries”: Afghanistan, Algeria, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Yemen.

    Warning of an “ever-present threat of terrorist infiltration over the Southwest border,” the congressional report notes:

    U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement investigations have revealed that aliens were smuggled from the Middle East to staging areas in Central and South America, before being smuggled illegally into the United States.

    Members of Hezbollah have already entered the United States across the Southwest border.

    U.S. military and intelligence officials believe that Venezuela is emerging as a potential hub of terrorism in the Western Hemisphere. The Venezuelan government is issuing identity documents that could subsequently be used to obtain a U.S. visa and enter the country.

    • Sounds like good ‘ole government failure: failure to make legal immigration easier and failure to prevent illegal immigration. Why are we still looking to government to solve a problem they’ve not only created, but can’t resolve? How about a return to principles, those that guided the country before the federal government got unconstitutionally involved in immigration.

  67. Renzo says:

    Missouri Governor Lilburn Boggs issued in October 27th, 1838 executive order called “the Extermination order” which partly reads as follows:
    “…open and avowed defiance of the laws, and of having made war upon the people of this State … the Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State if necessary for the public peace—their outrages are beyond all description.”
    This order was not repealed until up to 1976 by Governor Christopher Bond.
    the above referenced statement is a good great exmaple for all those Phareesis that cry themselves patriots & Americans to uphold the law of the land. what similarities can we draw on these acts of out flat discrimination to the issue of illegal immigration? dont these people have families? have we not learned to have compassion for others? the fact of the matter sjust there is so much gargabe in the media with made up statistics and figures and reports that exacerbate the emotions of the people of the land against other human being just like them. i fully embrace the article writen above for which is a good interpretation of the things to come due to the hardness of heart of the gentile.

  68. PAJ says:

    A gross misunderstanding of the Constitutional provisions on immigration is what has led this once great nation to the brink of being a 3rd world country. And if the truth be known, I suspect that the misinterpretation was intentional. Read on…

    14th Amendment
    1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    In the first sentence of section 1 of the 14th amendment, it clearly infers that anyone born in the USA, who is also subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, is to be considered a citizen of the United States and of the State wherein he/she resides. The language used indicates that one could be born in the USA, but NOT be subject to its jurisdiction. Were it not so, the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” would not be necessary. I submit that in order to be born in the USA and be subject to its jurisdiction (the two prerequisites for citizenship), the child must be born to a woman who is a citizen of the United States either through birth or by naturalization. This is what it means to be “subject” to the jurisdiction of the United States. Hence, all children born to parents who are not citizens of the United States are not and cannot be citizens of the United States under the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The official interpretation of the 14th amendment on this matter is grossly inappropriate and has allowed millions of people – the fruits of illegal immigration – to become citizens of this country and to effectively alter the political, economic, religious, and moral fabric of this once great nation. If our so-called leaders cannot properly interpret the Constitution (and they can’t), then we are doomed. A nation that wishes to be both free and ignorant seeks that which has never been and cannot be. And so it is.


    P.S. It is pure insanity to believe that someone can illegally (that means to commit a crime) enter the United States, have a child, and to have that child reap the vast benefits of being a U.S. Citizen. And yet, that is exactly what has been happening in the USA. This nation is not being defeated by War or Terrorism, but by Conquest from within by the fruits of invasion.

  69. Pepper says:

    I agree with you on one point…… that this scourge of godless/ruthless Mexicans who are for socialism/communism and terrorism (whether they are Lamanites or not is still debatable especially after the DNA Evidence shows that the Lehites were in North America-Rod Meldrum. That Israel DNA has NOT been found in Mexico or Central America) is because WE have stopped serving God. If we had served Him, we would have secured our borders (ample evidence in the BOM that God believes in borders AND He believes in lawful migration) from the threats that now face us.

    If you had been here in AZ and seen all the La Raza, MEChA rhetoric, claiming WE are the ones who are racists, you might think differently about those who are taking a stand against illegal immigration. The Mexicans are now trying to get the American Indians involved in their agenda. I believe they are the true Lamanites who will go through and tread down…I think the Mexicans, just like other Nations (Nations from the North–Isaiah) are a/going to be a major consequence of our allowing a breakdown of the Law God instituted.

    My DIL has legally migrated here from DR, so I am not ignorant to the process nor the need to have a better life, but if WE as Americans had been the “light upon a hill that cannot be hid” instead of aiding and abetting communist ideology, other oppressive nations would have lost their power. Now we have “lost our salt” what is left for the world to “savor” when we are embracing their doctrine?

    No, we should not just let it happen and accept that as prophecy. Just like all prophecy it is conditional upon our repentence. We need to REPENT of not protecting this great land! This is the reason this is happening too many members being apathetic…I wonder what Pres. Benson would say to us today if he were here…I kind of have an idea since I am re-reading An Enemy Hath Done This”

  70. Pepper says:

    One last point: In Section 87:4-5 talks about the slaves will rise up against their master’s…this in not talking about the Civil War, but future slaves such as ourselves who are slaves to the Government and their taxation. I feel like a slave to the illegals when they are not held to obey laws, but I am kept strictly held to them. They do feel like the masters when they have a free pass to everything.

  71. Nick says:

    Shame on the lilburn boggs senator of out time in Arizona. The cry of the house of Jacob(the lamanites) will come agaisnt us, If we keep messing with these people. This issue in our times reminds me to the house of israel who were an abomination to the Egyptians. Despite of the Egyptian’s persecution. the Israelites grew mightier and in numbers. It just seems we can’t learn nothing from history

  72. Ron Shirtz says:

    Fred Reed makes some practical points on the immigration issue.

  73. Pepper says:

    A reply on number 67 Jenni F.

    Wow, as I read your post, I was shocked! So Jenni how did you come into this country? Our 2nd Counselor in our Stake Presidency is from New Zealand and I have talked with him at length about his migration here to the US. They had a similar experience except that they knew that the Lord required them to do it legally.

    I do believe that the Lord lead you here, but I do not believe for one second that he inspired you to do it illegally. Whether you snuck in somehow or you got a visa and then over-stayed, I do not believe that the Lord has inspired you to do that.

    My son married a gal from the Dominican Republic and at no time did either of them feel that it was appropriate to lie on the visa application about what her intent was. She came here on a K3 in 11/2008 and has to do a “change of status” by 11/2010. That means that she is in the process of doing a changing status and it has been a challenge in this economy to earn the $1010.00 to do that, but never at any time during these past months have they ever felt to lie to keep her here. So I am curious why the Lord singled you out to be able to come here and then not follow through with residency when all the people I know who have migrated (which are many) have all felt to do it legally and take an oath to obey the Laws?

    You have asked how you are infringing on us Americans, let me ask a few more questions:

    You said that your children graduated from HS? Was this a publicly funded school or did you pay tuition to a private school that does not use public funds? And if it was private, wow how fortunate you were to have all that extra money because you don’t pay taxes (BTW which is in the Constitution as a means to help defend this country…so it is legal) to send them to those kinds of schools while the rest of us have to budget and or pay taxes even if we homeschool our kids.

    You said that your children are homeschooling themselves, do they or have you ever used the Public Library? Those libraries were bought and paid for by tax dollars from the citizens of your city and continue to be.

    Have you ever needed a police officer or fireman or been to the Hospital?Even if you have not needed them, they are paid for by the public funds in case you ever do. Without the public funds there would be none of the above only if they were privately bought and paid for like a hospital.

    Have you ever gone to a public park? Those are maintained by homeowners and taxpayers. If you have ever visited a National Park, you can thank the tax payers for that wonderful visit you had with your family.

    How are you able to get electricity, water and housing without legal documents or are those things in someone elses name?

    How do you get around your city? You said you do not have DL…I am hoping you mean that you do not own a car and do not drive…So, do you use the public transit system that was bought and paid for by the Citizens of your city/state? Or do you use your feet and/or a bike? And yes if you have not gotten the drift, those streets you use, were paid and are maintained by the tax paying Citizens of your city….so you are not shouldering the burden of even getting around, even on bike trails…. I am sure the citizens of your City really appreciate all the contributions you make.

    Since, you are not pulling your fair share of the tax burden Locally or Nationally, all of us who are Citizens ARE shouldering the tax burden from all those illegals who ARE using the system, of which you can see you benefit from.

    Since you are not paying taxes you are also not doing anything to pay for the DEFENSE of this Country that you believe God wants you to live in. ( This reminds me of the People of Ammon who came into the Nephite Lands and by covenant, supported the Armies by raising crops and giving to them as their part of living in a free land) Since you are not here legally and neither are your children, your sons would never be called up to have to defend us if it came to a draft. My two sons who are 19 and 23 would be (and willing) to go and defend this country while you and your children are free to live in God’s Land.

    I dont know if you know that our church has told us that we are responsible to pay taxes even though the IRS and all the extra taxes were never ratified. So, if the church that you so faithfully serve, has made sure that all of us in the USA know we need to pay our taxes, what makes you think that you have the Lord’s blessing to live here “free” as you have so stated?

    I dont mean to offend but what you said is offensive. What you have stated is a mockery to God and to all of us who ARE abiding by the laws that are both just and unjust. This kind of justification for you blatant disregard for Law, all in the name of inspiration, leaves me feeling sick about the mindset of some Latter-day Saints. What kind of example is that for your children? When teaching the gospel how do you teach honesty, obedience to God and to the Law’s? When it comes to temple recommend questions how can you answer in the affirmative that you are honest, when clearly you are not being so. Do you know why, because as you can see from my questions, you do use “things” in this land to make your life enjoyable and easier while you ARE infringing (Pres Benson called it “stealing”) from those whom you claim are your brothers and sisters. To take from ones property through taxes is stealing…you benfit from the taxes of the Citizens and Denizens of this country.

    How do you teach your children the 13 Articles of faith…do you just skip over 12 and tell them, this does not apply to you because for some reason you’re special or chosen and are above certain laws?

    When I went over to DR for my Son’s wedding, I was exptected to live all the laws. I would never mock those people acting like I had rights that they did not have. it is offensive to pretend that you are somehow more choice than all of us who have lived in this country our whole lives or have been naturalized or change of status, lived the laws, paid our taxes and done our part to protect the Constitution. They are not your Founding Fathers because you do not comprehend nor appreciate the sacrifices involved. They are our Founding Fathers and UNTIL you make yourself right in this country you have no claim on them. I would never go into your Country and take advantage of your people the way you have come here and taken andvantage for 10 years.

    one last note: How can you live up to your full potential when you are held back by your legal status? Don’t you think that you could do so much more good if you were not restricted? I think that you and all those who are here illegally, no matter how nice you are, are not living up to your potential and in many ways, by the burdens you have placed on the rest of us, you have also limited us in our potential…so from the bottom of my heart I want you to know that I encourage you to make this path straight. You cannot walk in crooked paths and be one with the Savior…Remember, render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasars…..We want you here, but we want you to be one with us. However, if you continue to neglect your responsibility, then I say the same thing to you as I do to all illegals….thanks for coming, but its time to go home.


    As for the person who stated about Lilburn Boggs extermination order, it was unconstitutional and that is why the Prophet sought redress clear to the President. Those reparations (An apology doesn’t cut it) were never given to the LDS people and so the curse the Lord said he would bring upon this nation still stands.

  74. PAJ says:

    “The Mexicans are now trying to get the American Indians involved in their agenda. I believe they are the true Lamanites who will go through and tread down.” — Pepper

    Actually, the people we call Native Americans immigrated from Asia long ago and are not related to the Nephites at all. The Algonquin Indian tribes, however, are the only one’s who have been traced back to Israel using DNA testing. They are what is left of what we call the Lamanites.

    About the Algonquin Indians:

    Algonquin Haplo X DNA Evidence:


  75. Pepper says:

    Paj- I am not sure what you are saying? Yes, I know about the Algonquin’s and the website you provided stated that they were from this land, Canada and mostly found in Quebec? So, my point was that if there were any Lehites involved it would not be the Mexicans and that the article is making an argument for illegal immigration because they, the Mexican, are fulfilling Book of Mormon Prophecy…which I do not completely believe to be a true statement.

    Skyler–Have you ever watched Rod Meldrums DNA Evidences of the Book of Mormon?

  76. PAJ says:

    Skyler, DNA evidence is an indicator. It just so happens that the so-called “Indian” that Joseph Smith gave the book of mormon to was a member of the Algonquin tribe. Anyway, you can believe it or not.

    Pepper, as for the Mexicans fullfilling prophecy, I agree that they aren’t. :-)


  77. Katie says:

    I wonder what it would mean for Mexico if all of the illegals currently here returned home. Many of them have received the benefits of a good education, good health care, second language, exposure to various ideas and culture. Many have dealt with hardship in various forms and are still kicking. What a strong group of people they must be. What a blessing it would be to their home countries and their people if they were to return. What a power that would be to those nations to have such people return en masse…with a strong desire to make things better for themselves and hopefully others. I say let them spread such wealth (beyond the financial) to their own countries and remain on friendly terms with those who sacrificed (through taxes or other means) that they might have such an opportunity.

    As it stands with current economic situations…it has become difficult for me to care for my own family’s needs in addition to carrying the tax burden of 47% of the nation (who are paying no taxes) as well as the tax burden for those illegal immigrants not paying taxes. I work hard so that my family has food, clothing, shelter, and education, as well as the ability to set aside a little for the future. Food storage, savings, retirement (As SS will only be paying me 70 cents on the dollar, if at all) all takes money. It seems wrong that, with the current tax situation, I may have difficulty adequately meeting my family’s current and future needs without help from others. Heavenly Father has asked us to care for the needy and he has also blessed us with free agency because choosing to do follow the Savior is what will lead us home to Him. I should be able to choose to help…not be forced to help. Through medicaid, medicare, social security, the new health care bill, and several other gov. programs, the choice and blessing of serving those in need has been removed from me. Rather than building gratitude, admiration and love, as I typically do towards those whom I choose to serve, I regret to say, I struggle with bitterness, frustration, and resentment at being forced (through taxes) to provide services to those in need (including illegals) at the expense of my own family. Forcing others to do good was, and is, the plan of the adversary. Allowing illegal immigrants, no matter how good they may be, to continue to feed off of our generous system, is wrong. I want to help…but please…stop forcing me to do so. Come here legally and I will accept your burden as part of the laws of which, although flawed in many ways, I do my best to uphold.

    With regards to the AZ law, I’ve read it, and quite frankly, I don’t understand all the hype. I thought such laws already existed. Let’s look at this at a more basic level. What do you do if someone breaks into your home? Do you hand over your goods? Maybe. Do you pull a gun? Maybe. Do you protect your family? Definitely. Do you kick them out or invite them to stay for lunch? What would the Savior do? I do not not know because only he knows what is in their hearts. Should the spirit direct me, I will feed them lunch. However…the fact that they’ve kicked in the door would seem to imply that they are not harmless nor do they mean me well.

  78. amaorican says:

    Pepper, thank you for your comments, and I can appreciate your concerns about our status here….and since I hadn’t included in my last post that my husbands brother who is a citizen, has filed for us, it is a petition for relative, then your comments are justified. We sought counsel from an Immigration Lawyer, who told us that this is a 10-12 year process, he explained that because of the back log of applications, is the reason for the 10-12 year process. He also explained that we could not have drivers licenses etc, and that if we wanted to go back to N.Z. that there would be a 5 year wait to re-apply. He told us that because our papers are pending, we were allowed to stay. So we know we had to wait. I agree with you, that if the Lord wants us here he would expect us to do our part. As I have previously stated, we have been here 10 years, and have been blessed with work which has come through the members. It has never been our intention to do anything wrong, but through our so far 10 year wait, I have mentioned all the blessings that we have received. We are nobody special, there are many who have had the same experience, we are looking forward to that day when we can place our hand over our heart and make our oaths to country, flag and God. When I talk about living free in this land that to me is a blessing…this is my home and I don’t intend leaving anytime soon. It saddens me to see how my Lamanite brothers and sisters (American Indians) have been restricted in their rights to live free in this land, having been placed on reservations and almost having their identity and culture stripped away. In New Zealand we have what is called ‘The Treaty of Waitangi’, an agreement between my people (Maori), and (The Crown) Government of our rights of land and sea, and for many many generations we have suffered and sacrificed to uphold that Treaty. And even though you may not like me saying OUR Founding Fathers, but they are…. I am a Lamanite, and I’m returning home.
    Didn’t The Founding Fathers come here to live free, and wasn’t the Constitution put in place so that those who came to this land could live free. D&C 5-6 says ” And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.
    Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law of the land”. And Pepper the next time you speak to your Stake Pres who’s from N.Z., could you tell him I said Kia Ora, he’ll know what that means, and I look forward to any more comments you may have. Your sister in the gospel Jenni

  79. Pepper says:


    thank you so much for clearing your statements up…I will tell you that I have been so disturbed by them for the last few days, it felt so arrogant and an “in your face” type of attitude. I probably should have waited for an answer to the first questions before I went off head first. I am sorry…. lesson to be learned for sure.

    I feel your pain in the situation, my DIL is going through the same things and I guess that is why your statements felt so piercing when I know what sacrifices are being made not only by Americans, but also those immigrants who are doing it the right way. Here in AZ we are being attacked at every level. If we want sovereignty we are racists and Nazi’s. We have people calling for boycotts and film makers who are making movies calling for a killing spree on white people….We have protesters yelling that we mistreat them and that they want us out….Not to mnetion that there have been members who said that those who stand against illegal immigration are not compassionate and I have part of my own family who now thinks that I am a racist and against him and his family! It so hard to take sometimes when I know that I love all of my brothers and sisters, but also love my country and want it to remain great.

    One thing I do not understand though, is when you got here, you were not given the option to be able to do change of status to permanent resident and then work on Citizenship? Maybe its different for my DIL who is married to a Citizen, but she can do a change of status and she will recieve a greencard and SSN. You can also apply for a temporary work greencard, so maybe you might want to look further into that. There is so much to the immigration process, its frustrating!

    I agree with you that the laws in regards to DL is ridiculous! I cannot understand why if you are here with a Visa for any length of time that you cannot obtain a DL???? The dumbest thing I have ever heard of! So come into the country but we are going to make it a nightmare for you. You can’t work and you cant drive…yip that makes a lot of sense!

    BUT they let Mexico run us over and no one blinks an eye!

    As for my comments about the founding fathers, that was in relation to what I felt your comments were about. If you notice I did say UNTIL you can do something about being here legally. I believe the Founders are for all those who love freedom and the rule of law. Yes, you are doing what you should and therefore have claim on them as well. I commend you for all that you have gone through.

    Anyway, thank you so much for clearing up what you meant, I have my faith restored in the conscience of Latter-day Saints.

  80. pepper says:


    Yes, I know several illegals that are good people, but how do you know that the majority are? According to Gov. Brewer, when they apprehend illegals at the border 87% of them have criminal records. Here are a few eye-opening websites that give a broader perspective on what illegal immigration is doing to this country

    • @pepper, that makes sense considering the majority of them are working hard and laying low, not making the habit of committing crime, getting deported, and making multiple boarder crossings, increasing their chances of getting caught.

  81. Interestingly, when writing the charter for the Federal government (the Constitution), the Founding Fathers did not give Congress the power to restrict immigration. The power to regulate immigration (the influx of foreigners into U.S. territory) is not specifically delegated the Federal government in the U.S. Constitution. Because the 10th amendment pushes all undelegated government powers to the States, I do not believe there is Constitutional justification for federal immigration law.

    It seems to me to be a gross distortion of Congress’s power to “provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union … and repel Invasions” to conclude, based solely upon that text, that Congress can refuse peaceful migrants entry into U.S. territory in times of peace. This seems on par with the Supreme Court’s claim that the “interstate commerce” clause authorizes Congress to regulate any activity that, in aggregate, can substantially affect interstate commerce. It is a wildly open-ended, rather than conservative, interpretation of Constitutional language.

    Under the 10th amendment, State governments, I believe, have the sole power to regulate immigration as part of the general police powers of the States, and they cannot abdicate this power to the Federal government except via Constitutional amendment.

    However, I believe that principles of liberty require that this State power be yielded only in the protection of its citizens from disease and criminals, and not for the purpose of altering the racial, cultural, political, religious, or numeric demographic of the population. For example, States should protect its citizens by forbidding the entrance of felons, and diseased individuals, into their territory. They should not, however, implement racial quotas or immigration caps.

    As worded by the 1868 treaty with China, I believe that there is “an inherent and inalienable right of man to change his home and allegiance.” I am not alone in this belief: According to Roger Mohany, “The right to immigrate is more fundamental than that of nations to control their borders.” In 1868, Congress declared that “[t]he right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and in recognition of this principle, this government has freely received immigrants from all nations.” This is the attitude with which I believe States should approach the immigration issue.

    I believe that the major immigration laws implement in the latter half of the 19th century, and the first half of the 20th century, were motivated primarily by xenophobia. Immigrants were the scapegoat of choice for a number of social and economic problems. Since most of the American population is descended from immigrants, according to Louis Henkin, “Would it be wholly unrelated to considerations of justice for us ‘to pull of the gangplank’ not that we are safely aboard?”

  82. In conclusion to my previous comment:

    Because I believe what the Lord says, that anything more or less than the Constitutional law of the land cometh of evil, and that federal immigration laws are an unconstitutional usurpation of state powers, I must therefore hold guiltless anyone who violates federal immigration law.

    I believe it is well within the moral authority of members of this church to practice civil disobedience to unconstitutional federal law.

  83. PAJ says:

    Based on the language of the first sentence of Section 1 of the 14th amendment, the following two applicable conditions are possible:

    1. All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.
    2. All persons born in the United States, and NOT subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are NOT citizens.

    We can all agree that if a person is naturalized, which means going through the legal immigration process, that you will become a U.S. Citizen and are clearly subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. But if you are born in the USA, there are two possible conditions. You are either subject to the jurisdiction of the United States or you aren’t.

    What does it mean to be subject to the United States, within the scope of the 14th? Put simply, it can only mean that a person is born to parent(s) who are citizens of the United States. If a child is born to parents who are NOT U.S. Citizens, then the USA can have no jurisdiction over the child’s citizenship. The child will naturally take on the citizenship of the parents since that country has jurisdiction over them.

    The way the 14th amendment is written, this is the only logical conclusion that we can come to. And it makes sense. The fact that the leadership in the United States has failed to recognize this simple truth is amazing, but not unexpected. The leadership has failed to comprehend the limitations of the constitution for 200 years. Immigration policies are just the tip of the iceberg.

    While you are arguing numerous candy-coated issues on this board, you are ignoring the larger issue. The Constitution itself has been violated in order to allow the fruits of illegal immigration to infect this nation like a virus. Make no mistake about it; we are far beyond the point of no-return. We cannot fix what has already been done. For the most part, I suspect that we are doomed. And neither Congress nor the state legislatures will be able to resolve the issue.

    When you throw a bunch of soil into a bucket of clean fresh water, you get mud. Muddy water is neither clean nor safe to drink. This is the diversity that has been forced upon us because of wickedness and a gross misinterpretation the U.S. Constitution.


    P.S. This is not a condemnation of illegal immigrants. Rather, I am merely pointing out that by failing to understand or obey the Constitution, we have undermined the safeguards of the Constitutional immigration process that was instituted for our protection as a nation. Those protections have been effectively neutralized and we are suffering the consequences.

    • @PAJ, this sure sounds like a “condemnation of illegal immigrants”:

      “The Constitution itself has been violated in order to allow the fruits of illegal immigration to infect this nation like a virus.”

      The virus, or parasite rather, is the state (the individuals who make up the state) and it’s failures. Count ’em, 1) it failed to follow the Constitution, 2) it failed to allow for the continuance of peaceful (and mutually beneficial) immigration, 3) it failed to allow people to sell/rent property to and create labor contracts with whoever they saw fit, 4) it failed to control the welfare state (failed in the first instance of allowing it’s establishment), 5) and it failed to stop illegal immigration once it arbitrarily limited legal avenues. Why anyone would look to the state, on any level, to fix the “problem” the state not only created, but encouraged, is beyond me.

      Open borders and free immigration served this country well for ~150 years. Let’s give liberty a try.

  84. “We can all agree that if a person is naturalized, which means going through the legal immigration process”

    This is not what naturalization means.

    Many people have implicitly connected immigration with naturalization. Strictly defined, however, the word naturalization refers to the process by which a non-citizen resident can claim U.S. citizenship, and the rights associated with U.S. citizenship (such as the right to vote). It does not necessarily refer to the process by which a foreigner can become a resident (immigration), and is therefore not a direct reference to immigration.

    Why would this connection be made, then? It has been argued, that Congress has been indirectly granted certain powers via another clause in Article 1, Section 8: “The Congress shall have Power … To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers [including the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization], and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States.” One argument is that if children of foreign immigrants are automatically citizens (due to the 14the amendment), then the power over naturalization must necessarily include the power to regulate immigration under the “necessary and proper” provision. This is because the process of entering U.S. territory includes the power to create new U.S. citizens, simply by virtue of being a resident. However, I believe this is a misinterpretation of the 14th amendment. A review of Supreme Court rulings (Elk v. Wilkins in 1884, Slaughter-House Cases in 1873) shows that the 14th amendment was not interpreted to make children of non-citizen residents citizens until several decades after its ratification.

    If this is the case, then immigration and naturalization are not connected in the way many people assume. Entering this nation, and becoming a citizen of this nation, are two entirely different processes. As I presently see it, it doesn’t make sense to me to conclude that a foreigner entering our nation must eventually become a citizen (or their children).

    I personally like the Aristotelian definition of a citizen: “a man who shares in the administration of justice and in the holding of office.” Essentially, a citizen is someone who has a voice in the legislation process—that is, the power to vote and hold government office. In ancient democracies, citizenship was a broadly held, but not universal, privilege. Residents who did not hold the title of citizenship were still subject to the laws made by government, and still also enjoyed the protections provided by the government (as long as they reside within the government’s jurisdiction).

    For most of the history of the world, most people were subjects to a legal system that they had no say in. Monarchies, oligarchies, aristocracies were all regimes in which laws were made by non-elected lawmakers, and the general populace had no voice in the or representation in the legislative process. Being subject to or a resident in a legal regime does not, nor should not, automatically imply a voice in making the laws of the regime. The uniqueness of the American experiment is that most residents can, if they choose to, become a part of the lawmaking (voting) citizenry.

    Some have argued that non-citizen residents do not enjoy the protections guaranteed by the United States Constitution (such as the freedom of press and assembly, the freedom to bear arms, the promise of due process of law, etc.) or the freedoms enjoyed by ordinary citizens (the unquestioned freedom to travel, work, marry, purchase, hire, etc. unhindered by onerous government regulations). In contrast, I agree with Secretary of State Ezra Taft Benson when he said:

    Rights are either God-given as part of the Divine Plan, or they are granted by government as part of the political plan. Reason, necessity, tradition and religious convictions all lead me to accept the divine origin of these rights. If we accept the premise that human rights are granted by government, then we must be willing to accept the corollary that they can be denied by government. I, for one, shall never accept that premise.

    For this reason, I believe that non-citizen residents could live, work, and enjoy the protection of the U.S. legal system. Ordinary human freedom and human rights are not in the least abridged simply by the non-citizen status.

    However, there are two “rights” that I believe should be accompanied solely by official citizenship: the right to vote, and the right to protection and rescue of the U.S. military while outside of U.S. territory. For example, only citizens can vote and contribute to the laws of the land. Also, when citizens are traveling abroad, and threatened by a foreign military, that constitutes an act of aggression against the United States as a nation. The same is not true of non-citizen residents who are traveling abroad. This is because citizenship confers upon a resident a form of public office.

    The U.S. Constitution explicitly authorizes Congress to enact a uniform process by which non-citizen residents can become voting citizens of the United States. This is the extent of Congress’s power on this issue. I believe that this process should be identical for every resident of the nation, whether born to parents who are citizens or non-citizens.

    I believe that each resident, prior to being allowed to vote, should swear an oath that while they participate in the privilege of contributing to the lawmaking and enforcing process, they will honor and respect the U.S. Constitution and the rights of their fellow men. I believe this is the central purpose of the naturalization process. Much like any group or club requires an oath of loyalty to certain core principles prior to admittance, so should our nation require an oath of loyalty and commitment to core Constitutional principles prior to admittance to citizenship.

    I believe this requirement should be applied to all citizens, not just foreign immigrants wishing to become citizens. According to present U.S. law, any citizen must meet an age-requirement before they can vote. Since the privilege of voting is the primary benefit of citizenship, why not simply require all residents to wait until that age before applying for citizenship? According to one source, after the Revolution, “Americans came to see that citizenship must begin with an act of individual choice. Every man had to have the right to decide whether to be a citizen or an alien.” I believe citizenship will be more highly treasured, respected, and understood if it isn’t assumed at birth, but at the proper voting age.

    In conclusion, the naturalization clause is not a Constitutional justification for immigration restrictions.

  85. “The Constitution itself has been violated in order to allow the fruits of illegal immigration to infect this nation like a virus.”

    Not quite. The only reason immigration is illegal is because the Constitution was violated.

    If we honored the Constitution, we would have almost completely open border.

  86. katie says:

    Skyler, When I say “they are not harmless” I’m speaking of the home break-in metaphor. A person who breaks into your home is not harmless nor do they mean you well. An immigrant who comes in illegally has done so at the expense of our families and means to care for ourselves…in other words…they are stealing from us. There is an article written in the Los Angeles Times providing statistics for illegal immigrants, the drain they have placed on the educational system, the health system, the welfare system, the overall burden they place on the state. According to the article, the burden is significant and I would dare say the illegals have, unintentionally, greatly contributed to California’s current financial woes. This is not harmless. The only difference between illegal immigrants and burglars is that those here illegally may not intend harm. I do know illegals…many. I’ve taught them in school, I’ve enjoyed them as neighbors, and I’ve watched them stand around in 110 plus degree weather waiting for work. I’ve also known some who beat their children, live on welfare, and contribute greatly to crimes within neighborhoods. Some are good and some are bad just like all of us. But it is not who they are that is the issue…it is the seen and unseen consequences of mass illegal immigration and the drain it is on the taxpayers; it is the fact that they are here illegally. (Sometimes I wonder if people in this nation know what the word “illegal” means.) We have a right to remove them forcibly if necessary though I certainly hope things can be settled more rationally. The AZ law is not a statement of the character of the individuals it is just what it claims to be…a statement of law.

    Please reread the first paragraph of my last statement. I believe firmly that these people are children of God. I also firmly believe that Heavenly Father expects us to do our best to obey the laws of the land and do good to all men…this is not a one way street. I have friends who came to this country, who worked for years to earn the money to do so and then spent several more years working and saving towards citizenship. It takes a great deal more strength, a great deal more effort and sacrifice to enter this country legally and therefore, I honor them. This is how it should be done, with honestly, integrity, and respect for the laws of the land and the people who live legally within it’s borders.

  87. An immigrant who comes in illegally has done so at the expense of our families and means to care for ourselves…

    Only because we have socialistic programs. If we didn’t have socialistic programs, their moving here would not harm us any more than a Californian moving to Utah.

    And quite frankly, anybody who accepts welfare money does so at the expense of my family. What’s the difference? Don’t say illegal, because it is simply wrong to make it illegal for them to be here in the first place. You can’t right a wrong with a wrong.

    they are stealing from us

    No they aren’t. The government is stealing from us. Why punish immigrants for the actions of the government? Would you say that anyone who accepts welfare money is stealing from Americans? Because they are. Socialism is theft, no matter who accepts the money. Why make a distinction? Let’s end socialism, rather than punish the recipients.

    We have a right to remove them forcibly if necessary though I certainly hope things can be settled more rationally

    No we don’t. They have every right to live here as we do. We don’t have the right to forbid them to come. People have an inalienable right to change their nation of residence if they choose, and for us to make it difficult for them to do so is, quite frankly, a violation of human freedom. Nobody should have to ask permission of the U.S. government to live in the United States…. because nobody should have to ask permission of any government to exercise their inalienable rights.

    I also firmly believe that Heavenly Father expects us to do our best to obey the laws of the land

    … “while protected in [our] inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments.” We are not morally obligated to follow laws that are either (1) unconstitutional (as federal immigration laws are), or (2) violate human freedom (as state immigration laws do).

    • DFM says:

      You are full of it. You are wrong on each one of these points. It’s not only the socialist programs, what about parks, schools, roads, emergency services, police, … are you saying that all of these are socialist programs? It is not the same as moving from state to state. There is one government over the states, you still pay income tax, you still get a DL within the new state, if you buy a home, you still pay property taxes to the county. There is no one government that crosses national borders.

      Yes they are stealing from us. I agree that the government and welfare recipients are also stealing from us.

      People DO NOT have an inalienable right to change the nation of their residence. What has gotten into your head? This is more entitlement mentality. I consider myself a priveleged man to have been born in the United States, and the rights according to the Constitution that I have, I have only because God blessed me with the privelege of being born here. No one has an inalienable right to change the nation of his residence. Why would there be nations in the first place? Nations are groups of people that decide what their borders are, and what their laws are going to be. The ONLY inalienable rights we have are life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. And yes, people should have to get permission from the US government if they want to live here because in principle, the government is a government of the people. In all practicality that is no longer the case, but the government is a representative of the whole. When you ask permission from the government, you are asking permission from the people of the United States.

      Human freedom – again the only inalienable rights we have are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What immigration laws are unconstitutional? What state immigration laws violate “human freedom”? I’m not fully aware of immigration law, but to make a statement like that you must be, so enlighten me.

  88. And, honestly, Katie, would you give this much reverence to other unconstitutional laws, such as Obamacare? Would you hold this much disdain for those who practice civil disobedience against Obama’s arbitrary intrusions into the market?

    Upholding the rule of law means that we keep our legislators from making arbitrary, bad, or unconstitutional laws; it doesn’t mean that we hold the masses to the whims of the legislators.

    Yes, crossing the border without saying “please” to the federal government is technically illegal… but was criminal for us to make it illegal in the first place.

    Why reverence unconstitutional laws, when the Lord himself said that unconstitutional legislation is evil?

  89. Pepper says:

    I just recently read two quotes from George Washington and Thomas Jefferson (errr I can’t find them in the 8 books that I am reading simultaneously…sorry, I will try really hard to remember where I read it) that basically was saying that they wanted immigration, but that it did need to have some regulation in order to preserve the culture and language of Americans.

    May I ask a dumb question…because maybe my understanding of what Sovereignty is, isnt what it really is…. Why did the Founding Fathers and many of Prophets clear to ETB declare that we needed Sovereignty if it is not about controlling who comes in and comes out? Why was DOM and ETB so outspoken about communism if it wasn’t about keeping it out, which means keeping who comes in and out under control?

    Finally, Skylar, yes there are many many good people and I would keep them in a heartbeat and give them the ability to provide for themselves. However, there are many many more of the not so good ones…(did you look at the websites I provided that has done the studies on the impact illegal immigration has caused?) So, it is enough that we take care of our own home grown menaces to society why do we need or why should we have to take care of another country’s menaces?

  90. Pepper,

    In this nation, the Federal government is not sovereign. The States are sovereign, and they have delegated a few of their sovereign powers to the Federal government. Regulation of immigration was not one of those powers that the States delegated to the Federal government.

    I like what Justice Brewer of the Supreme Court said:

    It has been repeated so often as to become axiomatic that this government is one of enumerated and delegated powers; and, as declared in article 10 or the amendments, ‘the powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively, or to the people.’

    It is said that the power here asserted is inherent in sovereignty. This doctrine of powers inherent in sovereignty is one both indefinite and dangerous. Where are the limits to such powers to be found, and by whom are they to be pronounced? Is it within legislative capacity to declare the limits? If so, then the mere assertion of an inherent power creates it, and despotism exists. May the courts establish the boundaries? Whence do they obtain the authority for this? Shall they took to the practices of other nations to ascertain the limits? The governments of other nations have elastic powers. Ours are fixed and bounded by a written constitution. The expulsion of a race may be within the inherent powers of a despotism. History, before the adoption of this constitution, was not destitute of examples of the exercise of such a power; and its framers were familiar with history, and wisely, and it seems to me, they gave to this government no general power to banish. Banishment may be resorted to as punishment for crime; but among the powers reserved to the people, and not delegated to the government, is that of determining whether whole classes in our midst shall, for no crime but that of their race and birthplace, be driven from our territory. …

    The government of the United States is one of limited and delegated powers. It takes nothing from the usages or the former action of European governments, nor does it take any power by any supposed inherent sovereignty. There is a great deal of confusion in the use of the word ‘sovereignty’ by law writers. Sovereignty or supreme power is in this country vested in the people, and only in the people. By them certain sovereign powers have been delegated to the government of the United States, and other sovereign powers reserved to the states or to themselves. This is not a matter of inference and argument, but is the express declaration of the tenth amendment to the constitution, passed to avoid any misinterpretation of the powers of the general government. That amendment declares that ‘that powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively, or to the people.’ When, therefore, power is exercised by congress, authority for it must be found in express terms in the constitution, or in the means necessary or proper for the execution of the power expressed. If it cannot be thus found, it does not exist.

    In other words, the Federal government cannot exercise any power by virtue of its sovereignty, unless that power is specifically delegated to the Federal government by the States in the Constitution. Control over immigration is not one of those delegated powers.


    I have never heard so much puke from so many so-called LDS Libertarians. You call yourself Saints? You certainly can’t call yourselves Constitutionalists because I have never heard so much anti-Constitution dribble.

    The US Constitution does in fact state the CONGRESS was given authority to MAKE LAWS REGARDING IMMIGRATION.

    The Naturalization Act of 1790 (1 Stat. 103)

    The act provided, “that any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the Constitution of the United States….”

    The internet states:

    “Even though America has been and remains today a nation of immigrants, its citizens have viewed immigrants with a certain apprehension. As such, the process of immigration itself has been a problem for the country’s leadership.”

    “During the 1790’s many in the U.S. were concerned that the growth in the number of political refugees, particularly those men and women driven out by the revolution in France, might prove inimical to American liberty.”

    “Alarmed by the influx of so many immigrants, Congress on January 29, 1795 modified the Act of 1790, raising the period of residence from two years to five years before a person could be naturalized. ”

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    Both documents (1790 Act & 1795 Act) refer to the then Congresses authority “under the Supreme Law of the law” (the US Constitution) to formulate such “immigration/naturalization” laws.

    But the problem of illegal immigration existed at the very start of our nation…

    – – – – – – – – – – –

    “In May of 1637, the General Court of Massachusetts ordered that no town or person in the colony should receive or host any alien without permission from the authorities. John Winthrop, Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, defended the 1637 court order as follows:”

    “…If we heere be a corporation established by free consent, if the place of our cohabitation be our owne, then no man hath a right to come into us without our consent… If we are bound to keep off whatsoever appears to tend to our ruine or damage, then may we lawfully refuse to receive such whose dispositions suite not with ours and whose society (we know) will be hurtful to us.”

    – – – – – – – – – – –

    Every one of the 13 original colonies had such ILLEGAL ALIEN LAWS. This continuing problem with the 13 Colonies is why they inserted the demand that Congress oversee the immigration/naturalization matters (and not the states)… this is why our Constitution states in no uncertain terms: “Art 1, Section 8, Clause 4: 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization…”

    The ‘rules’ were to be uniform among ALL THE 13 STATES. And the ‘rules’ were set out in the 1790 Naturalization Act, 1795 Natualization Act and the Acts thereafter.

    But the states all had their own previously written “ALIENS FORBIDDEN WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION” laws already on their books and the Constitution did not take away the States rights to address ILLEGAL ALIENS.

    Regardless, I have written at length that the CONSTITUTION IS DEAD. So does this discussion really matter? You can read more at

  92. PAJ says:

    It is amazing to watch some of you guys, who can apparently read, but turn illiterate when it comes to understanding the 14th amendment. Nobody has to take my word for anything. The 14th amendment is available for anybody to read. And it is written clear enough for most people to understand. Yet, none of you have chosen to side with the obvious conclusion of the 14th amendment. Instead, you go off in a dozen other directions so you don’t have to address the issue honestly. You can quote case law and Supreme Court justices (jesters) all you want, but it won’t change what the constitution clearly states. Some of you seem to have a self-serving agenda, but my agenda is always to stand firm on the truth. The language of the 14th amendment clearly indicates that merely being born in the USA does not automatically grant citizenship. If you cannot understand the language of the 14th, then you aren’t qualified to debate the issue. Anyway, my conclusion on this issue is NOT my opinion. Rather, I am merely relating what the 14th says. If you are good and honest LDS, then put away your prejudices read the 14th with an open mind and see for yourself.


    P.S. If you don’t understand why immigration is important, not only for the USA, but for all countries, then you need help.

    • DFM says:

      The problem with this argument is that it does not specifically say that those who are not born of citizen parents are not citizens. You made that argument basically saying ‘what else could it mean’? I can guarantee you if this were ever taken to court, some liberal lawyer will come up with some other meaning.

  93. Paul,

    If you are talking to me, perhaps you should have read my comment more carefully.

    Why? Because I absolutely agree with you about the 14th amendment.

    I said specifically that case law is wrong regarding the 14th amendment, and that the clear wording of the amendment, as well as its original intent, means that those who are born to foreigners on U.S. territory are NOT automatically U.S. citizens.

    So why are you accusing me of mal-intent, dishonesty, ignorance, prejudice, close-minded, or a self-serving agenda? (I assume it’s addressed to me, since I’m the only one who’s mentioned the 14th amendment – in agreement with you about how it should be interpreted – since you last discussed it).

    My agenda is always to stand firm in the truth.

  94. P.S. I agree immigration is important, for our country and others. We need more immigrants. Let’s stop telling them no. :)

  95. Pepper says:

    Has anyone read the Making of America, by Skousen????


    Have you or someone you have helped ever gone through the Naturalization process (meaning from Visa to Citizenship)? I am in the middle of it right now with my DIL….While I totally agree that just because you are in the US does not make you a Citizen, the 14th Amendment does give some of the same rights to Denizens such as you have stated, but also defines the separation of the two…

    You do have the right the right to life, liberty, property and none can be taken away without due process of law. In fact this applies to illegals as well. They have the right to have life (in other words they can’t be shot at on demand), they have the right to freedom and the right to property UNTIL they have broken the law….which, once they crossed the border they have automatically become subject to due process of the law. If they murder they are subject to the death penalty if that states has it, since they crossed, they are subject to imprisonment and are stripped of their property if the property is illegal as well….

    You cannot become Naturalized without having immigrated here first. You have to live within the US borders for 5 consecutive years (3 if you are married to a Citizen). James Madison found it necessary for the Fed Gov to take control of the Naturalization process because each state varied in their qualifications. Anyone with any sense could realize that Fed mandates on immigration and naturalization procedures are in the best interest of the United States.

    From my experience with my DIL (and my niece who just recently became Naturalized,) she has to do an adjustment of status, then when and if she meets the criteria for citizenship she can apply for it. Once the whole waiting process and criteria have been met she will be Naturalized having all the same privileges as born Citizens. Which by the way, totally disagree with you on the whole must wait to take an oath…No just get the education system back on track teaching the truth and you will have children who will appreciate their country.

    In my eldest sons freshman class, the teacher divided the class into two groups. One was to defend the Constitution and the other Communism. Guess which one my son had to defend. I went crazy….and made sure he was not to defend Communism and told the teacher that what he was doing was undermining the Constitution and altering the allegiance of the students. I told the Principle but nothing was done about it. I was glad I found out about the assignment, but how many other parents did not know?

    So, I agree with Paul that the 14th Amendment does clearly show us who are Citizens. I am all for immigration, just doing the right way.

    I also have studied at length Pres. Benson and I never got the feeling, ever, that he was for open borders in the way of not screening who comes in. In fact on quite a few times he adamantly expressed the need for National Security to prevent Communistic ideology from entering into this country.

    Finally I commend to you Skousens book and ask you to read page 412-14 on Citizenship and the illegal aliens. Then hop on over to page 642 on Article 4.4 on the Fed Gov. responsibility to protect from foreign invasion…then skip on over to page to pg 722-723 on the 14th Amendment….

    So, again illegals do not have a leg to stand on and neither do the sympathizers of such actions. We the People are at fault for allowing this to happen because when it was first starting the People did NOT remove the offending Legislature in the Fed Gov who did not secure the borders.

  96. They have the right to have life


    they have the right to freedom and the right to property UNTIL they have broken the law

    A completely moot point, if the law that is broken is unconstitutional (illegal) in the first place. I do not reverence illegal laws, and nor should you.

    You cannot become Naturalized without having immigrated here first.

    Absolutely true.

    James Madison found it necessary for the Fed Gov to take control of the Naturalization process because each state varied in their qualifications.

    Not quite… the federal government didn’t have to take control of naturalization. It already had control… the Constitution authorizes Congress to create a uniform rule of naturalization.

    Madison did not, however, take control over immigration. The Federal government implemented no immigration laws until the 1880’s. Immigration and naturalization are very different things.

    Anyone with any sense could realize that Fed mandates on immigration and naturalization procedures are in the best interest of the United States.

    Whoa… I’m confused. Immigration and naturalization are two different things. The United States did just fine for nearly a hundred years without any Federal immigration laws.

    So, I agree with Paul that the 14th Amendment does clearly show us who are Citizens

    So do I.

    I also have studied at length Pres. Benson and I never got the feeling, ever, that he was for open borders in the way of not screening who comes in.

    I never got a feeling one way or another from him. But I did get a feeling he was a strict Constitutionalist. Since the Constitution forbids the Federal government from regulating immigration, a strict Constitutionalist will have to admit that immigration regulation is solely the prerogative of state governments, and that the Federal government has no legitimate say in the matter.

    Then hop on over to page 642 on Article 4.4 on the Fed Gov. responsibility to protect from foreign invasion

    It seems to me to be a gross distortion of Congress’s power to “provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union … and repel Invasions” to conclude, based solely upon that text, that Congress can refuse peaceful migrants entry into U.S. territory in times of peace. This seems on par with the Supreme Court’s claim that the “interstate commerce” clause authorizes Congress to regulate any activity that, in aggregate, can substantially affect interstate commerce. It is a wildly open-ended, rather than conservative, interpretation of Constitutional language.

    No strict Constitutionalist will countenance such a sloppy/loose interpretation of the Constitution.

    Finally I commend to you Skousens book and ask you to read page 412-14 on Citizenship and the illegal aliens.

    Done. He says, “The Supreme Court has sustained the position that the United States has the right, inherent in a sovereign nation, to determine the conditions under which persons shall be allowed to enter the country…”

    The Supreme Court is dead wrong… and Skousen himself should know that. Why? In that same court ruling that Skousen cites, the Supreme Court also freely admitted, in fact declared, that the power to restrict immigration is not granted to the Federal government by the Constitution. They went on to say that despite the fact that it is an unconstitutional power, it is nonetheless acceptable for the Federal government to intervene, because the United States is a sovereign nation. However, our federal government has no power by sole virtue of its sovereignty — its powers are few, delegated, and outlined in the Constitution. Immigration is not one of them. The States are the sovereign in this nation, not the Federal Government.

    As Justice Brewer said in his dissent (in that very same ruling):

    It is said that the power here asserted is inherent in sovereignty. This doctrine of powers inherent in sovereignty is one both indefinite and dangerous. … The government of the United States is one of limited and delegated powers. It takes nothing from the usages or the former action of European governments, nor does it take any power by any supposed inherent sovereignty. …

    This is not a matter of inference and argument, but is the express declaration of the tenth amendment to the constitution, passed to avoid any misinterpretation of the powers of the general government. That amendment declares that ‘that powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively, or to the people.’ When, therefore, power is exercised by congress, authority for it must be found in express terms in the constitution, or in the means necessary or proper for the execution of the power expressed. If it cannot be thus found, it does not exist.

    Skousen would be the first to agree with Justice Brewer. As you can see, Skousen’s scholarship in this area is a bit sloppy.

    He makes a good case as for why naturalization laws are a Federal responsibility. But that is entirely different from immigration.

    Federal immigration laws are simply illegal, by the written word of the U.S. Constitution

  97. PAJ says:

    I meant “controlled” immigration. Gack!

    Immigration is important, but we must control who comes into this nation, for obvious reasons. We cannot simply open the gates and let everybody in. Can you imagine the chaos?

    Jeffrey, no I was not barking at you. :-)


  98. Paul,

    Thanks for the clarification! :)

    Honestly, though, I can’t imagine the chaos. We had a virtually open border for nearly a hundred years, and there wasn’t chaos then. We have open borders between states, and we don’t experience chaos in inter-state migration.

    It smells to me like a fear tactic. Government tells us all the time, “We’re the only thing that can save you from anarchy and chaos, so give us more power.”

    Well, we didn’t have anarchy and chaos before the Federal government usurped this power from the states, and I really doubt well have anarchy and chaos if we were to take it back.

  99. PAJ says:

    I am satisfied, as was James Madison, that Naturalization and Immigration are joined at the hip and that it is best to allow the Federal Government the authority to regulate both. Immigration is simply relocating to the USA with the intent to acquire perm status or citizenship. Naturalization is to confer upon an alien the privileges of citizenship. And, under Article 1, Section 8, Congress is given power to make all associated rules And they did. The 14th amendment dictates that citizenship is not automatically conferred upon a new born child unless they are “subject” to the jurisdictoin of the United States. Can you imagaine how many people have acquired illegal citizenship? Gack!

    This is the real source of the immigration problem. Our leaders have disobeyed the Constitution and are in violation of their oath of office. Double-Gack!


  100. Paul,

    I’m not convinced Madison saw them as conjoined, as you claim. Historically, they were treated as two entirely different things all the way up until the 1950’s! Even during the strict immigration restrictions of the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, the federal government made no claims that immigration was related to its power to regulate naturalization.

    Immigration is simply relocating to the USA with the intent to acquire perm status or citizenship.

    Not true. Immigration is simply relocating to the USA with intent to live and work. No citizenship is or should be required to live or work here. Completely different issue from naturalization, which is the process by which a resident can claim voting rights (citizenship).

  101. PAJ says:


    I have lived long enough to see tremendous change in the political, economic, religious, and moral fabric of our nation over the past 30 to 40 years. And it has all been bad. If you cannot see it, then I don’t know what to tell you. The proof or supporting evidence of this is beyond what I am willing to provide at this time.

    I will say once again that uncontrolled immigration is a cancer to this nation, and we are terminally infected. What do you think would happen if God opened the gates of Heaven to all the wicked and sinful people who have passed on? Heaven would be turned into a ghetto and the evil savages would rob the place blind. I am of course being humorous in my description, but you get the point. The United States MUST regulate who come into our borders and who become citizens in order to ensure that the social fabric of America is not destroyed by individuals who hold no allegiance to our way of life.


  102. I have lived long enough to see tremendous change in the political, economic, religious, and moral fabric of our nation over the past 30 to 40 years. And it has all been bad.

    So have I. I can see it.

    However, Mexicans aren’t the one’s damaging the moral fabric of our society. It is socialism, public education, a disintegration of the family, a reliance on government intervention to solve our problems, a secular religion creeping through our academic institutions, etc.

    Every a civilization begins to experience social and moral decay, they always look for a scapegoat to blame the problem on. In our case, the Mexican population has the unfortunate honor of being our scapegoat.

    It isn’t the Mexicans who are destroying our society. The Mexicans didn’t destroy our families. The Mexicans didn’t introduce us to socialism. The Mexicans didn’t create a sense of entitlement among American youth. We did. The enemy is among us, not among the foreigners.

    To blame our fragmented society on a couple million Mexicans among us is xenophobic at best. And, quite frankly, little different than Germans blaming all of their social ills on a few million Jews.

    And please don’t compare the U.S. to the Celestial Kingdom. God has all power and authority. The Federal government has only the power and authority the States give to it in the Constitution.

    And seriously… why are you trying to solve society’s moral and social problems with government intervention? This is contrary to the notion of freedom and liberty.

  103. Paul,

    Another thought:

    People who come here can’t vote until they are naturalized as a citizen. Congress has full authority to make sure that no one is given the power to vote until they understand the Constitutional roots of our nation.

    So, if you wish to protect our laws from being influenced by those who don’t share our values, well, Congress has full authority to do that. They can make a deep love of liberty and freedom a requirement for naturalization.

    We don’t have to stop them from crossing the border in order to protect our laws from their influence… if you feel as though that is a threat.

  104. katie says:

    From a spiritual stand point, the crux of the entire situation is this…Justice vs Mercy. One can not survive without the other and we must do our best to apply both to any given situation. Our individual definitions of these two entities is what causes many of our disagreements. In my opinion, Justice demands immigrants come here legally and if they do not, consequences must be applied. Justice also demands they do so without assistance. Mercy makes no demands but merely requests that individuals coming to this country do not burden those of us already here, that individual citizens and government do what they can to ensure that good people, who have the sincere desire to become citizens of this nation, are able to do so. It also requests that those who are here illegally receive consequences that are not “cruel or unusual” given the misconduct. As it is difficult for the gov. to be merciful, for their role falls more along the lines of Justice, it is we, as citizens who should provide for the majority of Mercy. We can do so by creating charitable organizations which assist illegals in becoming citizens, sponsoring an immigrant, donating money to assist them in the process, teaching tuition free courses in English, Constitution, and whatever else is necessary for citizenship, write congressmen not only about our concerns but also viable solutions. Those who merely stand up and protest are still looking to the government to solve the problem and seems a waste of time when there are still things we can do of our own free will. Those who oppose the AZ law, I feel, can better spend their time working towards alternatives which will prevent the necessity of the exercising of the law. Present alternatives which provide that both Justice and Mercy be shown not just to those here illegally but also to the citizens of this nation.

  105. In my opinion, Justice demands immigrants come here legally and if they do not, consequences must be applied.

    It is an injustice to demand that they request permission from the Federal government before crossing the border. We are wronging them, they are not wronging us. The fact remains that any federal restrictions on immigration are illegal and unjust restrictions.

    Let’s not wrong others and pretend it is justice. It’s really not.

    The Lord Himself said that anything that is unconstitutional is evil. Federal immigration laws are unconstitutional. It’s hardly upholding justice to enforce consequences for disobeying them; rather, it is upholding tyranny.

    Katie, I invite you to be true to the Constitution, and recognize that we are wronging immigrants by enforcing unconstitutional federal law. Justice demands that we stop enforcing them, and repeal them immediately.

    Are you on our side? :)

  106. PAJ says:


    You apparently have too much time on your hands and would rather spend your days building straw-men on this board to help support your flawed beliefs than to fully support the facts. And it is clear from your posts that you would like nothing more than to see the US borders torn down allowing the Mexicans, Martians from Mars, and anybody else to cross our borders and come into our society with full rights and privileges, no matter what their political, social, and moral beliefs are. Diversity is not what makes us strong. It is what makes us weak. And if you don’t believe that, then why don’t you have a conversation with the Lord you “think” you know and ask Him why he doesn’t diversify His kingdom with those who have different political and moral beliefs. The same principle that the Lord would explain to you also applies to the United States, and for most of the same reasons.

    You’re a hopless case Jeffrey. I am done with you. Have a nice day. :-)


  107. Paul,

    I have two goals: (1) to see people treated as people, and not scapegoats, and (2) to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

    Fact: There is no federal authority over immigration in the Constitution. This is supported by the written word of the Constitution, and it’s original interpretation.

    Fact: Our nation survived for over a hundred years with no federal immigration laws. It’s in the history books.

    Fact: The federal government took that power from the States in the 1880’s, with the express acknowledgement that it had no Constitutional power to do so.

    Fact: People have an inalienable right to change their nation of residence.

    Fact: I’ve made no straw-men arguments. I’ve simply stated facts.

    From the looks of it, you’d rather ignore the Constitutional restraints on the federal government in order continue treating Mexicans as sub-human.

    Mexicans aren’t destroying our nation. We are. To say otherwise is either racism or xenophobia. Germany thought the Jews were responsible for their social ills… every nation needs its scapegoat. Let’s not sacrifice liberty on the alter of fear.

  108. Seriously, Paul, do you really think Mexicans are responsible for socialism? Do you really blame Mexicans for the dissolution of the family? Do you really blame Mexicans for the rampant secularism of the modern age? Do you really blame Mexicans for pornography, violence on TV, a lack of reverence for education?

    Is that really the Mexican’s fault? Think long and hard… are you really attributing all of our social ills to a few million immigrants among us? Be honest with yourself… can you really say that there is no scapegoating going on here?

  109. PAJ says:

    Folks, in case you don’t know, Jeffrey’s last post (#118) is the very definition of straw-man. In a debate, you can undermine your opponent by accusing him of making crazy statements, and then you beat him by proving the statements false. The straw-man is designed to force the opponent into defensive mode against the statements, which he never made, and thus lose the argument. What Jeffrey does not seem to realize is that he and all those who think like him are the real problem. It’s laughable. He boasts of defending and upholding the constitution like so many of our elected officials, but in reality he is destroying and undermining it in every way, while waving it around like a flag. Fortunately for Jeffrey, the first amendment provides him with additional safe-guards protecting is right of free speech, even when what he is saying is untrue.

    I only have one word for people like Jeffrey: Gack! :-)

    As for the rest of you who are LDS, ask yourselves this question: Why are there three degrees of glory and many different kingdoms? You already know the answer, but you haven’t looked at is from this perspective. God enforces His version of immigration and naturalization in the various kingdoms of Heaven. Were it not so, there would only be one heaven (let’s not talk about hell). You know how it works. People will immigrate (sort-of-speak) to the kingdom they are worthy to enter. Nobody from a lessor kingdom will be allowed to enter a higher kingdom. Right. That is how it works and how it should work here.

    There is no problem with Mexicans, Jews, Italians, or even the French. The problem is in selectively choosing those who have the proper character and moral values that are compantible with our American way of life. To open the flood gates and allow anyone to come across our borders is to guarantee the eventual destruction of what we call America. And as I look around, that is exactly what I see.


  110. Pepper says:

    Paul, I could not agree with you more! Good analogy…..(wink)

    I felt to respond on a couple of the statements that has been made here with the quotes from the Founding Fathers and from Prophets and then I thought…nah, it will just get all twisted and once more the Americans who believe in National Security, are “uncompassionate, racist, Nazi’s” So what else is new in this new world we live in?

    I am confidant throughout my many prayers and study that I know Heavenly Father does support both National Security and Immigration (done within the bounds of the law). There is no double talk that is going to convince me otherwise. The ONLY thing that will change my opinion on this matter is IF the Prophet comes out and asks us to stop trying to secure the borders. ONLY then will I stop and leave it in the hands of the Lord, UNTIL then, I will do all things necessary to with the Lord’s help to preserve liberty. The Mexican ideology is Communist and I refuse to infect my Country with its doctrine.

  111. Nick says:

    @ PAJ & PEPPER

    what defines the proper character and values of the american way of life?
    if you guys forefathers fall in to these categories, they should have never come here in the first place. cause they were poor or in need. otherwise they would have never come to America and stayed in Europe. Learn your history brothers, very unfortunate that your families have not passed this on to your generation. there is one simple word to describe the antagonistic character of the american society towards the people that serves your meals, mow your loans, build your houses, build your roads, process your food. and that is RACISM.

  112. Wow. Perhaps my comment wasn’t such a straw man after all. Mexicans are being compared here to communists, telestial kingdom material, enemies of our nation.

    Quit stereotyping our southern neighbors. It is unkind, unchristian, and uncharitable.

    Our nation isn’t the celestial kingdom. The federal government doesn’t have Godlike powers. It only has powers delegated to it by the States in the Constitution, and controlling immigration isn’t one of those powers. As the Lord said, “I, the Lord, justify you … in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land; And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.”

    I really like the scripture in Helaman:

    And it came to pass that many of the Lamanites did go into the land northward; and also Nephi and Lehi went into the land northward, to preach unto the people. And thus ended the sixty and third year.

    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.

    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 buy and to sell, and to get gain, according to their desire.

    And it came to pass that they became exceedingly rich, both the Lamanites and the Nephites; and they did have an exceeding plenty of gold, and of silver, and of all manner of precious metals, both in the land south and in the land north.

    In all honesty, this is what God wishes for our people. Not a xenophobic police state deporting foreigners who didn’t follow an unconstitutional (evil) federal law.

  113. And honestly, it is very unwise to settle upon a political opinion on one’s own research, and then declare that you won’t change it until the prophet tells you to.

  114. Paul,

    God will also ban cursing in the Celestial kingdom. Therefore, does the Federal government automatically have the power to do so as well?

  115. PAJ says:


    I think “Jeffrey Thayne” is just an alias for a biased computer program designed to make the same argument over and over and over again, with no ability to comprehend anything outside of its flawed set of instructions.

    Honestly, I am not trying to be rude, but it is so clear that Jeffrey has made a huge mistake in his reasoning. Instead of looking for evidence of the truth and being open and willing to accept it, he is grabbing at anything to support his preconceived conclusions, regardless of the overwhelming evidence against it. This method of reasoning is dishonest and leads one away from the truth.

    Anyway, if Jeffrey would spend some time reading Ezra Taft Benson, who is probably the greatest opponent of Communism in modern times, he might learn something of the importance of National Security and a controlled Immigration and Naturalization System. But in the end, it is all common sense.

    Communism in any of its many forms is totally incompatible with freedom and personal liberty as it has been established in the United States of America. The only real protections we have are in the willingness of our leaders to support and uphold the Constitution with a firm hand. But if the source of our leadership, which is the American people, becomes corrupt with anti-American ideology regarding politics, business, finance, religion, and basic Christian morality and human decency, then we can expect our leaders to be equally tainted and no longer support the law of the land. And sure enough, they are wicked and they only pay lip-service to the fundamental law. Gack and double Gack!

    A nation that wishes to be both free and ignorant seeks that which has never been and cannot be.


  116. Pepper says:

    Jeffery, Their Country does have Communistic ideology. Please do some research man! Here is a beginning LaRaza, MECha

    Get a grip, you take the blinders off and look around you ALL is NOT WELL IN ZION!

    and YES, that is the only thing that will stop me from moving forward with doing my part in securing the borders… all those who sympathize, be my guest, but there is at least one Arizonan American who is going to stand in your way of allowing this belief system that Jeffery like to spout off.

    Quite honestly I feel like we have received the words of Prophets on this issue. They have told us to STOP Communism/Socailism at all levels from entering this Country and if you don’t believe that go and read Ezra Taft Benson “An Enemy Hath Done This” Go and read Heber J Grant, David O McKay, Ruben J Clark and many others…… Then tell me where we are supposed to have open borders and an open arms.

  117. ImLDS2 says:

    I agree here with Mona:
    We have an immigration problem because the U.S. is an incredibly desirable place to live and work. Immigrants continue to enrich our society, not least because they are often more appreciative of our institutions and liberties than are the native born. If it were feasible, millions of people worldwide would come here. And millions wait patiently, sometimes for decades, for the chance to do so. Democrats worry ostentatiously about the unfairness of asking people to prove their legal status. What about the unfairness of giving an advantage to line jumpers over those who abide by the law and wait their turn?” — Mona Charen, Nationally Syndicated Columnist

    I also say, because the PTB want the votes, they allow all the free services which attract their kinds of voters, ensuring they will remain in office/power.

  118. DougB says:

    Wow, lots and lots of comments. I could comment on lots of things — from the post itself to some of the craziness in the comments afterwards.

    But I think I’ll focus just on the last third or so of the comments.

    I completely agree with Jeffrey Thayne, and thankfully, I’m not alone.

    I’m a conservative Republican (I’m a precinct chair in my Utah neighborhood). I’m active LDS. I grew up in Arizona. My ancestors on both my mother and father’s sides came to this nation in the 1600’s from Great Britain.

    But I have no fear of immigration nor problem with it. Not from Mexico, not from anywhere. I believe with Jeffrey that immigration control is completely different from naturalization laws.

    The Federal Government has a Constitutional right to lay out the specifics for what somebody must do to become a full citizen, to vote, to be elected to office, etc.

    But, short of amending the Constitution, there is no power granted to turn the nation into a police state, to foment racism and hate, or to discriminate with quotas against certain nationalities.

    I have great love for Presidents Benson, Grant, and McKay. President J. Reuben Clark is one of my heroes. I’d venture to guess I’ve read more Clark than most on this forum (I have an extensive library from a friend of Clark writings)

    But reading their wise warnings against communism does not make me fear immigrants! Immigrants can’t even vote unless they take the necessary steps for naturalization. We, the people, have been voting for too much socialism. This is in no way the fault of newcomers — many of which have more appreciation for American Founding principles than multi-generation Americans.

  119. PAJ says:


    How kind of you to come to Jeffrey’s rescue. But, like Jeffrey, you have completely missed the point in all this discussion.

    Note: My family came here in the 1600’s too. My 18th century grandfather is one of the signers of the Declaration of Independance (George Ross). And Betsey Ross, another relative, made the first American flag. I am a strict constitutionalist, not just a mere so-called conservative. And although I’ve read a few books in my time, I don’t need a prophet or a published author to advise me when common sense is all that is required.

    I’m going to make this as simple as I can. As far as I can tell, nobody on this board has a problem with immigration. Stay with me now… I (we) have a problem with uncontrolled immigration and turning a blind eye to illegal immigration. Now here’s the icing on the cake… And to add insult to injury, I (we) especially have a problem when our leaders grant illegal immigrants (criminals) U.S. citizenship while all the other law abiding foreign citizens are waiting in line. Gack and double Gack!!!

    I (we) do not hate people of other nationalities or races. There are good and bad people in all races. But the vast majority of people who come from cultures that are politically and morally corrupt, such as socialist or communist nations, are heavily infected with such ideology and may be quite unable to adopt the American way of life, setting aside their political and moral beliefs and replacing them with American ideals, and being willing to defend them if and when the time comes. The truth is, most immigrants (legal or illegal) come here for the money or the potential to be financially secure and are hardly concerned about the other responsibilities that come with being an American. This is why it is so important to be selective about who we allow into this country. Anyway, I’ve made the point.

    As for your other statements, many of which are straw-men, I will not waste my time addressing them. But I will say that since you seem to have a problem with the way the Lord manages immigration and citizenship in the eternal worlds, I would love to see you argue your socialistic ideology with Him.

    Hint: In case you totally misunderstand my point, controlling immigration in this world is similar to what the Lord does with the three degrees of glory and the many different kingdoms. Or, perhaps you think that wicked people will be allowed to enter into the Celestial Kingdom. LOL!


  120. Paul,

    Doug is anything but a socialist. Doug has no problem with God forbidding the wicked from entering heaven.

    But he does have a problem with empowering overreaching bureaucrats to forbid working, peaceful migrants from entering U.S. territory. Especially when they have no Constitutional authority to.

    Also, calling every argument you disagree with a “straw man” argument is, in itself, a straw man argument. It just allows you to escape responding to them.

    perhaps you think that wicked people will be allowed to enter into the Celestial Kingdom.

    This is a straw man argument, since none of us claim this, nor is it even implied by our beliefs.

    controlling immigration in this world is similar to what the Lord does with the three degrees of glory and the many different kingdoms.

    God also forbids swearing in Heaven. When the federal government enacts unconstitutional legislation banning swearing nationwide, it is just doing what God does with His Kingdom. After all, the Federal government has all the powers of God, constitution be d–ned.

    Seriously. Stop comparing the Federal government to God. It’s kind of scary. The Federal government =/= God, nor does it have the powers of God. Just because God can do whatever he wishes with his sacred kingdom doesn’t mean that the Federal government has arbitrary, unlimited power over the States and the people. That is so much common sense, I can’t believe you would even TRY to make that argument.

    Also, please stop comparing the U.S. to the Celestial kingdom, and Mexico to the telestial masses trying to overthrow it. It just sounds arrogant. And racist.

  121. In fact, Paul, right now, the State of Utah has no legal power to forbid residents of Colorado from entering (though perhaps it ought to, since immigration is a state issue, not a federal one). Gack! But God has the power to keep evil people out of heaven! Surely the States should have the right to mimic God, right? After all, God does it. States surely can.

    Your argument fails on so, so, so many levels.

  122. What the Governor of Arizona had to say;

    The POTUS cannot enter Arizona, because any law-abiding Sheriff in that state would immediately arrest him as an illegal Alien(tm) and escort him to the border for eviction. ;^)

  123. Regarding the Sovereign State of Arizona Immigration law –

  124. Pepper says:

    Seriously, where do you get the idea that Paul or I or anyone on this board fears legal immigration? That would make my a hypocrite since my DIL and my niece both are! The

    Secondly, for all of you who believe that the State has the right to regulate Immigration, then you should be just fine with our new law!

    As for Communism and immigration flowing together, oh, yes it does. When the Central American leaderships openly teach and indoctrinate their people into this ideology they do bring that with them and unless they take the steps otherwise to be correctly educated on a free society we will continue to perpetuate this ideology.

    Then we have the have the ridiculous Amnesty Laws that gives these Illegal Immigrants Citizenship who does not speak the language, understand the principles of freedom and for many of them been living on the benefits of the State. How do you think that is going to work out for us?

    Here is just part of a quote from ETB:

    “I am for national security and against appeasement and capitulation to an obvious enemy” ( for the full quote “An Enemy Hath Done This” pg 26- 27)

    No let me give you something to think about…..if ETB, DOM, etc were against the process of immigration/naturalization don’t you think they would have been vocal about that….they were about everything else. Why leave that issue untouched as far as Government overstepping their bounds? I have never found anything from them in regards to that, so if you have a quote, please do share!

    BY also made quotes stating that there might be some instances where a few Amendment might better the Constitution and that it was a work in progress. I will find those quotes and write them in later.

  125. PAJ says:

    Those of you who are following Jeffrey’s posts are getting a very good view of a do-gooder’s socialist mindset. Like a machine, these indivuduals pursue their nefarious agendas with extreme precision and ignore all the evidence to the contrary. Why? Because they simply don’t care what the truth is. They want it their way and they combine their efforts with other like minded despots to get it.

    For example. Thirty to fourty years ago, it was simply unthinkable that the homosexual lifestyle would be accepted. But today it is well accepted by most people and condoned even by the so-called Christian churches. Heck, we even have homosexuals working as preachers in some churches. Gay marriage has been on the ballot numerous times and eventually supporters will somehow make it legal on a national scale. And though the LDS church has resisted gay pressure, how long do you think it will be before they have yet another revelation and homosexuality is accepted by the LDS and gay marriage is confirmed?

    I bring up the gay topic merely to make a point. Supporters of socialist or corrupt ideologies never stop pursuing their agenda. Once people get tired of doing political battle with them, they win. This is how it always is and why so many unconstitutional laws are passed. What makes our situation exponentially worse is that illegal and uncontrolled immigration dilutes our political, religious, and moral social fabric with ideoogies that are inconsistant with our Constitutional Republic and our Christian way of life. This is how our once great nation will be brought down to the depths of 3rd world status. We’re almost there. I think it would be fitting to have Doug and Jeffrey spend about 5 years in a 3rd world country like Mexico and get a taste of what it’s really like to live under despotism.


  126. Pepper says:

    Robert—–That was an excellent article, thanks for posting it!

  127. DougB says:


    I have lived over five years in foreign countries (Brazil, Syria, Spain, etc.)

    I cannot believe that the term do-gooder is being used derogatively on an LDS-themed website. If we are not to “go about doing good” then I really don’t know what we are supposed to be doing.

    That said, I certainly do not have a socialist mindset. I also certainly do not want to see my nation run more like Brazil or Spain. For instance, despite my desire to “do good” I’m not compelled that federal socialized medicine is a good idea. In fact, my experiences have indicated that forcing that kind of a system would be “doing bad”. Those that are trying to push such a system here I would certainly not call “do gooders” despite the existing problems with healthcare for many in America.

    Further, I find it absolutely telling that you would equate letting more immigrants into the country *legally* with trying to allow acts of homosexuality. Even those who violate our crazy (and yes as a “strict Constitutionalist” I would absolutely argue *unConstitutional*) discriminating quota laws for immigration have not committed sins that should be likened to sexual sin.

    As I see it there are at least five different things being argued here and each deserves it’s own discussion. (So as to avoid the “straw man” talking-past-each-other arguments)

    1) Many Americans (and apparently some on this forum) fear even legal immigration. At my State’s Republican convention an amendment to the party constitution passed stating that we should even oppose many of the *legal* paths to immigration (that the amendment sponsors found too lenient). They have various reasons including fear that there are not enough resources for all who want to come here or fear of foreign cultures themselves. The most absurd manifestations of this fear are posters like Paul and Pepper who keep claiming that they don’t oppose legal immigration but their stated reasons have nothing to do with rule of law but rather fear that ‘too many’ from some of these countries will bring their socialist ways with them. This is absurd for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that they might not be leaving their countries of origin if they were so enamored of failed socialist policies.

    2) Some Americans fear that immigrants (the illegal ones in particular) are mostly part of some frightening invasion. They point to ethnic conclaves where the people have not become well integrated as their proof and forward scary propaganda from AZTLAN and La Raza and other such racist hate organizations. There are two problems here: 1) It is the irrational racism towards these people that encourages the enclaves and non-integration in the first place — it happened generations ago to my wife’s Italian ancestors but they have moved past it now. 2) AZTLAN and La Raza are about as representative of your average Mexican immigran as the Ku Klux Klan and Idaho Aryan Nation are of your average white American citizen. Most Mexicans see those fringe organizations for the evil thing they are despite any racism they may encounter from non-Mexicans in America.

    3) Some Americans feel that a certain number of generations in the country somehow magically transforms them into a privileged ‘upper caste’ that should not — indeed dares not — rock the boat with foreign influences. They remind me very much of those that worshipped hypocritically on the Rameumpton in the Book of Mormon.

    4) There is a great deal of frightening propaganda indicating that foreigners — in Arizona it would be Mexicans generally — are the cause of 80%+ of violent crime and the general decay of civilization. Furthermore, they are alleged to mostly be living on “the dole” and basically completely subsidized by hard working Americans like myself. I’m still looking into these allegations in Utah and Arizona (places where I have resources to actually investigate).

    They are the same kind of thing that were claimed about Blacks, Italians, the Irish, Catholics, the Chinese, etc. In general these claims tend to be false or wildly exaggerated (which is a pretty evil thing to lie about considering the effects)! But I take them seriously. I’m not in favor of socialism! I don’t want to subsidize those who commit violent crimes or steal or simply don’t work. In Utah much controversy erupted after the SLC police chief stated days ago that hispanics in Utah do not commit crimes out of proportion to their racial representation. And yet, in a post above on this page one woman (who have I no good reason to doubt) claims that something like 99% of the violent crimes her husband sat on a grand jury for were committed by illegal Mexican immigrants. My parents are examples of people who quickly believe such allegations and turn racist thinking it should simply be called ‘defensive pragmatism’.

    I’m not sure what to think about this point. My personal experience in Utah leads me to believe that the SLC police chief is right about my area of the world. In Arizona, however, are there major problems being majorly exacerbated by illegal Mexican immigration? Maybe. If that’s true, that should be addressed. That doesn’t make all Mexicans evil or socialist or violent or whatever. But if there are groups of ‘bad guys’ from any country — Mexico included — trying to re-settle in my country, I’m gonna wanna do something about it. But all these crazy schemes to use big government to create a police state, build wildly expensive walls and surveillance, and further racially discriminate by making it even more difficult for Mexicans to legally immigrate here are going to do little, if anything, at all to stop ‘bad guys’ from coming. They are more likely to simply keep the kind of immigrants we *do want* out at huge cost to taxpayers while leaving our other problems generally in place.

    5) Finally, there are the arguments of some like Jeffrey who have carefully studied the Constitution and noted that the Federal government seems to have usurped unto itself the power to limit peaceful border crossings. This is neither naturalization (these immigrants cannot vote or participate in other actual citizen priviliges) nor defense (unless, perhaps, you completely buy into the propaganda of those in point #2) This is a fascinating charge and one that has not been completely investigated, in my opinion. Maybe it something worth amending. Maybe the Federal Government should control the borders. Right now, I’m convinced that the Founding Fathers did things right. For the first 100 years of our nation’s existence there were not any such Federal powers. (They started with fearful anti-Chinese legislation and continued with Anti-Italian and Irish, etc.) Our nation got an excellent start that way.

    Personally, I’m compelled that is a great thing that our amendment process is so stringent. It would have to be thoroughly studied to be changed.

    Thank you for considering my thoughts.

    • DFM says:

      “I cannot believe that the term do-gooder is being used derogatively on an LDS-themed website. If we are not to “go about doing good” then I really don’t know what we are supposed to be doing.”

      Self-righteous liberal.

  128. Pepper,

    “Seriously, where do you get the idea that Paul or I or anyone on this board fears legal immigration?

    You answered that question yourself: “As for Communism and immigration flowing together, oh, yes it does.” You keep equating Mexicans with Communist infiltrators. ’nuff said.

    “don’t you think they would have been vocal about that”

    Maybe, maybe not. But argument from silence isn’t really applicable. Nobody’s perfect.

    “BY also made quotes stating that there might be some instances where a few Amendment might better the Constitution and that it was a work in progress.”

    There’s no need to find those quotes, since I am already in favor of amending the Constitution in several ways. Amending the Constitution is just fine; ignoring it is not.


    I am not a socialist, nor will I ever be. Quit creating straw men. It’s kind of hypocritical to cry “straw men” (when we’re really not), and then do it yourself.

    You’re depicting me as a socialitst trying to destroy our nation. Rather, I’m a strict Constitutionalist, and a follower of Benson, Mackay, Skousen, and other general authorities. So stop painting ridiculous straw men and stop the name calling.

  129. McKay. Sorry, mispelled the name.

  130. Pepper says:

    Jeffery, you obviously have never done any research into LaRaza or MEChA that has been suggested to you more than once. If you had, then there is no way you could make the statements you have. If you have and still hold this ground, then there is noting more to say because you obviously cannot connect the dots………

    I noticed you decided not to comment on Pres. Benson’s quote on National Security………

    Gene R Cook once stated that what the Scriptures and Prophets don’t say are just as important as what they do say. Modern Day Prophets’ silence on the legality of the Fed Gov to regulate both Naturalization and Immigration is enough evidence for me, in these modern times, that there must have been a need.

    What I don’t get, is that you keep stating that its the State’s right to make Immigration Laws and yet you seem to oppose the idea that AZ has said, “We’re done!” So, now that our State has clearly defined our Immigration “Law” the rest of the Country is supposed to help us because we have declared that we are being invaded. Please explain to me what your position is…do you support AZ or not?

    Besides all the criminality that goes on, I don’t know if you have seen the pictures from the protesters here in AZ, but they are very blatant about what their agenda is, which follows LaRaza and MEChA. So while there are peaceful Mexicans and other Nationalities, and I do feel for them, we have a serious problem in our State with those who are not.

  131. Pepper,

    Nothing I learn about those groups will convince me that my friendly neighborhood mexicans mean me harm. And certainly, let’s arrest criminals who wish to steal, kill, kidnap, or otherwise. But let’s not punish the innocent for the actions of the guilty. Migrants who come here with the intent to live and work have every right to do so.

    Migrants who come here to live and work =/= violent organizations intent on destroying America. If you have trouble with violent organizations, then arrest them for their violence. Don’t arrest the non-violent for their non-violence. Innocent until proven guilty.

    Also, I absolutely believe Benson’s quote on national security. Peaceful migrants pose no national security threat. ’nuff said.

    Modern Day Prophets’ silence on the legality of the Fed Gov to regulate both Naturalization and Immigration is enough evidence for me, in these modern times, that there must have been a need.

    The prophets don’t speak about national drug laws, which are also unconstitutional. They don’t speak about social security these days, which is also unconstitutional. They don’t speak about a great many things. Silence is not consent.

    Also.. immigration and naturalization are two different things. Naturalization =/= immigration.

    As per the Arizona law, here’s my problem with it:

    If we do want to have a say over who comes here (or to monitor them), then states, and states alone, can pass laws to do so. However, I believe it is a violation of the inalienable right to change one’s nation of residence to forbid peaceful migrants who simply want to live and work from entering U.S. territory. States have every right to keep murderers, thieves, and kidnappers off the streets. They have no moral authority to stop peaceful migrants from finding work. They have no moral authority to deport someone for their mere presence here.

    Also, the problem with the Arizona law is that it claims to be simply stepping in for the Federal government. It makes it a state crime to come here without asking the *Federal* government’s permission, and since the Federal government doesn’t have the Constitutional authority to demand permission, the Arizona law is still exacerbating this Federal usurpation of State power. Also, it does expand the police state in unprecedented ways.

  132. Pepper says:

    Social Security—Chapter 18 pg226 in An Enemy Hath Done This.

    I am for peaceful migrants and would love to have them all come here and enjoy the blessings of the real American Dream (heck I’d like to have the real American Dream)
    but how would a State know who is peaceful and who is hostile? Currently, there is a background check ,among other things, to determine which of the two they are? Obviously, in our NWO Gov…there are those who have obtained Visa’s that never should have…. but what would you suggest?

    Here is my problem with your philosophy. Lets say each State makes their own immigration laws and allows other Nationalities here, but what happens when that migrant wants to go to another State? Since we have a National free way of traveling, what you propose would make each State have to have check points. So if they wanted to go to FL….what would they need to do to go there?

    So, now that migrant wants to exercise his inalienable right and does not like AZ anymore and decided he wants to go to UT. Since, we do not live in States that have walls built around each border, then that migrant could go over to UT without having to abide by its immigration laws by just finding an open space *just like our AZ borders* and enter that State without abiding by its immigration laws….

    You think that migrant is oppressed now? You have no idea the amount of Fee’s and paperwork a migrant would have to come up with just so he/she could travel interstate. What a migration nightmare!

    Your other flaw is that if don’t believe we should screen them, then when they break laws, we do what we are doing now and incarcerate them at the tax-payers expense.

    So, maybe you should lay out your whole plan on immigration for us all to see. Maybe your plan would be better, but how are we to know that if we don’t see it? All I hear is you saying open the borders, leave the peaceful migrants alone and arrest the bad ones..

  133. Pepper,

    I’ll address your comments. But first, may I ask your opinion of the TSA?

  134. PAJ says:

    “Further, I find it absolutely telling that you would equate letting more immigrants into the country *legally* with trying to allow acts of homosexuality. Even those who violate our crazy (and yes as a “strict Constitutionalist” I would absolutely argue *unConstitutional*) discriminating quota laws for immigration have not committed sins that should be likened to sexual sin.” — Doug

    I’m dissappointed in you, Doug. I thought you were smarter than this. I did NOT equate homosexuality with immigration. And I even stated so in my post. Go back and read it again.

    As for the term “do-gooder,” it does not mean people who do good. A do-gooder is a person who enforces their ideology or beliefs on others because they “think” they know what’s best for the rest of us. Religious people, including the LDS, are filled with do-gooders. In fact, the vast majority of humanity, when given the chance, will happily enforce their nefarious will on others. Do you believe it? Speaking for the Gods, Jesus Christ revealed to Joseph Smith the true nature of men. Read this:

    D&C, Section 121:39
    We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

    Anyway, my purpose is not to discuss religion, but to expose the nature of mankind, how it relates to the term “do-gooder,” and how this evil mentality is at the root of all problems. The Constitution has been ignored because those who have taken an oath to defend and uphold it have an agenda that does not include supporting the law of the land. And we, the people, are unable to do anything about it. Why? Because a house divided against itself cannot stand. I say again — A nation that wishes to be both free and ignorant seeks that which has never been and cannot be.


  135. Pepper says:

    Sorry, TSA?

  136. Pepper,

    They’re the ones that scan your innards before you board an airplane.

  137. Pepper says:

    That is what I thought you meant but was not sure.

    If you’re refering to the latest devolopment, I don’t agree with their invasion of Citizens’ (or anyone really) private parts like that. Nothing that they scan would have stopped the last threat besides the fact that it is against the 4th Amendment.

    A Few years ago, my 8 year old Nephew was on the No Fly List as his identity had been stolen…still is….. That was quite fun to go through when we were on our way to Nauvoo.

  138. PAJ says:

    I’ve read through the posts of Doug and Jeffrey, and there’s nothing really left to say. These guys, perhaps well intentioned (do-gooders), are lost in a maze of broken politics. They can’t see it. Maybe they don’t want to. But their arguments are mostly flawed and/or tainted. Maybe it’s because they cannot see the big picture. Well, in any case, here is what I believe about the immigration issue:

    1) I believe that immigration and naturalization are joined at the hip. If the states were authorized to regulate immigration, then we’d have 50 different set of rules. That would be insanity, even by federal standards. It makes good sense to have the central government managing immigration and naturalization. And they are. The fact that they do it badly is beside the point.

    2) In order for a new born child in the USA to be granted citizenship, either the father and/or the mother must be a US Citizen. People who are inside the borders of the USA illegally, on a Visa, or even with a green card don’t count. The federal government has failed miserably to enforce the law as written.

    3) I believe that uncontrolled immigration and illegal immigration are destroying this nation like a cancer. Not only must we put an end to illegal immigration, but we absolutely MUST be discriminating when it comes to choosing who is allowed to immigrate to the USA for the purpose of acquiring citizenship. This is the only way possible to secure our American ideology and the American dream.

    4) I believe that we have already come too far under a system of uncontrolled and illegal immigration and that we can no longer fix the problem. The nation that once was is gone. What we have today is far less than what we once had, and it’s getting worse. And as long as we have do-gooders and social engineers constantly working to open the gates, then our condition will continue to devolve until we are no more.

    I may love humanity because of who we are, but that doesn’t mean that I want to live with and associate with everyone. I prefer to associate with like minded people. It is the same for everyone. People with lower standards love to move up. But people with higher standard dread it. If a person from another country wants to migrate to the USA and acquire citizenship, I am perfectly fine with it as long as he does it lawfully and is willing to adopt the American ideology (political, economic, religious, and moral) into his life and become an American. If a communist or despot comes into this country and is not willing to set aside their substandard ideals, then he is a threat to the security of this nation and everyone in it.


  139. If the states were authorized to regulate immigration, then we’d have 50 different set of rules.

    The same could be said of any law. Any law at all. At yet… the states have the sole responsibility of outlawing murder, theft, kidnapping, of implementing traffic laws, drivers license laws. And they do vary from State to State.

    It makes good sense to have the central government managing immigration and naturalization.

    Naturalization, yes. Immigration, no.

    In order for a new born child in the USA to be granted citizenship, either the father and/or the mother must be a US Citizen. People who are inside the borders of the USA illegally, on a Visa, or even with a green card don’t count.

    I absolutely agree.

    we absolutely MUST be discriminating when it comes to choosing who is allowed to immigrate to the USA for the purpose of acquiring citizenship.

    OF COURSE we must discriminate who becomes citizens. Congress has all power to discriminate who becomes a citizen. If Congress wants to ban communists from becoming citizens, I could probably support that.

    But moving here, and voting as a citizen, are two different things. People can live here their entire lives and not be citizens or vote. Fine by me. Immigration does not, nor should it, automatically lead to citizenship. If everybody who crossed the border became a citizen, we WOULD have problems. That’s why the founders didn’t see it that way. That’s why they saw immigration and naturalization as two different things.

    Let’s let anyone who wants to live and work here do so. That’s called freedom. We don’t have to let them vote, or let them become citizens.

    Also, if you compare immigrants to cancer again, you’re just plain xenophobic. End of story.

    The nation that once was is gone. What we have today is far less than what we once had, and it’s getting worse.

    Agreed. And that’s not the immigrant’s fault. That’s our fault. Don’t try to shift the blame from yourself and myself.

    And as long as we have do-gooders and social engineers constantly working to open the gates

    You’re the one wanting to socially engineer the ideological and racial demographic of our nation. You’re a social engineer, wanting to create a nation exactly how you wish it. I just want to let the free market work, and let people work and live where they wish. Why? Because I believe in freedom. You want to control the free market, and punish people from contracting with whom they please. Why? Because you don’t believe in freedom. You believe that freedom will destroy America.

    I reject social engineering, central planning, and any other form of socialized government.

    Here is an excellent article. Read it! Immigration controls are central planning, and socialistic in nature:

    I may love humanity because of who we are, but that doesn’t mean that I want to live with and associate with everyone

    Then don’t.

    I prefer to associate with like minded people.

    Then do.

    If a person from another country wants to migrate to the USA and acquire citizenship

    I have NEVER said that we should let anybody and everybody become citizens. I’ve only said that we should let anybody who simply wants to live and work here, live and work here. They can do so without becoming citizens. Residence is a requirement of citizenship, but citizenship is not a requirement of residence. Let’s be very picky about who we let become citizens. But let’s let the free market decide who lives here.

    It is the same for everyone.

    Sure. But some people like hiring and working with Mexicans. Why not let them? They’re nice people. Don’t try to force your associations on others. Free association, right?

  140. Pepper,

    That’s what I thought. I believe that the TSA and ICE are pretty much the same. They are both (to a large extent) unconstitutional federal departments using scare tactics to circumvent the 4th amendment in the name of national security.

    Here’s my immigration plan: If we have probably cause to suspect that someone is smuggling across the border, or is a known fugitive or criminal, let’s arrest them. Otherwise, let’s let people be. We can’t search everyone’s house to make sure no one’s a criminal. We have to have probably cause first. We can’t stop and interrogate anyone on the street to see if they’ve violated a law. We have to have probable cause first. We can’t just stop and search everyone who crosses the border to see if they are a criminal. We have to have probably cause first.

    That is the American way. We don’t violate people’s privacy, or restrict their movements, unless have have probable cause that the particular person who we are searching or restricting is violating a law (not an immigration law, since simply moving to another nation shouldn’t be illegal. I’m talking about other laws, such as theft, conspiracy, murder, kidnapping, etc.).

    So, let’s let states do that. Let’s let them arrest criminals. But why in the world should we restrict the movement of, or search, an individual unless we suspect that individual of having committed (or attempting to commit) a crime against others?

    He who favors security over freedom, deserves neither.

    • Mike says:

      “We can’t just stop and search everyone who crosses the border to see if they are a criminal”

      Yes, we can. I do it legally every day. You would be foolish to not do so.

  141. For some reason my browser kept putting “probably” instead of “probable.” Sorry about that.

  142. Pepper says:

    I dont know who sent the last one on the history of immigration because I do not see it one here, I am sure it was Paul—-way to go, I was looking for that—– I will copy and paste that for sure!

    “Here’s my immigration plan: If we have probably cause to suspect that someone is smuggling across the border, or is a known fugitive or criminal, let’s arrest them.”

    Okay, how do we “suspect” them if they come from a different country and we have no knowledge of their history? If there is no one at the gates/borders how do we know if they have smuggled anything? At what office do they report to when they get here and do they automatically become citizens is it all right with you that the Fed Gov has set the laws for Naturalization? If they have committed crimes And once we arrest them, it is your contention that as taxpaying citizens it is our responsibility to pay for these criminals? We obviously cannot just let them roam free and under your plan, we dont have the right to send them back to their homeland because they have an inalienable right to be here.

  143. Once we arrest them, it is your contention that as taxpaying citizens it is our responsibility to pay for these criminals?

    If they commit acts of aggression agains the life, liberty, and property of others, then they are criminals. If they are a citizen of Mexico, then certainly let’s return them to Mexico to be tried there. If they are not citizens of Mexico, but simply non-citizen residents of the U.S., then let’s give them a fair trial.

    Honestly, anyone who lives here should be paying taxes, citizen or not. Why? Because the income tax amendment should be repealed, and we should replace it with a state consumption tax. That way, every resident, citizen or not, anonymously pays taxes. So, any resident would have every right to be given a fair trial, if we choose not to send them to their country of citizenship for one.

    do they automatically become citizens

    Heck no. That’d be dangerous to our nation.

    is it all right with you that the Fed Gov has set the laws for Naturalization

    Yes, I’ve said that about two dozen times.

    If there is no one at the gates/borders how do we know if they have smuggled anything?

    The same could be asked of the Utah/Colorado border. We do just fine, though.

    • Mike says:

      If there is no one at the gates/borders how do we know if they have smuggled anything?

      The same could be asked of the Utah/Colorado border. We do just fine, though.

      No, we don’t do just fine. My fellow Border Patrol Agents and I catch human trafficers (for the sex trade) , drug trafficers, money trafficers, fraud document, and arms trafficers every DAY. take you head out of where the sun don’t shine and sniff reality. Get a clue. I swear you are a socialist/communits mole.

  144. I wish I could see that post here too, because guess what? Everything in it is evidence that I’m right! :) :)

    He talks about how the Federal government regularly made laws restricting who can become citizens. But they never told anybody they couldn’t come live here! Just that it was harder for them to become citizens.

    Likewise, the date provided showed who was actually in charge of immigration under the Constitution: The states. Why? Because it was a state power, not a federal power.

    Every fact in that mysteriously vanished comment is evidence that immigration is a state power, while naturalization is a federal power, and that the two powers are separate.

    Whoever posted that comment should know that their research demonstrates that immigration is not a power delegated to the Federal government in the Constitution. Rather, it is reserved entirely to the States.

  145. “the data provided show who was” Forgive my typo.

  146. Pepper says:

    @ PAJ & PEPPER
    what defines the proper character and values of the american way of life?
    if you guys forefathers fall in to these categories, they should have never
    come here in the first place. cause they were poor or in need. otherwise they
    would have never come to America and stayed in Europe. Learn your history
    brothers, very unfortunate that your families have not passed this on to your
    generation. there is one simple word to describe the antagonistic character
    of the american society towards the people that serves your meals, mow your
    loans, build your houses, build your roads, process your food. and that is

    I am not sure who wrote the top part it was in my email but I do not see it here:

    Let me make one thing very clear. I am NOT racist. On my dad’s side of the family is a melting pot of Black, Hispanic, Philippine and Indian. On my husbands side, I have nephews and nieces who are part Hispanic AND my own DIL and Grandson are both from the Caribbean and are Latino. Race is not a factor for me.

    Second, those same jobs that you say the illegals do for me, would have been great for my brother who was out of work for nearly a year from the construction industry, when all the jobs went south, but the illegals still had jobs. My pre-mission son for a whole year tried to find work, especially in the restaurant and lawn maintenance business, but yes, there were too many illegals who had those jobs in my area as well. Finally, I don’t hire out mowing my lawn, we are capable of doing that….thanks

    I know so many families who would love and would do any job necessary to feed their families….I am one of them. Our whole financial life went south over the past two years and we are left to rebuild after 24 years of marriage. My hubby has been out of work for almost a year and we have done everything we can to find work. So please, do not lecture me on how those good ole illegals do jobs that we White/American people will not do, including farming (my nephew has worked on a potato farm for three years in the summer time when its 117 degrees).

    I will tell you the honest truth, if those same illegals would have stood up on our Capital professing their love for principles of freedom and swearing that they would stand with us against tyranny and against all foreign powers, if they would have said they want to work with us and be one with us (not expecting welfare) I would have gladly stepped in between the Law and them….but that is not what happened. They came to our capital telling us that we are the cause of all their problems, that we are criminals and that they will do us harm with the tools they use to work with…that is not imagined it was real! They proclaimed that they were socialists (I have the pics from my friend who works at the capital) and that they intend to overthrow this land and that they will be our masters. They also stated that we “owe” them the welfare they get!

    So for those of you who have wonderful Mexican illegal friends, who want these same things as we do, please tell them to go to the rallies, speak out in the news, blog…whatever so that their voices can be heard over the Communist/Socialist/Terrorist voices!


    PS: If anyone knows of a place I could post the pictures from last saturdays protest, please let me know and I will get them up so you can see what I am talking about.

  147. DougB says:


    I hope there is more to say. It is certainly untrue that I don’t want to see what may be flaws in my understanding of immigration, the Constitution, and our general American situation. I’ve already seen and read many things that have enlarged my perspective. Pepper’s concern about different states having different immigration standards is an excellent one. I’ve really got to think about that one. If California didn’t want to allow Germans to live within their boundaries, but Arizona didn’t mind allowing German immigrants then what would happen when that German family wants to resettle in California?

    But if you mean to say that my perspective is flawed because I refuse to call unknown potential immigrants a “cancer” or blame all the votes of our legal citizens upon them then … well you are right – I’m not yet convinced that you are correct.

    Furthermore I’m a bit surprised that you don’t see your hypocrisy in your definition of do-gooders. Somewhere you have acquired the opinion that white Americans represent the true American culture and other cultures are corrupting that. You want to push that view on others and push laws that restrict “others” coming here with these dangerous ideas that somehow in your omniscience they all harbor.

    The simple fact that we need to clean our own house of crazy Federally administered entitlement programs that were not designed by non-voting newccomers seems to have escaped you entirely.

    There is a huge difference between naturalization which grants rights of citizenship and immigration which is simply peaceful travel to live and work in a nation. Also racism and xenophobia is purely evil. You will have a difficult time convincing me otherwise.

  148. PAJ says:

    “Also, if you compare immigrants to cancer again, you’re just plain xenophobic. End of story.” – Jeffrey

    Gosh. You know, there is only so much stupidity that I can take. I don’t address most of the political highly opinionated garbage that comes from some people on this board because I have no desire to debate the issues and their flawed reasoning for the rest of my mortal life, but if you cannot understand the English language, then you have no business posting on any board. I’m starting to wonder if Jeffrey attended English class with Doug. Gack!

    The comparison is and was between “illegal and uncontrolled immigration,” not the immigrants themselves. Understand? Uncontrolled immigration absolutely is a cancer and may even be the Black Plague as well. I have no problem whatsoever with foreign nationals wanting to come to America for one reason or another. Why should I? The problem I have, as I have stated over and over again, is:

    1. Turning a blind eye to illegal immigration, thus allowing it to continue without stopping it.
    2. Allowing too many or the wrong type of immigrants to enter the USA for any reason.

    The reasons why the above points are bad for our country are self-evident. If you have common sense, the reasons should just jump out at you. Have a nice day. :-)


  149. Pepper says:

    Oooops, Forgot Jeffery,

    Your plan is no plan at all. I will take our National Immigration/Naturalization plan over yours any day of the week and if that is considered, UnAmerican or Racist or any other title that you want to lay at my feet, then so be it.

    On a more religious level, you could never support that plan by way of how the Book of Mormon peoples dealt with immigration.

  150. The comparison is and was between “illegal and uncontrolled immigration,” not the immigrants themselves.

    Ah, I got it. If they come through legally, then they aren’t socialist/communists/terrorists bent on corrupting American ideology anymore. Just the illegal ones are.

    So, if we were to legalize all immigration, you wouldn’t have a problem with that? By your definition, what makes them bad is the illegality of it. Therefore, if we legalize it all, it’s not bad anymore?

    Of course you wouldn’t agree with that. Because you don’t want them here, legal or not. Because you think they’re all socialists and communists.

    So don’t pretend you’re just against “illegal” immigration. You’re against Mexicans immigrating. Otherwise, you’d let them all come, and make it legal for them.

  151. On a more religious level, you could never support that plan by way of how the Book of Mormon peoples dealt with immigration.

    You mean, this way?

    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.

    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 buy and to sell, and to get gain, according to their desire.

    And it came to pass that they became exceedingly rich, both the Lamanites and the Nephites; and they did have an exceeding plenty of gold, and of silver, and of all manner of precious metals, both in the land south and in the land north.

    Is that what you’re talking about?

  152. Allowing too many or the wrong type of immigrants to enter the USA for any reason.

    I see no problem with allowing someone of a different ideology to come and live here, as long as we don’t grant them citizenship. It is their citizenship and voting that you’re worried about, and we can certainly prevent them from doing that, if we wish.

  153. Pepper says:

    You are without a doubt the most arrogant person I have ever read! I DO have a problem with people of all nationalities coming here who have communist/socialist/terrorist ideology! I have a problem with Citizens having this ideology! However, It will be much easier to know if they are IF they have to go through the process, how simplistic is that?

    How dare you state that I dont want Mexicans, as IF I have some vendetta against them because of the color of their skin or Nationality! MY NIECE WHO JUST NATURALIZED AFTER 12 YEARS IS FROM MEXICO and I adore her and her children!!!!!! I am for legal immigration no matter the color, the nationality or the race….I am against criminals/communists and terrorist! The problem is that all the above is coming in through the Mexican(Even Muslims, etc) Border and that makes open borders a threat to our safety…end of story.

    As far the BOM….start from the beginning maybe you will then get a clue!

    I have no more comments to make to you, you pushed the line with your last comments. Just because I don’t agree with your “plan” and actually put holes in your theories (BTW: if no one pays taxes who takes care of all the prisoners we will collect….please dont answer since nothing you say has any more credibility), you come back with that kind of trash talk…typical.

    Paul—-it has been nice reading you!

  154. BTW: if no one pays taxes who takes care of all the prisoners we will collect….please dont answer since nothing you say has any more credibility

    Perhaps you don’t read, because I already answered that exact question.

    Here’s a quote from my previous comment:

    anyone who lives here should be paying taxes, citizen or not. Why? Because the income tax amendment should be repealed, and we should replace it with a state consumption tax. That way, every resident, citizen or not, anonymously pays taxes.

    In other words, all residents, citizens and non-citizens alike, should pay taxes. Why? Because all residents, citizens and non-citizens alike, are protected in their life, liberty, and property by our government.

  155. I have a problem with Citizens having this ideology!

    I, too, have a problem with that. Which is why I want our Federal government to be very picky about who it confers citizenship on.

    I WANT the government to be picky about who becomes a citizen.

  156. PAJ says:


    If you run for office, I will vote for you. :-)

    Don’t waste any more time debating people like Jeffrey or others like him. He is nothing more than an Internet board Antagonist — a wolf in sheep’s clothing. These guys have any one of a thousand nefarious agendas and they use the boards to spread their gospel. It is fun to discuss/debate issues with honest people, but nobody can win an argument with dishonest people on an Internet board. The courts, for example, have strict rules that everyone has to obey. On Internet boards, there are no rules, and most people aren’t smart enough to figure out which side is telling the truth. LOL!

    The following quote is relevant here:

    “There are a great many wise men and women too in our midst who are too wise to be taught; therefore they must die in their ignorance, and in the resurrection they will find their mistake.” – Joseph Smith (HC 5:424)

  157. PAJ says:

    There is another side of the immigration issue that I want to make sure I am clear about. That is about allowing foreign nationals to come here and work on H1B or other similar types of Visas. Work Visas should only be granted when the economy is strong and there is an abundance of jobs and not enough qualified American citizens to fill them. Then, under strict controls, a carefully regulated number of temporary Visas can be granted for qualified foreign nationals. But under no circumstances should work Visas be granted on such a large scale that it affects the ability of qualified American citizens to find work. This is a gross mistake that can cause significant problems for our economy. Sadly, this is exactly what has been happening and the leadership in this nation has completely failed to resolve it. Of course, it is also possible that there is no failure, but an intentional effort to give away American jobs. Gack!


    • @PAJ, by your comments on not allowing immigrants into the country while there are jobs Americans can do shows your hostility towards the right people have to associate with whoever they please. Jobs are not owned, and Americans don’t own them. Jobs are contracts between two consenting parties. If I desire to hire 15 Mexican immigrants, that is no one’s business but my own. To intervene by force as a 3rd party and demand that I hire home-born Americans is a violation of my right to associate and contract with others that I choose. You would wield a sword against those who choose to associate and contract with others you don’t approve of. That’s the definition of tyranny.

  158. Paul,

    I have spoken nothing but the truth, and my only intention is to preserve states rights against unconstitutional federal encroachment of power, and to see people treated as people instead of scapegoats.

    I fear that we are using these people as scapegoats to distract us from the real problem: our own sense of entitlement, and our own desire to expand government.

  159. PAJ says:

    “I see no problem with allowing someone of a different ideology to come and live here, as long as we don’t grant them citizenship.” – Jeffrey

    Allowing the wrong types of people into this country is the problem. Granting them citizenship is just the icing on the cake. We must not allow bad seeds to be planted into our national soil. If we do, then they will take root and spread like weeds. And as we already know, weeds overrun and choke out the flowers in the garden. Look around folks. This is exactly what is happening. And this is what Jeffrey is advocating. America’s life-force is being devoured by the weeds of immigration. Gack!

    “I have spoken nothing but the truth, and my only intention is to preserve states rights against unconstitutional federal encroachment of power, and to see people treated as people instead of scapegoats. I fear that we are using these people as scapegoats to distract us from the real problem: our own sense of entitlement, and our own desire to expand government.” — Jeffrey

    While Jeffrey is trying to address various defects in the American sky-scraper, the very foundation of the structure is being destabilized, and the whole building is in danger of collapse. Folks, we must first save the foundation, and then we can work on the rest of the problems. It doesn’t do any good to change the air filter in your car if the timing chain goes out.

    Gosh. I don’t know why I am spending time writing this post. I see the end from the beginning, and it is hopeless. Many of you, perhaps most, still believe we can fix the problems. But in light of the fact that our nation has been infected with so many people who do not share our American ideology, and the fact that virtually all of our leaders are wicked and corrupt, I see the end of the game coming – checkmate. In fact, the game may already be over. Nevertheless, it is the responsibility of those who have greater knowledge to be a light and an example for others, to give them the opportunity to improve themselves. To this end, we must not remain silent. We must remain firm and dedicated to correct principles and hope for the best.


  160. Pepper says:

    Paul—Thanks for the vote of confidence…same to you! I would love to have your email so that when you have good stuff to forward, I’d always appreciate it.

    You also made an EXCELLENT point about the work visa’s. That actually is the immigration law in Mexico. When applying for a Work Visa, you have to prove that a Mexican cannot do the job you are seeking……..

    Wow, food for thought!


  161. PAJ says:


    I am glad to hear that the Mexicans are smarter than the Immigration officials in the United States. Maybe it’s just a matter of having common sense. In any case, implementing the correct government procedures to regulate immigration is not rocket science. It just takes people who are honest and willing to do what is right to protect America.

    You can send me an email to and I will respond to you with my primary email account.


  162. I suppose those who want to move to Utah to work should have to first prove that a Utahn can’t do the job? Otherwise, they’d be stealing jobs from Utah residents.

  163. ben says:

    The prophets have stated many times that the saints who live in Mexico, South America, Russia etcc need to stay in their own countries and build the kingdom there. No longer is the need for the saints to travel to Utah and the US. They need to stay in their own country. The word of the lord is clear and those illegals from mexico or whever need to stay in their own country in they are members of the church. We should not see any members of the church breaking the laws of the land. The prophets have not been silent on this issue. Only there needs to be eyes and ears willing to hear.

    As a hispanic I support the AZ bill. I support legal immigration and would deport those illegals from any country

  164. PAJ says:

    “I suppose those who want to move to Utah to work should have to first prove that a Utahn can’t do the job? Otherwise, they’d be stealing jobs from Utah residents.” — Jeffrey

    Americans can’t steal jobs from Americans, folks. I hope everyone else understands that.


  165. Paul,

    Sure they can. I wanted a job once. But a Californian took it. That job was stolen from me. I am a Utah resident, and only I, therefore, have the right to be employed by Utah employers.

    The logic behind the previous statement is just as fallacious if I replace “Californian” with “Mexican.”

    I second Skyler’s comment, and uphold the right of an employer to hire whom he pleases, Mexican or American.

  166. PAJ says:


    If 15 Mexicans have lawfully immigrated to the USA, and an employer wants to hire them, I have no problem with that. Why would I? But if the USA is suffering a bad economy, then I do have a huge problem with bringing in more foreign nationals on work Visas when jobs are scarce. In this situation, unemployed Americans are more important to me than giving jobs to Mexicans or other foreign nationals. If you feel otherwise, then you and I have nothing further to discuss.


  167. Paul,

    Do you believe in allowing the free market to fix the economy?

    Competition drives markets and innovation. I feel as though regulations to “protect” American jobs and businesses actually hurt them in significant ways, by insulating them against competition.

  168. PAJ says:

    Gosh, I feel like I’m taking crazy pills. Gack!

    Within the borders of the United States, the free market works as expected. Open the borders or drill holes in it and the American economic equation is changed. And usually not for the better. This is a very simple concept. I don’t know why some have such a hard time with it, unless sound reasoning interferes with their personal agenda.

    Honestly, I am beginning to think there is something very ugly and evil at the heart of this endless contention I am seeing on this board. To wage a political war of words against those who support a strong national security, stopping illegal immigration, and controlling who is allowed into this nation is anti-American and perhaps even like unto Treason.

    Enough of this!


  169. Paul,

    Protecting American jobs is not a matter of national security. In fact, it is not a proper role of government at all.

    I have been called treasonous, anti-american, socialist, communist, and dozen more names simply because I don’t believe that the government should be in the business of protecting jobs, ideological policemanship (the BOM says that there should be “no law against a man’s belief,” for such is contrary to the laws of God), or unconstitutional federal usurpation of state power.

    Wow… I must be so un-American! :)

  170. If I’m un-American, then so is Ezra Taft Benson. He said:

    No one has the authority to grant such powers, as welfare programs, schemes for re-distributing the wealth, and activities which coerce people into acting in accordance with a prescribed code of social planning. There is one simple test. Do I as an individual have a right to use force upon my neighbor to accomplish this goal? If I do have such a right, then I may delegate that power to my government to exercise on my behalf. If I do not have that right as an individual, then I cannot delegate it to government, and I cannot ask my government to perform the act for me.

    Under this criteria, neither protecting jobs from competition or ideological policemanship are within the proper role of the government. Social planning, as described above, certainly includes regulating the racial/economic demographic of immigrants.

  171. Pepper says:

    I too, feel sick about the attitudes of some people on this thread. It is mind boggling to me to think that an American would rather give a job to a foreigner (not already here and is legal), than to their QUALIFIED American Brother or Sister….it makes no sense to me?

    There is nothing racist or xenophobic about being a Nationalist. We should never be ashamed of being an American and wanting to boulster another American, whether naturally born or naturalized?

    on this website and you will be able to see how much money has been wired out of this country to 1. Mexico 31,000,000,000+ since 2006 and 2. Latin America 273,000,000,000+ since 2001…. I dont know how much is being wired into the US but this is very startling to know that much money has gone out from our economy to support other nations.

    I feel as Paul does, in a hurting economy, we should be looking to support our own American Families first. Isn’t that what the Lord teaches us in the church, to look out for each other and then outward?

    I just feel sad for Americans because I do feel as Paul (and the Prophets) does, other Americans are at the heart of hurting this once great nation and we are so ripe for destruction.

  172. Pepper,

    I’m not sure how fixing/protecting the economy is the government’s job. Read Benson’s quote above, and tell me if it is at all the government’s concern who works here, how much money they make, and where they send it to.

    It is wrong for governments to rob people of jobs, and to tax people and send money to other nations.

    But is is NO crime for a private individual to hire foreigners, or for private citizens to send money oversees. That is not the government’s business.

    If I’m un-American for saying that, then so is Ezra Taft Benson, David O. McKay, J. Reuben Clark, and others to have said that the government’s sole purpose is to protect our lives, liberty, and property against forceful aggression, and not to micromanage the economy.

    Yes, perhaps as an employer, I should hire an American neighbor instead of inviting a Mexican to come to America to work for me. But it is pure TYRANNY for the government to force me to.

  173. Skyler,

    Thanks for the attempt to end the conversation. I know it’s futile. It is hard to convert those who think the government should micromanage the economy that freedom is the better route.

    It’s fun to hone my arguments. I consider PAJ a kind of grindstone that sharpens my love for freedom and helps me learn to respond to the arguments of big-government advocates.

  174. Isn’t that what the Lord teaches us in the church, to look out for each other and then outward?

    Perhaps. But the Lord teaches us to force others to do the same?

    The Lord also teaches us to give to the poor. Should we be forced to do that too?

  175. PAJ says:

    Wow. I was right. Such evil and wickedness coming from some on this board. But I sense at the heart of it all is unquenchable hate. Sure, they wave the flad and the Constitution in our faces and dress in sheeps clothing, but it is only an illusion. They are misguided individuals masquerading as patriots. And sadly, there are a lot of people who think like they do. That’s why our nation is suffering so much. There is only one thing that will fix our problems — checkmate. LOL!


    checkmate = desolation of abomination

  176. Paul,

    I’m full of hate for quoting and believing Ezra Taft Benson?

    Again, how does insulating American jobs form competition either (1) a free market approach, or (2) meet Benson’s criteria for the proper role of government?

  177. forive my typo: insulating American jobs *from* competition

  178. Pepper says:

    Jeffery, –it is against my better judgment to engage in a discussion with you but….The reason we will never see eye to on this issue is because you believe that the Fed Gov. has no right to manage immigration, I do. I believe that not having immigration and naturalization magnaged by the Fed Gov would cause chaos, you don’t. Therefore any other issue is going to be a disagreement on how it should be done.

    I agree with Pres. Benson’s statements, I do not however agree with how you are applying them here, again because our differences on our beliefs on Fed immigration. If you were talking about Civil Rights issues in being able to control the hiring/firing of American/legal immigrant personel in your own business, regardless of gender or ethnicity, I would agree 100%. The Gov regulating quatas is what has hurt productivity and competition in the market place. Another problem is that we are outsourcing work that Americans could and should be doing… ………. I believe in commerce with other nations as long as the American Economy (or any nations ecomony) does not become a vicitim of more going out than what is coming in to put the people of those nations out of work. I think all nations have the right to become rich by the work and labor they perform.

    However, when that outsourcing becomes a problem whether it is through too many jobs going out to other countries or by hiring foreigners through work visas, then that is when the country to needs to evaluate the needs of their own people and make sure the balance is accurate.

    However, I am going to research and familiarize myself again with what the early leaders said about supporting the Nation in which you reside from the talks given during the Depression years. Maybe there will be further insight……….. I am not unwilling to change my opinion on this issue, but as I feel now, that it only makes sense to limit giving Work Visa when there is such a huge need for Americans to have jobs and there are thousands of qualified Americans who could do them.

    incidently over the past 24 hours I have been doing a random poll of people about this topic, so far, 100% believe we should take care of Americans first, Foreigers second. In fact, they acted shocked that I would even think it should be any other way…..

    As far as the church is concerned of course it is voluntary, but those who do enter into that type of covenant support is blessed far beyond those who don’t. My point is that as Americans our foremost thought should be about other Americans. If we actually would support laws that support personal property rights, etc…we would excell in prosperity and that would over flow to other nations, just as it always has.

    Just a thought:
    If your child is out of work and may not be able to find work and you owned a business that they were capable of doing (or even you were capable of training them to do), would you rather feed your own child, giving them a way to make a living or would you rather hire the man down the street? I have had personal experience with this and let me tell you, it says volumes.

  179. And if by “hateful”, you are referring to being called a tyrant, well guess what:

    You and Pepper have called me un-American, socialist, communist, wolf-in-sheeps-clothing, treasonous, ignorant, stupid, and a host of other names.

    You have no leg to stand on when complaining of perceived hatred on our end.

  180. If your child is out of work and may not be able to find work and you owned a business that they were capable of doing (or even you were capable of training them to do), would you rather feed your own child, giving them a way to make a living or would you rather hire the man down the street?

    I would rather give my own child work. But don’t you dare try to force me to.

    Of course American employers should probably give jobs to Americans instead of inviting Mexicans who are currently in Mexico. It’s the only right thing to do. But if you think you therefore have the moral authority to force them to, you have the mind of a red-blooded tyrant (thanks Skyler).

    Just because something should be done, doesn’t give you the right to force it to be done.

    Let me say it again, just to be sure: Of course American employers should give jobs to Americans instead of inviting Mexicans who are currently in Mexico. It is the right thing to do. I’m all in favor of that. I would never encourage a business to invite Mexicans to come to America and work as long as Americans are out of the job. They should give preference to those who are here. But you have no right whatsoever to force them to.

  181. PAJ says:

    Singing the Star Spangled Banner, while supporting anti-American ideology, does not make you a Patriot. It makes you a Traitor. Gack!


  182. Pepper says:

    You and Pepper have called me un-American, socialist, communist, wolf-in-sheeps-clothing, treasonous, ignorant, stupid, and a host of other names. Jeffery—-

    WHAT? Please share with me in which posts I have called you any of those names?
    I don’t however you think you can say the same thing when talking about me. If I have, I apologize right now for that, it was wrong! I think it is a terrible thing when people cannot share their feelings about something without being called names. I try very hard never to engage in that, but if I have, I am very sorry as I hope that you are for the things you have said about me, not even knowing me personally.

  183. Paul,

    Singing the Star Spangled Banner, while supporting anti-American ideology, does not make you a Patriot. It makes you a Traitor.

    Is liberty an anti-american ideology? Is defending one’s right to hire whom they please, and live where they wish, an anti-american ideology?

    If you’re referring to socialism, communism, and fascism, I abhor all of those. I will NEVER support socialism, communism, or fascism.

  184. Pepper says:

    One more thing: In 1875 is when the Supreme Court found that Immigration was the responsibility of the Fed Gov. I am still doing research as to what the circumstances were and why that was brought to the Supreme Court for a decision. If anyone knows about this would you help me as I do my research to understand it.

    Maybe that will settle the debate as to whether Fed control of Immigration should or should not be taking place?

  185. Pepper,

    Until 1875, states had complete control over immigration, and the federal government had no control. States would sometimes “tax” immigrants as they disembarked onto U.S. shores. This was challenged in 1837, because some people believed that the Federal government has the sole authority to regulate immigration and tax immigrants, due to the foreign commerce clause of the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court upheld the State’s sole responsibility over immigration, and their right to tax immigrants. They said, “[G]oods are the subject of commerce, … persons are not.” They declared that because persons are not the subject of commerce, the Federal government has no business regulating it. This was the original intent/interpretation of the Constitution.

    In 1875, the exact same state regulations were challenged again. The Supreme Court reversed its 1837 decision. It essentially declared, in contrast with the 1837 ruling, that persons were subjects of commerce, and that the commerce clause was applicable. However, specifically, the ruling only said that the states couldn’t tax immigrants (it declared that these taxes were unfair). The ruling didn’t specifically grant the Federal government control over immigration.

    Historians, however, point to this Supreme Court reversal as the beginning of the Federal jurisdiction over immigration, because a few years later, the Federal government claimed full control over the issue. When this was challenged in the Supreme Court, the Court admitted that it was a completely extra-constitutional power (“outside of the Constitution”).

    The 1875 ruling was simply wrong, and objectified people as objects of commerce. The Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution in a sloppy way that violated what was previously seen as a State’s right. It also contradicted nearly a hundred years of court precedence, and the original interpretation of the Constitution.

  186. WSBTV News Channel 2 Investigates US Border Security Part 1
    Fron there, see
    WSBTV News Channel 2 Investigates US Border Security Part 2

    And if that is not enough, see the paths south of Tucson that are littered with human feces and thousands of backbacks, clothing, messy diapers and trash left by those who supposedly seek a better life here in Amerika.

    Mi casa no es su casa – and my wife is a naturalized citizen from El Salvador. Fences and borders exist because telestial folks do not respect property or life.

    We are at war in this world. We need to be able to protect our lives, our families and our property. This topic is not about racism or about being made guilty because we have been allowed to live a better life than others who do not live here. We cannot lift others up, if we are not on higher ground.

    I saw the civil war in El Salvador. I do not want to see another one here. It will happen when we let our guard down completely and unlock and open our doors, so any riff-raff and scalliwag can saunter through and take anything their heart desires.

    Do I have to be forced to stand guard at the ready to take another’s life, so my family can survive?

    This isn’t an ism issue. It is a liberty issue. Stop throwing the monkey poo around and stinking up the forum with the he said, she said nonsense. I came here to read intelligent dialogue, not a bunch of namecalling idiocy.

    Act like Saints and not like Mormons, okay?

  187. Robert,

    No saint would call Mexican immigrants “telestial folks.” That’s just racist. And wrong.

  188. Robert,

    That video justifies refusing to allow peaceful Mexicans to live and work here? He who prefers security over freedom, deserves neither. If we encounter someone that we have probably cause to believe will commit terrorist acts, let’s arrest them. Let’s leave everyone else alone.

    I’ve seen those pictures of the mess. It’s a problem we created with bad laws and strict immigration policy. If we were to just allow them to cross legally, they wouldn’t do that.

    It’s kind of like using the massive drug lords to justify the unconstitutional war on drugs. If we were to simply end the unconstitutional war on drugs, the drug lords would disappear. It would take the wind out of their sails.

  189. Robert,

    Let me pre-emptively apologize — my last racism remark was harsh. I know you were referring to more than just Mexicans, but to terrorists as well. Those who wish to kills us, or destroy our property, are telestial material.

    However, that’s not why national borders exist, as you say. National borders exist so as to define the geographical jurisdiction of the State. Beyond that, it is an arbitrary line. Let’s arrest people who come here who wish us harm, as we discover them. But let’s not refuse entry to those who don’t wish us harm. And comprehensive screenings are not the solution, because they are (1) prohibitively expensive and time consuming, and (2) a violation of the 4th amendment, which says we can only be searched or detained upon probable cause. Merely attempting to cross the border is not probably cause that one intends to inflict harm.

    Rather, we keep a sharp eye out, and search, detain, and arrest those we have probable cause to believe they intend to commit harm. We should leave the rest alone.

  190. PAJ says:

    “I’ve seen those pictures of the mess. It’s a problem we created with bad laws and strict immigration policy. If we were to just allow them to cross legally, they wouldn’t do that.” — Jeffrey

    Can you believe the stuff coming out of his mouth? Maybe we should build public toilets and showers in the DMZ between the border and the nearest towns, not to mention provide free burritos and tacos along the way so they are rested, fresh, and well fed by the time they arrive downtown. Maybe we should build public transportation (busses and trains) that can transport these illegal aliens to whatever city they want to invade, and then use our welfare state resources to house them and set them up with jobs and a new car. In fact, shouldn’t we also contact SETI and have them transmit a new message to outer-space that America has opened her borders to all aliens regardless of what nation or planetary system they come from. Gack! This guy should be on Oprah trying to sell is bag of rancid politics.


  191. Paul,

    A lot of people feel as though we need a draconian police state to protect us from terrorists. However, the war on terror is a problem of our own creation. It’s called “unintended consequences.” Radical Islam targets the United States because we meddle in their affairs. If we left them alone, left the Middle East completely, we would be a lot safer as a nation.

    A lot of people feel as though we need to crack down on drug lords and dump more money into the enforcement of drug laws. However, drug lords are largely a problem of our own creation. It’s called “unintended consequences.” If the Federal government were to just let people be, follow the Constitution (which would require an abandonment of all federal drug laws), drug lords may all but disappear.

    The same is true of this problem. The trespassing and littering are a problem of our own creation. It’s called “unintended consequences.” Because we’ve unconstitutionally and irrationally banned people from entering our nation (who have every right to do so), people find other, illegal routes. If we abandon the crappy laws that created the problem, the problem would solve itself.

    • DFM says:

      You are ignorant of radical Islam and Islam in general. Muslims believe that white people are a bleached out race and are children of the devil. They believe we are subhuman. Similar to the devil’s angels that we believe in.

  192. Pepper says:

    I have been in such turmoil over this issue because 1. I never want to be on the wrong side of the Constitution and 2. I never want to be on the wrong side of the Prophets…you know what I mean?

    I have made this issue of Immigration a matter of much prayer and study over the past few months, but more so this past few days because of the issue of Federal Control being Unconstitutional……(?)

    I have at times been in tears trying to understand the positions on this thread that have felt like to me, a threat to our Nation and the peace we all seek. I have been in prayer and deep thought all day on this issue and have plead for the Lord to give me understanding. I have prayed that if I am wrong to please help me to find it somewhere in the midst of the words of Prophets.

    Just now, I remembered a couple of books I have and went to them to see if there was anything in them. While I did not find specific on immigration I did find something I think a little more substantial in how we all should regard this issue.

    I want to give you the quotes first, then I will make my comments as to what this means to me;

    Heber J Grant

    “Perhaps there is nothing of greater importance, next to our spiritual growth, than a determination on the part of the Latter-day Saints to observe the laws of our country….One of the Articles of Faith (12) declares that we believe in and sustaining the law and supporting the rulers”

    All Latter-day Saints believe absolutely that the Constitution of our Country was inspired of God and that he used wise men, noble men, as instruments in his hands for establishing that Constitution, and when any law is enacted and becomes a Constitutional Law, no man who spend his money to help men break that law can truthfully say that he is a loyal citizen.”

    “We are also told to obey Constitutional Law, and any man or woman in the Church of Christ that is breaking the Prohibition Law is also breaking the laws of God”

    President Harold B. Lee at the October 1972 general conference instructed:

    “Now there is another danger that confronts us. There seem to be those among us who are as wolves among the flock, trying to lead some who are weak and unwary among Church members, according to reports that have reached us, who are taking the law into their own hands by refusing to pay their income tax because they have some political disagreement with constituted authorities.” (Ensign, January 1973, p. 106.)

    In the April 1973 Priesthood Bulletin the Church reaffirmed its position against those “who claim Church membership … making it appear as though their opposition to Federal tax laws is Church sponsored” by referring to President Lee’s aforementioned conference admonition and concluded with the following instructions to Church leaders:

    “We ask priesthood leaders to be on guard against such persons. They are not to be invited to speak in priesthood or sacrament meetings, firesides, or other Church meetings in attempting to spread their propaganda. Priesthood leaders should also teach the necessity of abiding the law according to the revelations.

    “The Lord has said:

    “ ‘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.)

    Okay, after I read these statements, an immediate feeling came into my mind and heart that ‘no matter if the Immigration Laws are/were Unconstitutional as has been suggested, they are the Laws of this Land and as Saints we are under strict command to obey them. If we do not support those laws, no matter what our personal feelings may be in the matter, we are on the wrong side of the law and the Lord.

    So, with that, this subject in my mind has been settled. The Lord will come and reign and when he does, he will set the Laws and Conditions. We already know something of those laws and that those who come to Zion and her Stakes will enter into Covenants to obey those laws or they will not enter therein.

    Regardless, we deserve whatever we get for not serving the God of this Land, I think that we can all agree to that!

    • Melvin says:

      Yes, the Lord will come to set up laws and regulate the statutes and the Constitution in America, and he will come down with him with chariots in heaven and if they are not willing to follow the Lord, and then the wars of the Lord will start and the chariots of God will throw lasers and destroy all of those that seek not the Lord and are not with the Lord, and the Lord will come from the Pleaides with him thousands and thousands who are the chariots of the Lord. The Wars of God will begin until the wicked is destroyed and then he will come down and begin to reign and access to the Kingdom of God and be crowned as the King of kings and Lord of Lords, and all the authority, power, principalities, and dignity shall be given unto Him.

  193. Pepper,

    no matter if the Immigration Laws are/were Unconstitutional as has been suggested, they are the Laws of this Land and as Saints we are under strict command to obey them.

    I understand your position. I can’t deny your experiences.

    However, those quotes and the scriptures say the opposite. They each say that we are bound to obey laws that are Constitutional. The Constitution is the law, and whenever the legislature enacts a statute that is in violation of the Constitution, that statute is illegal, and is therefore not law, but the whims of man.

    When the Lord said, “Let no man break the laws of the land,” he is referring equally to our legislature as to us. When the legislature violates the law (the Constitution, which gives them their authority), they no longer have moral authority to govern, and they are therefore not making laws, but simply issuing unauthoritative, arbitrary commands. If the legislature tomorrow were to throw off the remaining constraints of the Constitution and institute a police state, we would not be any more morally obligated to follow their dictates than we would be morally obligated to obey an intruder in our home.

    In talking about the income tax, the Constitution was amended to make it Constitutional. Latter-day Saints are therefore obligated to obey it. The same thing with the Prohibition. Every example they provided in the quotes above is a law that is Constitutional, or amended into the Constitution.

    The Lord said: “Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land; And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.” In other words, befriending law that is not Constitutional cometh of evil.

    Even D&C 134 says:

    We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments.

    The implication here is that when we are not protected in our inherent and inalienable rights, we are no longer bound to uphold the “laws” the government enacts.

    It is perfectly clear to me, as I read the prophets (even the quotes you provided) and the scriptures, that we are not morally obligated to follow an unconstitutional law.

    • Jeffrey, don’t forget D&C 98:5, a telling verse on just who the Constitutional applies to, and what parts of it we should honor, “And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.”

      In other words, only those parts of the Constitution that support “that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges” should we feel justified (before God) in honoring. As well, these principles belong to all mankind, including our friends to the south. This harmonizes everything you’ve written thus far on Federal immigration laws and the Constitution.

  194. Pepper,

    One more thing. Again, I understand your turmoil, and I really really appreciate your efforts to learn more about this subject and to have an open mind.

    However, I am worried about your claim that we are morally obligated to obey and enforce every statute passed by the legislature, whether Constitutional or not. How far are you willing to take that?

    When all the provisions of Obama’s health care are finally made into law, are you willing to fight as vociferously to enforce them? Are you willing to be as harsh against those who disobey Obama’s health care plan as you wish us to be against those who disobey immigration laws? After all, they are both enacted statutes of the legislature.

    It seems clear that God does not want us to be slaves to the whims of Congress, but rather only to those laws which are Constitutional laws of the land, as his prophets have said, and as the scriptures teach.

    • DFM says:

      You really need some humility.

      The answer is no, because it is bad law. The intent of our arguments here is to protect our way of life. There is such a thing as amendments to the constitution. The federal government controlling immigration only makes sense. You’re kind of like the Pharisees here using the letter of the law to do what you think is good, rather than abiding by the spirit of the law which is for America, and Americans. It is to protect our way of life. What is right? Not only the loopholes of the law.

  195. Unintended Consequences(tm)? No, the Consequences of law are intended. If we break laws, such as the Commandments, or moral laws, we suffer accordingly. Universal Law dictates that we live within certain bounds of civility so we can regain the presence of our Heavenly parents.

    What if we didn’t have laws regarding marriage? Or we didn’t follow laws that we had to obey in order to step inside the House of the Lord?

    What if we didn’t have to be baptized in order to enter into the Kingdom of God?

    Unintended Consequences(tm) indeed.

    Isin’t that Lucifer’s Plan to say there is no evil? He is the author of Unintended Consequences(tm).

    I bet that if we didn’t follow the laws of cleanliness, our homes and our bodies would not be heavens on earth or temples either, but would rather be hovels of uncleanliness where God could not dwell or visit.

    Put your foot down and stand for something. Enough is enough and declaring that barriers to entry are unlawful so anybody can enter is tantamount to leaving the doors unlocked on our vehicles, our homes and our lives.

    When we stand before God, we will be held accountable on how we treated our fellow men and women (families and extended families).

    The Articles of Faith are not there due to Unintended Consequences ™. Nor are the Gates of Heaven or the Veil in the Temple. We should not invite chaos. God is a God of order and He would like us to live our lives accordingly. ;^)

    Do not fall for the Unintended Consequences ™ lies. All consequences are Intended by somebody.

  196. Famer Brown says:

    Okay. It seems that posts on this board are being very accusatory. If Jeff is right and the Federal government does not have the authority for control immigration, then the problem is solved!!!
    Return to Constitutional authority and allow states to control their boarders.

    As it is, it seems that the states and residents along the borders get in trouble for trying to enforce it.
    Don’t you think AZ and TX would do a much better job deciding the impact on their economy and what they want to do about immigration? The Federal government, apparently unconstitutionally, has kept their hands tied we wouldn’t be in this mess if they had controlled their own boarders.

    Thanks, Jeff, for cluing us in on this problem. State sovereignty is the issue.

    I believe the usurping of this right was intentional to get us into this mess (secret combinations) by tweaking the unconstitutional laws and leaving states helpless.

    Also, Jeff is right. If we didn’t have the illegal welfare programs much of the problem wouldn’t exist. It would still be people coming to work and contribute.

  197. Pepper says:

    I just showed you instances where our own Prophets have told us that the laws of the land are to be obeyed. In the case of the Tax laws, we all know they are Unconstitutional but we are commanded as church members to pay them. Yet, they also stated that if we have issues with these laws to use our influence by way of vote, etc. to change the laws.

    This is the same thing that goes for our Health Law. None of us like it and we will use our influence in this next election to get those scoundrels who voted for it…out. Then our States leaders who are listening to the people, will/should take back the State rights and not enforce it. What will happen if the Fed Gov forces the issue? What do you think the Church Leadership will say to us as members?

    This same thing happened with the the 1875 Immigration Law. From everything I can surmise, the law came into being after the Civil War when there were States who were trying to make their own laws on Immigration that was trying to undermine the unity of the US, just as they were on the slave issue. From what I can also determine, (I admit that I it is hard to trust what you read) all the States did agree that it was best to have one united agreement on immigration policy.

    In fact, UT, which became part of the US in 1896 entered into that same policy and agreed upon it. The UT area was obtained by the US in a treatey with Spain in 1848. Why would the early Saints desire to be admitted to the US if they did not agree with the Constitution that was then in place in 1896?

    The Lord knew that in the very near future, Communism would take over the world and we would need to be defined by our borders and need to have security measure in place to help keep out as much as possible that ideology. I feel that trying to push this issue, that controled immigration is not in the Lord’s plan may be straining at a gnat and possibly denying God’s hand in doing what was necessary to protect this Country and to preserve it as the Light upon the Hill….the standard bearer of freedom.

    Whatever the reason for it, I can see the benefits and blessing of such actions taken. After thinking about it a great deal, I do beleive the Lord’s hand was in the defining of borders and immigration laws and I am at peace with that. I personally to do not see any evil in it. What I do see, is that as a free country, we would should have been more vigilant against communism. Our great sin was that we should have come to the aid of Nations that were already free as well, to help them maintain that freedom for themselves………Instead we ignored their pleas for help and we allowed Communists to not only overtake those nations but we allowed them to enter in among us by way of Operation Paperclip and later NWO agenda’s.

    BTW: One last note, the third world mentality that I have seen does not respect land. I have been to Mexico as a girl and saw a very messy place. I have been to DR where it was nothing for a man to urinate on the public walls. The areas that were not for tourist attraction, were dirty and unkept. So I dont beleive that if we leave the immigrants alone that they would be cleaner and respect our laws here.

    Our great State of AZ does NOT have an issue with Immigration Laws, what we have a problem with is that the LAW is not being followed and enforced by our Fed Gov.

    We have all evidence in the Scriptures that the Lord does indeed approve of borders. Nephi was commanded to seperate himself and all those who believed in God to leave and NOT to mingle with their brethren…We also learn in the Old Testament that God seperated the Israelites from their brethren and not to mingle with them….why?

    The only time God approved of the mingling was when the Lamanites denounced their belief system of warfare and ideology. The Lamites layed down their warfare and covenanted to live in peace.

    Isn’t it possible that the Lord inpired the leaders at that time to define borders

  198. Robert,

    Um… I really don’t know what to say. I’m at a loss for words. You either completely and thoroughly misunderstood me, or your deliberately trying to confuse everyone else.

    Of course, breaking God’s laws have consequences. I never ONCE denied that. As for the rest of your post… it was just weird. Did I say that the AoF were due to unintended consequences? I would never say, or imply, such a thing. Did I say all consequences were unintended? Not in the least. Did I say that our actions don’t have consequences due to eternal law? I never once breathed a word of that.

    However, you know and I know that man cannot foresee all the practical consequences of the man-made statutes they enact. See here for a specific example:

    That’s the kind of unintended consequences I am talking about.

    Honestly, your response was just weird.

  199. Pepper,

    I just showed you instances where our own Prophets have told us that the laws of the land are to be obeyed.

    You showed me instances where the Prophets have told us that Constitutional laws of the land are to be obeyed.

    In the case of the Tax laws, we all know they are Unconstitutional but we are commanded as church members to pay them.

    No they aren’t. They are Constitutional. The Constitution was amended to allow it. Read your Constitution, maybe?

    States did agree that it was best to have one united agreement on immigration policy.

    They did? Where is this agreement? And even so, that doesn’t make it Constitutional. Constitutional amendment makes it Constitutional. Are you saying that every law after the Civil War was unanimously agreed to by the States, and therefore Constitutional?

    Why would the early Saints desire to be admitted to the US if they did not agree with the Constitution that was then in place in 1896?

    Um…. not even a valid argument. Seriously… Of course the leaders approved of the Constitution. But that doesn’t mean they approved of all the ways in which the government was ignoring it.

    Honestly, God didn’t write immigration laws. Man did. Man did so in violation of (1) divine principle, and (2) the Constitution. If you want to believe that God inspired the Chinese Exclusion Act (the first federal immigration law) or its successors, go ahead. But the Chinese Exclusion Act is just despicable racist tripe.

    And Pepper, keeping Pedro (a man with a family who simply wants to work and provide for them, who is not involved in any particular political ideology) from entering our nation is NOT a national security threat. It is just wrong.

  200. Pepper says:

    Is Social Security wrong? Yes it is, yet we have to pay it.
    Our current tax laws are wrong……however, taxes for what the were originally intended is not and are constitutional
    Property Tax is wrong—and yet you have to pay it…….
    The Income Tax Amendment was never ratified by 2/3 of the states…there are numerous taxes that are levied against us that do not fit into the Constitutional part and yet we have to pay them.

    Of course all those exclusionary laws against one Race/Ethinc Group is tripe, thus the reason they never held up. Of course the States agreed to the Law or else we would have had another war on our hands….come on, reason that one out. I have not found any documentation that suggests that the States were in an uprise against it…if you have that information, please provide the links and I will be glad to look into that further.

    As far as UT, why isn’t that a valid argument, what makes it invalid? If they wanted to be apart of the US that had established immigration laws…..that means they gave their consent to obey it. I did not say they approved all of it, I said that they consented to abide by it. Therein lies my point when it comes to us as members of the church. If you dont agree with immigration laws then do something to change it, otherwise you are under obligation to uphold it as well.

    I 100% agree with you that Pedro who wants to provide for his family should be allowed to provide for his family. Thus we as a free nation should support the people in other nations who are willing to stand up for their freedom and change their own goverments. We should always be on the side of helping other people to have what we have.

    I also believe that many of the hooplas are ridiculous for immigration and that we should make it easier, especially third world countries, to be able to migrate here. I am not against that, I am just for screening and for verifying that Pedro is not a criminal that intends on doing harm. I dont believe we have the responsibility to make sure we “catch” Pedro in the act of doing wrong and then incarinating him at our expense.

  201. Pepper,

    I am not against that, I am just for screening and for verifying that Pedro is not a criminal that intends on doing harm.

    Why can’t this be done on a state level, then? Why does it have to be a federal law?

    If they wanted to be apart of the US that had established immigration laws…..that means they gave their consent to obey it.

    That isn’t what you said. You said that this means they agreed/approved of it. But no, the leaders have never said that we are morally obligated to follow tyrants when they transcend their legal authority.

    Yes, we have to pay social security and other taxes… because we’re forced to and we’ll go to jail and make a bad name for the church otherwise. But if it weren’t enforced, I don’t think our leaders would even care.

    Here’s the deal… even if we were under obligation to obey unconstitutional laws (we aren’t), it is very different from saying that we are under moral obligation to vociferously demand that unconstitutional laws be enforced.

    You are conflating the two. You are asking not just that you or I obey an unconstitutional law (which is one thing), you are demanding that we both petition the government to enforce it too (something entirely different).

    Even if I’m under moral obligation to follow Obama’s health care laws (I’m not), I have no obligation to petition Congress to enforce it, or to petition congress for harsh penalties for others that don’t obey it. At that point, I’m not just obeying the unconstitutional law, I’m complicit in making and encouraging unconstitutional law. That puts me on the wrong side of God and the Constitution.

  202. Pepper says:

    First, I agree that if we we were not “forced “to the Church would not care……that is the point! It is not just about making a bad name for the church, it is about being able to continue the work of spreading the gospel…kind of hard to do when the LDS people are in jail.

    Second, they did AGREE to obey the Constitution that was in place at the time. I never said approve I said AGREE. So what you are saying is that if Obama Healthcare and now it looks like he is pushing hard for another EPA bill (Senate will be voting on the Murkowski Resolution on June 10) that you will not obey it? The IRS will be in charge of making sure you are paying for it….if not, that will most likely mean jail….so what will you do then? The only thing that could stop it is another revolution and no one wants that, it would be a horrible bloody war, but if the people want to throw off the tyrants they have the right to do so…….

    I am saying that if YOU don’t agree with the Immigration Law, then do something about it. If YOU believe it is Unconstitutional, then YOU start a petition to have it changed (obviously there are a whole bunch of liberals/democrats and others that would support you in that), but if in the end, by the democratic process of selecting our leaders and/or voting on the proposition/bill then you are obligated to obey the laws that accompany it. (ie not hiring illegals, etc.)

    Again, I do not believe that it is in the best interest for each individual State to be in charge of finding that kind of information out and regulating their own laws as it will be a minagerie of different States having different requirements etc….. I beleive that it is in the best interest for United States to be Unified on Immigration Laws (if the people support such laws) and one of the few instances where it be regulated at a Federal Level.

    Third, please provide the links where I can find out that the States did NOT support the Supreme Court Ruling that the Federal Government was to be in charge of Immigration procedures.

  203. Pepper,

    Second, they did AGREE to obey the Constitution that was in place at the time.

    Ok, sure. Well, immigration was unconstitutional by the Constitution that was in place at the time. Same as today. That fact hasn’t changed. The 1875 Supreme Court decision didn’t change the Constitution.

    So what you are saying is that if Obama Healthcare and now it looks like he is pushing hard for another EPA bill (Senate will be voting on the Murkowski Resolution on June 10) that you will not obey it?

    I never said that. I simply said that we are not morally OBLIGATED to obey it. And that it would be wrong (and I know you agree with this) to demand, petition, and BEG the government to enforce them.

    then YOU start a petition to have it changed

    That’s what I’m doing… but people like you tell me that I’m un-American for doing so.

  204. One more thing:

    Of course all those exclusionary laws against one Race/Ethinc Group is tripe, thus the reason they never held up.

    The Chinese Exclusion act (instituted in 1882) was renewed several times, and wasn’t repealed until 1943. It was also upheld by the Supreme Court several times, even though it admitted that it was unconstitutional. Yes, it (and others) held up quite well. It stood as the precedent for modern immigration law.

  205. Pepper says:

    First, will you please stop putting words in my mouth that I did not say? I never said you were UnAmerican…right?

    Good for you in starting a petition for that cause, that is the American way of making change. It will be interesting to see how that plays out. However, I will warn you that you probably better come up with a plan other than, let them all come and then arrest and incarcerate those who break the law. It will need to include how taxes will be handled for all persons, etc. Based on what you said before, even if I felt that the law was Unconstitutional, I would never support your petition because it would not address many issue that face us.

    Second, what I don’t understand is that you quote a Supreme Court Justice in post 100 but then deny what an 1875 Supreme Court ruled as Constitutional? I personally would lean more towards an 1875 Supreme Court ruling vs a more modern day ruling when the Supreme Court is stacked with Men and Women who clearly do not honor the Const.

    As to an earlier statement about needing an Amendment if there was to be an immigration law, there was no need for an Amendment because they ruled that Immigration was Federal Responsibility that was already built into the Constitution.

    Anyway, you have your work cut out for you, good luck and keep me posted on how that is going.

  206. Pepper,

    Second, what I don’t understand is that you quote a Supreme Court Justice in post 100 but then deny what an 1875 Supreme Court ruled as Constitutional?

    It’s easy. The Supreme Court was wrong. They violated the Constitution.

    The 1875 never gave the Federal government power over immigration. It simply said that States couldn’t charge fees from immigrants, because some immigrants couldn’t pay them and it was unfair. Also… they said that they could say that because people were objects of commerce. Huh? You agree with that? That is a terrible ruling.

    It was the 1889 ruling that declared that the Federal government had power over immigration. And guess what? In that ruling, they admitted it wasn’t in the Constitution, but said the Federal government could do it anyways. So if you want to go by Supreme Court rulings, then you’ll have to agree with me that it is unconstitutional.

    So… no, the 1875 ruling didn’t make it Constitutional, and the 1889 ruling admits that it wasn’t. And… even if it had… then the Supreme Court would have been wrong. They can’t rewrite the Constitution from the bench.

    It will need to include how taxes will be handled for all persons, etc

    I already have. I explained it to you. :)

  207. Pepper says:

    Can you please provide that information (link or book name) I have been trying to find, but have been unsuccessful.


  208. PAJ says:

    “In the case of the Tax laws, we all know they are Unconstitutional but we are commanded as church members to pay them.” – Pepper

    “No they aren’t. They are Constitutional. The Constitution was amended to allow it. Read your Constitution, maybe?” – Jeffrey

    The position that the Constitution was amended to allow income taxation is completely flawed. In 1916, the U.S. Supreme Court said the following:

    “the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged” — STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO, 240 U.S. 103 (1916)

    I have posted this ruling, not to start a new thread on the legality of the income tax laws, but to point out the huge misconception the vast majority of Americans have with regards to the 16th amendment. And just like most people, Jeffrey has fallen into the trap of not understanding the issue and how far down the rabbit hole this mystery goes.

    The bottom line is this. The 16th amendment did not change the constitution at all, but merely restated the already existing powers of taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning. Now, you may ask, if this is true, why was the 16th amendment added to the Constitution? Well, therein lays the great mystery. In a nutshell, it comes down to this: The 16th was implemented by Congress to address a problem with the way in which the Supreme Court had ruled on several previous income tax cases. The court had mistakenly resorted to the source (property) in these cases and, because the tax was not apportioned as all direct taxes must be, the court found the income tax law to be in violation of the law of the land for lack of apportionment, and was held unconstitutional.

    There are two kinds of taxes authorized under the Constitution: Direct and Indirect. All direct taxes must be apportioned among the states (see Article 1, Section 9). All indirect taxes must be uniform across the nation (see Article 1, Section 8). Direct taxes are imposed upon people (capitation) or upon property. Indirect taxes (duties, imposts, and excises) are imposed upon some activity or event that is taxable. For example, a sales tax is an excise tax and an income tax is an excise tax. Anyway, there is a great deal more to be told here, but it goes way beyond the scope of this board and the eventual conclusion would be too unbelievable for almost everyone.

    So back to my original point; Jeffrey stated that the 16th amendment gave Congress the authority to tax incomes. He is wrong, again.

    The income tax laws are constitutional.

    The 16th amendment was ratified.

    When read without an understanding of Constitutional taxation, the language of the 16th can easily lead one to believe that it gave Congress some new kind of taxing power that it did not previously have. But once you understand the taxing powers and their specific rules, the 16th takes on a whole new meaning. Let me show you:

    Here is the 16th amendment:

    “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

    Now think about it, in light of what we know about the only two kinds of taxes that Congress can impose, and the rules by which they must be imposed, what is the only type of tax that can be implemented “without apportionment among the several states and without regards to any census or enumeration?” The answer is simple – an Indirect tax. Income taxes are indirect in nature and are specifically an excise tax imposed on certain taxable activities. The derived income is then used as a yardstick to measure the amount of tax to be paid.

    This issue is very complex and I have only scratched the surface. And this subject is just the tip of the iceberg. If the vast majority of you did not know this, then what else is there about the Constitution that you are mistaken about?

    A nation that wishes to be both free and ignorant, seeks that which has never been and cannot be.


  209. Tit for tat?

    “Boo-hoo! ¦Cry me a Rio Grande. Colorado needs to follow Arizona’s lead and put a stop to illegal aliens leeching off of its citizens. Heck, the money saved could fix the capitol building and balance the state’s budget.

    This is very interesting and if Arizona can do it, why can’t the rest of America ?


    Three cheers for Arizona

    The shoe is on the other foot and the Mexicans from the State of Sonora, Mexico doesn’t like it.
    Can you believe the nerve of these people? It’s almost funny.
    The State of Sonora is angry at the influx of Mexicans into Mexico. Nine state legislators from the Mexican State of Sonora traveled to Tucson to complain about Arizona ‘s new employer crackdown on illegals from Mexico.
    It seems that many Mexican illegals are returning to their hometowns and the officials in the Sonora state government are ticked off.
    A delegation of nine state legislators from Sonora was in Tucson on Tuesday to state that Arizona ‘s new Employer Sanctions Law will have a devastating effect on the Mexican state.
    At a news conference, the legislators said that Sonora, – Arizona’s southern neighbor, – made up of mostly small towns, – cannot handle the demand for housing, jobs and schools that it will face as Mexican workers return to their hometowns from the USA without jobs or money.
    The Arizona law, which took effect Jan. 1, punishes Arizona employers who knowingly hire individuals without valid legal documents to work in the United States .
    Penalties include suspension of, or loss of, their business license.
    The Mexican legislators are angry because their own citizens are returning to their hometowns, placing a burden on THEIR state government. ‘How can Arizona pass a law like this?’ asked Mexican Rep Leticia Amparano-Gamez, who represents Nogales.

    ‘There is not one person living in Sonora who does not have a friend or relative working in Arizona,’ she said, speaking in Spanish. ‘Mexico is not prepared for this, for the tremendous problems it will face as more and more Mexicans working in Arizona and who were sending money to their families return to their home-towns in Sonora without jobs,’ she said. ‘We are one family, socially and economically,’ she said of the people of Sonora and Arizona.
    The United States is a sovereign nation, not a subsidiary of Mexico , and its taxpayers are not responsible for the welfare of Mexico ‘s citizens.
    It’s time for the Mexican government, and its citizens, to stop feeding parasitically off the United States and to start taking care of its/their own needs.
    Too bad that other states within the USA don’t pass a law just like that passed by Arizona .
    Maybe that’s the answer, since our own Congress will do nothing!

    New Immigration Laws: Read to the bottom or you will miss the message…

    1. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools.
    * * * * * * * *
    2. All ballots will be in this nation’s language..
    * * * * * * * *
    3.. All government business will be conducted in our language.
    * * * * * * * *
    4. Non-residents will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long they are here.
    * * * * * * * *
    5. Non-citizens will NEVER be able to hold political office
    * * * * * * * *
    6 Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no health care, or other government assistance programs. Any burden will be deported.
    * * * * * * * *
    7. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount at least equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.
    * * * * * * * *
    8. If foreigners come here and buy land… options will be restricted. Certain parcels including waterfront property are reserved for citizens naturally born into this country.
    * * * * * * * *
    9. Foreigners may have no protests; no demonstrations, no waving of a foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies. These will lead to deportation.
    * * * * * * * *
    10. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be actively hunted &, when caught, sent to jail until your deportation can be arranged. All assets will be taken from you.
    * * * * * * * * *
    Too strict ?
    The above laws are current immigration laws of MEXICO!”

    ‘Nuff said?

  210. PAJ says:


    Your posts are right on target. Well done. And your point is excellent. LOL!

    I love that last line in #225. LOL! :-)


  211. Pepper says:

    Paul, that was great…..I’ve read so much stuff on the income tax law/amendment that has said it was not Constitutional. I understood that collecting taxes was, but that an income tax/property tax etc was not.

    I would like to understand more about that…..if you get a chance could you email me more information. Thanks


  212. Pepper says:

    Remember when I said I had read some quotes by Thomas Jefferson and George Washington that encouraged immigration while, also keeping close tabs on it… well I found part of one:

    Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 8

    The number of its inhabitants?

    Thomas Jefferson; 1787

    …But are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected from a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners? It is for the happiness of those united in society to harmonize as much as possible in matters which they must of necessity transact together.

    Civil government being the sole object of forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common consent. Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours perhaps are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It is a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution, with others derived from natural right and natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies.

    Yet, from such, we are to expect the greatest number of emigrants. They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass. I may appeal to experience, during the present contest, for a verification of these conjectures.

    But, if they be not certain in event, are they not possible, are they not probable? Is it not safer to wait with patience 27 years and three months longer, for the attainment of any degree of population desired, or expected? May not our government be more homogeneous, more peaceable, more durable?

    Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom? If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here. If they come of themselves, they are entitled to all the rights of citizenship: but I doubt the expediency of inviting them by extraordinary encouragements….

    [From Notes on the State of Virginia, ed. William Peden (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press for the Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, Virginia, 1954), 84-5.]

  213. PAJ says:

    “I would like to understand more about that…..if you get a chance could you email me more information.” — Pepper

    Sure. I’ve already sent an email. :-)


  214. Pepper says:

    I find it funny that when you have never heard of something and then all of the sudden you are inundated by the philosophy….Today on Alex Jones he had some members of the Libertarian belief system, talking about Immigration……at least now I understand where this free migration belief system comes from!

    Go Alex….!

  215. PAJ says:


    You know what’s really sadistic is that we, the United States of America, are the ones who put Fidel Castro into power in Cuba. Sigh… Sometimes it’s hard to tell whether government officials are secretly orchistrating political turmoil or if they’re just plain stupid.


  216. Pepper says:

    WOW, if you believed for one second that Mexico Citizens are not bringing in and/or supporting Communism…….watch this clip from a Protest in Atlanta GA

    • Melvin says:

      Do not believe anything what they say. They are manipulating you. They are mind control. So, be careful. Do not trust in sheep behind wolves. Just do not trust. I agree, not all the Mexicans are communists. Some are, but you gotta be careful. It is better not to trust.

  217. PAJ says:

    Pepper, I watched that video clip and, …, wow. They’re not even trying to hide their intentions. These people are a plague on our American society–a cancer eating away at the very foundation of our sky-scraper until the whole building is compromised and comes crashing down.

    For those of you who have just mentally tuned in, you are seeing the destruction of America take place right before your very eyes. And why is all this happening? I’ll tell you. It is happening because the United States did not secure its borders from these parasites, did not properly regulate who was allowed to come into this nation, and allowed anyone born on American soil to illegally become U.S. Citizens. And this was all made possible by liberal-minded social engineers who think they know what is best for society. We have a few of them on this board, such as Jeffrey and Skyler, who have no problem with foreign nationals invading our country like a virus. Gack!


  218. Mexican immigrants are a plague, a cancer, a virus, and parasites…. all in the same comment. Can you find more ways to express you animosity towards your fellow men? It isn’t obvious enough yet…

  219. Not immigrants. Illegal Immigrants. Shame.

    I just received photos of an arms cache about 100 miles from Loredo Texas at a Zeta Camp. Who are Los Zetas? Who are MS13? I had my fill of the gangs in East LA on my mission.

    The enemy is inside our tent.

    Forwarded from Mike Leinhauser –
    “A PRIME example of why we MUST support our neighbors in Arizona, and bolster the Texan border.

    This was a Zetas camp (a Mexican cartel w/ Guatemalan ties) that was found near Higueras, Nuevo Laredo, Mexico.

    The “state” of Nuevo Laredo borders the Rio Grande, and this town is a little over 100 miles away from Laredo, TX.


    Exactly where did you hear about it in OUR media? Thank God for the border patrol that this did not come over the border. There is one “graphic picture” but it tells the story.

    Let’s quit trying to decide who is violating our federal laws “to make a better life”, and ENFORCE the laws across the board on EVERYONE violating them.

    That way we won’t have to lament or wonder just how many of the illegal aliens legalized (synonymous with rewarded) under the latest attempt to legislate away the millions who have spit on our laws, are MS-13, Zetas, cartel members, and other scum that would be “legal”. There are many Hispanic men and women that I both love and respect that understand and support Arizona and any citizen’s desire to keep our country a safe place to live and raise our children and grandchildren. It’s not racist, and it’s not xenophobic. I hope we can ignore and recognize the majority of the naysayers for the photo-op, attention-loving clowns they are, and start coming together as AMERICANS that want what’s best for AMERICA!”

    The arms cache was huge. I do not think it was going to be used to protect us, do you?

    Other online sources:

    So who wants to volunteer to go amongst these Lamanites and convert the Gadianton bands to the Gospel?

    Thousands of beheadings, rapes, murders along our borders, as towns are taken over and we have the gall to say such nonsense and be unable to protect ourselves from such activities? There is a reason why we as Saints honor and obey the law.

    Shame on those who continue, in spite of the facts, to excuse such behaviour.

    • Melvin says:

      Really? Somebody must have brainwashed. The Zetas want to kill the people of the government of Guatemala. I have heard on the t.v news. How did you get they are tied to the Guatemalans. Well, I do not know. The zetas are no good. They seek to destroy the Guatemalans. That’s it. But, the reality that Guatemala is in trouble since some people are communist and want to put communist. I guess. I have no idea. Because of Hugo Chavez. Hugo Chavez is the one who is the guilty of all that is leading astray and influencing people to bring up communism. He is the virus and he is increasing higher and the virus is so big and is spreading around some nations to spread the virus of communism. Yeah, this is a cancer in the communities. Let me make sure and investigate more to find out about the Zetas if they are tied to Guatemala.

    • frank grant says:

      well all you good mormans supporting illegal mexicans to come to our country to work cheap for your lds farmers and your church high arcky and join your church.they can do that in mexico.they are not the children of the so called jews that your fony book of morman talks about..that was proven by the dna test..go in to a restraunt in utah every body in the kitchen is illegal mexicans..go to the big farms in utah and all the help is illegal mexicans.the lds church and there members are the biggest law breakers in the church leaders should all be in jail better yet do to them what the people in illinios did to joesph smith. put a bullet in them..god bless america

  220. PAJ says:

    “Mexican immigrants are a plague, a cancer, a virus, and parasites…. all in the same comment. Can you find more ways to express you animosity towards your fellow men? It isn’t obvious enough yet…” — Jeffrey

    I’m sorry folks, I forgot that I need to keep my comments down to 3rd grade level to ensure that some people on this board can actually understand them. Gack!

    The discussion was about communists and others who want to overthrow our American system and replace it with some form of despotic government. I don’t care who they are; if they subscribe to any form of government or leadership that is incompatible with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then I don’t want them here. I may still love them as members of humanity, but that does not mean I have to live with them.

    And not only does this policy make good sense for us here on this planet, but it is the same in the eternal worlds. If you think that diversity is the name of the game in the higher kingdoms, then you are in for a surprise. Only those who have proven they can abide the laws of a kingdom can enter therein. Those who cannot must go into a lessor kingdom. This is the way it is, like it or not. This is what immigration is all about — keeping the weeds out of the garden. LOL!


  221. And the news just keeps getting better (Snarky remark);

    Closures along the border to “protect” Americans –

  222. Ralph Hughes says:

    I believe that latter-day gadiantons in our government, including our current and past presidents and some in Congress, are fomenting illegal immigration and supporting amnesty for the purpose of altering life in this country so that Americans will be forced to relinquish our national sovereignty to a regional and global government.

  223. See Jesse Goldberg’s song on “Immigration”. He wrote and sang it.

  224. Robert,

    Too strict ? The above laws are current immigration laws of MEXICO!

    Well, since Mexico is a communist nation (according to several members of this board), I propose we avoid the very appearance of evil.

    • Melvin says:

      Yes, I agree with you. Mexicans are communist. I am not happy with them. The communist is equivalent to the Zapatistas. Some Mexicans are not communist. I am not going to speak evil behind them. But, I like to tell the truth. Some Mexicans are good people. But, some of them… They are communists. No way. But, I cannot do nothing. I have to let the Lord do the work.

  225. This is what happens when you let the illegals take over a city.

    Maywood, California goes under.

  226. PAJ says:

    Robert, in light of what we see happening right before our eyes, regarding the impact of the illegal and/or uncontrolled immigration issue, can you imagine what would happen to that place we call “heaven” if the Gods did not enforce their version of immigration? LOL!

    Truly, we are watching this cancer, with our own eyes, destroy what we used to call America.



  227. This site may be of interest to those who do not believe we are at war and we are being invaded –

  228. Sometimes, humor in song hits home…

    “Come to the USA” by Ray Stevens;

  229. Patmos Pete says:

    Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.

    • Melvin says:

      Yes, Patmos Pete. God has smitten with the lightning of his power, by spilling the oil of the gulf of Mexico, because they repent not of their evil deeds until Zion comes to obedience. God will chastise America until they are purified and shall be called, Zion, the pure of heart.

  230. Nick says:

    Lamanites will take over the continent in particular, the united states where they will help build the new zion. it has been prophesied. so we can take measures to protect us from the invasion though our iniquities will make us diminish in numbers and they will grow in strength, not because they are better but because we fell to iniquity ( gay marriage, government corruption, the killing of unborn babies, the disintegration of family, the greed that has made this country crashed in 2008 and still getting momentum for a second crash)

  231. G. West says:

    The Church released an official statement in advance of a meeting convened by Governor Gary Herbert to discuss the issue of illegal immigration:

    Statement from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:

    “The complex issues surrounding immigration are a matter of increasing concern and debate for all in this country.

    “Elected individuals have the primary responsibility to find solutions in the best interests of all whose lives will be impacted by their actions.

    “We repeat our appeal for careful reflection and civil discourse when addressing immigration issues. Finding a successful resolution will require the best thinking and goodwill of all across the political spectrum, the highest levels of statesmanship, and the strongest desire to do what is best for all of God’s children.”


  232. PAJ says:

    The LDS official statement on immigration is weaker than a pitcher throwing a fast ball with a broken arm. They might as well have said nothing. The key to understanding the immigration issue is in a correct understanding of the 14th amendment.

    First and foremost, you cannot invade a foreign country and expect to be rewarded for it. But because of gross wickedness and ignorance, illegal aliens are taken care of and eventually get amnesty in the USA. The parents of illegal alien children born in the USA cannot expect their offspring to be granted citizenship, but because of gross wickedness and ignorance, they are.

    In the first sentence of the 14th amendment it clearly identifies the conditions under which a new born child can be granted US citizenship. But because of evil agendas, CNN and so many others are totally blind to it. And now these fools are talking about changing the 14th or the constitution. Talk about going from bad to worse. Gack!


    • G. West says:

      It’s so odd that members of the Church should be prone to cite the Constitution to “correct” what they perceive as erroneous judgment of prophets, seers, and revelators. That’s a form of “Phariseeism.” It demonstrates a desire to have a God that can be boxed in my legalism–one who can limited by man’s power to interpret the words in ancient scripture. That’s not consistent at all with the latter-day saints’ experience with a living, speaking God.

      I had another interesting insight into the theme of this article at recent stake meeting. We have a Spanish-speaking branch in our stake which is growing by leaps and bounds. Although it’s a branch, it’s boundaries cross over all the ward boundaries. Hispanic members n the other wards can transfer their records there and attend services there.

      One of the bishops expressed concerns that the branch was stealing away some of the strong families in his ward. He shared sentiments similar to many of those here, who wonder why we should be making such special efforts to build up the Spanish-speaking saints in the area.

      The answer he got from the stake president was revealing. The president said that “the brethren” believe that these efforts are fulfilling prophecies, such as this one and similar passages in Isaiah:

      “Nevertheless, after they shall be nursed by the Gentiles, and the Lord has lifted up his hand upon the Gentiles and set them up for a standard, and their children have been carried in their arms, and their daughters have been carried upon their shoulders, behold these things of which are spoken are temporal; for thus are the covenants of the Lord with our fathers; and it meaneth us in the days to come, and also all our brethren who are of the house of Israel.” (1 Nephi 22:6)

      Isaiah wasn’t just speaking about the establishment of modern Israel. Nephi likened these scriptures to his people, the descendants of Lehi. We need to take into account that the “illegals” coming here are the “remnant of Jacob.” Our attitude towards them will change when we realize that their coming here is a fulfillment of prophecy. It is a sign that the words of the Book of Mormon are true.

  233. Cheryl says:

    To Sarai – please do not be discouraged. MOST people in the church (at least the ones I’ve run into) wouldn’t care one bit what color your skin is or where you came from.

    I do think that language is a huge barrier. I’ve run into a number of people whose countenances are SO bright that I can’t help but want to know them, but they don’t speak the same language. It can be very discouraging.

    As far as the comments on this board, please take them with a grain of salt – they do not represent the entire body of the church. Neither the most vehement nor the kindest.

    As far as “what to do about stuff”, my opinion is that each individual MUST work at becoming WORTHY to enter into Zion. That means loving ourselves, loving others MORE than ourselves, and loving people no matter their background. Yes, and even loving the Zetas. (Not tolerating wicked behavior, but loving them enough to pray for them.)

  234. Pingback: All of North and South America is Zion | LDS Liberty

  235. honorable_dad says:

    There are many comments to this article. Many ask us to read/research the messages from those who surely do not accept the restored gospel of Jesus Christ (like La Raza). Those will not be my sources for truth. Whether or not we are in agreement with the manner in which the illegal immigrants are being handled by law, ONE thing we should be in agreement is this: that in this nation we are being governed by corrupt leaders; those who live by agendas to protect their places of power. ANOTHER is we as a people (nationally) have allowed ourselves to discharge our Lord and Redeemeer from our private and national lives. But these are other matters. Herein lies the solution — keep the commandments of God; seek to teach your families to trust in the arm of the Almighty, for His ways are not our ways; and YES, if you feel a need to involve yourselves in this issue, then go to your knees in prayer and ask the Father that you, yourself, may be inspired to do what is right. For, we are IN this world, and not OF it. We are either the “children of God, or the children of men.”

  236. Melvin says:

    Mexicans are not La Raza, and they should be humble and nice with everyone and not be separatists because they are La Raza. I want to say who is LA Raza, the reich of Jesus Christ is La Raza, not the Mexicans. Jesus was white, curly hair, and brown eyes, and tall and svelte. But, Mexicans need to relax and calm down and behave like Christians and be a model for Jesus. Because Mexicans are normal and they are not La Raza. Mexicans are normal like Americans and anyone here on earth. There is nothing special and something superior. Explain me where is something superior and something better? No one is La Raza. Jesus is La RAza. Mexicans need to behave and calm again despite of color skin or royal ancestry.

    • KFJames says:

      No, there is nothing special about being a Mexican, or for that matter, Tejano. Yes, there is a Mazatlan, for everyone. Its called the New Jerusalem.

      I’ve tried being humble and nice. Try being humble and nice when you are caught in the middle of a migra roundup.

      South, Central and North America is the chosen land, and the last time I checked the map, we are all, geographically, Americans. I’ve prayed for those that felt the USA was not meant for poor Mexicans, only rich Mexicans that can afford to buy a visa and be here legally; prayed so hearts would be softened on both sides… to what end? So that there will no longer be any “ites”, that we would be one people and serve the One True God.

      I think its going to take me another month to read over and study this. As for now, there are too many that feel Lady Liberty should be stripped of her plaque and tell the poor huddled masses that yearn to breathe free that we are full up… try Cuba or Venezuela. That is disheartening.

  237. Melvin says:

    The government are doing right. They are specialized in checking their backgrounds. We cannot judge Arizona. Perhaps, they have had a bad experience with them. Probably, they want them to kick them out and cast them out. Maybe, some of the Mexicans were not nice with them. But, the reality is that some of the Mexicans are gangs, do graffiti, they use drugs and cocaine, and some of the Mexicans are very racists. Is it illegal? Of course, they are. You know. The government is righteous, because if they find out their background is clean. Of course, they will be nice to them and give them citizenship. Why not? Of course. If they find out their background is no good. They think to cast them out. Because it is the law and the Constitution of America. People are not always happy with the Law. The terms of the laws and the Constitution is based to the law and the commandments of God. The truth of all, that people are rebelling the laws and the Constitution of America and the laws of God. That’s it. The government will take care of it. So, I do not worry about it. Because that’s why God has set up laws to regulate the statutes and the Constitution of America.

  238. Melvin says:

    Thanks for taking the attention, I love you my Mormon brothers. I gotta leave you a dose of joke and comedy for you. I am an alien from another planet. My blood type is ARH positive. Of course, I am an alien. I am an illegal. Because my blood type is ARH positive. But, I am Hispanic. I am American Citizen. Hope you have enjoyed with this small joke and funny comedy. Thanks for having taken the attention.
    your friend,

  239. Daniel says:

    In the article above, it would depend upon what exactly is a “Lamanite”. The current population of Mexico are not ‘Lamanites’, being decendents of Spanish (European-Gentile) stock and the local Mexica (Aztec) whom were not on the scene of the’Nephite’ destruction. The only possible population that would qualify genetically as ‘Lamanite” would be the Pre-Classic and Classic Maya-whom have not joined the LDS church in droves and remain very much a racial mix in and of themselves. Even the Mexican government regularly discimminates agains the Mayas whom have refused assimilation with the Large Hispanic majority. Of course, those natives of South America, in all probability, and in the opinion of even LDS scholars, had nothing to do with the ‘Nephites’ or their destruction. The question yet stands-what constitutes a “Lamanite?”

  240. American First says:

    Charity start at home .
    A nation will disolve if their members do not share a common national identity, language , culture and loyalty to one nation in this case, America. Multiculturalism is rejected in Latin America in nations like Mexico because nationalism is consider must in order to preserve the nation together.
    The same leaders who push for mulitculturalism in America act with devious hipocrazy. Mexico and other nations persecuted “ilegal aliens and their laws are much aggresives and onerous than ours , they denied any kind of services , school etc and they even forbid any protest besides Mexico southern border is militarized, it has a well built wall, and Mexicans have being very effective in deporting massess of Central America
    Saturation of the workforce which specially caught fire since the 1980’s through the embrace of humongous amount of legal and illegal inmigrant has cause a great pain for American workers of all races. Lowering salaires, benefits created in many areas pockets of unemploment and allowing companies to discriminate against Legal Americans. There is practically no Church who has stand bravely opposing such discrimination .
    Our social entitlement are under fiscal melt down for many reasons one of them is the eligibility for such entitlement to so many including in some states to illegal aliens
    Which includes education health care, housing so on. There are states in which ilegal aliens are eligible to Medicaid, and other entitlements including instate college tuition and grants while single adult Americans lack such rights. The elite of both major political parties be Republican or Democrat has chosen to pursue the North American Union, and to bow to the economic interest of the elite , including the wealthy elite from Mexico in support the insouring of workers which cause as much harm to American workers as the outsourcing of jobs . Due to the humongous wave of inmigrants legal and illegal, so many hospital has being forced to closed
    Because working poor pay little Federal taxes but they are entitled to receipt more benefits than they contributed in taxes, the access to such benefits such as Social Security , Medicare , Medicaid
    Section 8 , subsiding housing, masses of legal and illegal aliens are helping to drain the national treasure.
    Laws when they are comply lead to anarchism. The lack of desire to implement our laws , creates a terrible precendent , provides to people a weapon, a tool , a political one, if inmigrations laws are not implemented , then how valids are the rest of the laws, why then to follow , it is an invitation to become a lawless nation like Mexico which is ruled by a very wealthy elite, remember the richest person on Earth is Mexican tycoon , Carlos Slim.
    Lack of nationalism usually leads to separatism , Balkanization , and disolving of nations
    Multiculturalism creates foot soldiers and recruit to movement like Mecha, Aztlan which openly advocate for rebellion, The separation of the South West from America and their annexation to Mexico.
    Let be real , in the XIX century and early XX, churches were force for integration and melting pot
    notable the Catholic Church but currently churches are reversing course, they are being like Lenin said , Useful Fools, encouraging salad over melting pot . If sadly America will sucumb
    and will be dismantled , Churches should be held responsible for their role to turn their back , spite of whatever good intentions they claim , to keepign America united , not helping the undoing of America

    • Yukonyon says:

      American First,
      I am assuming that English is your second language. That being said, I commend you for your thoughts, because they contain wisdom. Recent studies are shedding a very negative light on multiculturalism and diversity. Some of these studies are being done by those who think diversity is the answer, and it is sending them to the drawing board again. I’m a bit apprehensive about what they will force down our necks, in light of this. Harvard’s last study on diversity had some very sobering revelations. I don’t understand how anyone who still preaches it is can’t be either a.)in their right mind, or b.)not deliberately divisive. Unchecked immigration will invariably end up in civil war and/or dictatorship, as history provides us with no precedent or incentive for diversity, except for divide and conquer.

  241. mikkel mikkelson says:

    i am a food storage sp. for my ward and have been for my stake. i have tought many in the church to get ready for the hard times just ahead of us. does the statement “if you are parpaired you shall not fear.” mean anything to you. america is headed no the world is headed for some realy hard times that will make the great depression look like a picknic and if you are not prepair you may not make it.
    i have been told many times that someone in the elders q. have told me while i was giveing a class that they will shair my food storage. for a while i was upset that they would even say something like that and many times they were upset when i told them i would not. i will help those i choose not you to come and take. are to force me and take what you want.
    i was in a H/P class when the old foodstorage battle took place and brother H. told my friend who believed in foodstorage a great deal that ” i dont need food storage” brother D stood up and said that “soon will come the day when you will rule the day you did not preplair for what the church commands us to do, yes i said commands us not asks us.” Brother H said ” i have alot of toys i can sell and buy what i need” brother D said ” you do not understand, there will be no food to buy, no gas to get nor will money be any good, no gas for your house nor ele. to use. it will all fall apart. they what good is your toys when your family starves. ” with out a blink brother H said” i will just go over brother mikkel house and shair his foodstorage right borther mikkel?” i looked up at hem and said for the first time “yes i will shair my personal foodstorage with your family but lets roll play for a bit to have you understand something”.
    i stood up and walked forward. stood in front of them and said ” lets say the stock market crashes and the dollar is worth less. do you think you have anything you can use to buy your family the food it needs to survive?” he just looked at me i said “lets say it happened like this. come ask me for foood for your family, act like you are at my door.” he knocked on the black board and i acted like i answered the door. ” hellow brother H how are you doing?” he said ” brother mikkel i am in need of your help. i have no money are anything of value to get the food my family needs can you give me food please” i said “sure here is a lb of wheat, can you grind it up for bread” he said “no” so i said ‘ here let me grind it for you.” i acted like i handed it back to hem. ” do you have yeast to add to it” “no” me”here is some yeast so you can make bread, do you have water to add to it so you can nied it?” he said NO so i said “let me add my water and yeast and make it into dough for you, can you bake it into bread? again NO was the answer. i said ” so let me get this, you have no supplys of food, you cant use water to make it eatable, you have no way of cooking it and i cant use up my little supply of fuel to make you better, SO WHAT PART OF YOU CANT USE MY FOODSTORAGE DONT YOU UNDERSTAND?”
    PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF YOUR FAMILY, FOR THE LOVE OF OTHERS, FOR THE LOVE OF YOUR GOD. PREPAIR NOW BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE. FOR SHORT IS THE TIME AND SHORT IS THE SUPPLYS WE ARE FACEING, go to the store andlook at the prices of food right now. some have tripled in price in only 2 years. i bought wheat at 5.00 dollars for 50 lbs 10 years ago. now it is 35.00 for 50 lb corn has trippled in price in just one year. if you have the money get it now. the church has told us in our stake conf. it only has 3 weeks supply of food on hand and unless you have what you need you will suffer. do you think you will be the only ones asking the church for food in harden times? do you think you will be the only ones asking those of us who prepaired if you can have food. PLEASE GET READY. FOR THE TIME IS SHORT.

  242. DFM says:

    I think this whole post is kind of pointless. Whether or not this is fulfillment of prophecy doesn’t matter. It is also prophesied that there will be an antichrist, and a great and abominable church. Are we to let that pass or are we to fight against it? Illegal immigration is wrong, and it causes all kinds of problems that have been mentioned by many of the people here, especially melli50 in AZ.

  243. Cerebro Brillante says:

    As a descendant of our father Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, I am so amazed and greatful for your article on illegal immigration and The Book of Mormon prophecy. It’s a majestic interpretation of the prophecy that the Lord himself has declared regarding our future in America, the land of our inheritance. If the Gentiles don’t repent, they shall be cut off. I strongly believe that the sword of Laban now has passed to us. There is no political power, no bigotry, no hatred, no rule of law that can stop the Lord’s purposes. He will help us to defeat our enemies in his own way, in his own due time…

    “The descendants of Lehi were given the land by covenant. The rest of us are just tenants and squatters. Only those Gentiles who repent and accept the fullness of the restored gospel will find an ultimate solution to the problem of illegal immigration. That solution will be realized only when we are “no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God.” (Ephesians 2:19)

    Well said, Greg! May the Lord bless you!

  244. Jen says:

    Well done. Thanks for sharing these thoughts.

  245. Yukonyon says:

    Greg, I haven’t had time to read the entire thread of comments, so if something was already resolved in discussion, then disregard the questions I am asking regarding that. But I believe you may need to weave a little more sobriety into your analysis of the fulfillment of prophecy in coming events. You have, in my humble opinion, correctly stated that those of hispanic origin are migrants, rather than immigrants, and you seem rather giddy about it. Given the recent genetic studies, documenting that around 5% of Native Americans have any MtDNA resembling anything close to Isreal, is it possible that you blithely and prematurely assume that all migrants coming north are in fact true Lamanites? What is it that makes you assume that Laman and Lemuel managed to mix their seed with the entire two continents of Americas, in light of such recent studies?

    Did the Constitution; a godly-inspired and orchestrated instrument according to D&C, come forward of LDS men, or Christian men? Was it LDS, or Christian values that laid the foundation of this sacred document? When Christian conservatives defend the actions of anti-LDS mobs, are they really defending what they did, or are they simply defending the historicity of their religious paradigms? This is, of course, something only you can answer, because I really don’t know how you pose the question to them, about the obvious contradiction of the teachings of their forefathers, and their actions. Do Christian mobs actively threaten and destroy the lives of faithful, LDS members, as they so did in Missouri, and Illinois? Do the ones defending the actions of the mobs truly condone their actions, if no such thing is repeated today on the scale it was back then?

    Do you assume that all Mexicans are equal? Do migrants tend to come from the border towns that stipple the US/Mexican border, or from everywhere in Mexico, homogenously? Do border towns hold populations that are congruent with the more southern portions? Juarez, which is El Paso’s Mexican counterpart, was named the murder capital of the world. If the bordertown populations are in fact more criminal and more murderous than other places in Mexico, or even the world, are you confident that this migration will not bring a resurgence of actual persecution of the LDS church members lives and families? If you are confident that Mormons will lay in the shade, slowly watching our Christian brethren “get theirs”, what is it that convinces you that this migration will not also bring such a return of persecution of the LDS church that hasn’t been felt since its exodus from Missouri?

    I do have some more questions, but I would like to wait and see what your response is to these, before I ask them.

  246. John C. Clark says:

    Most anti-immigrant positions take defense behind the current U.S. policy which places significant restrictions on the many categories of visas. They then expect the Kingdom of God to kowtow to those arbitrary limits.

    We in the United States became the first offenders we first decided to exclude our brothers from the land of their inheritance. The Lord will hold us a nation responsible for any action we take just because our Constitution allows us to do so. Read how both the Lamanite and Nephite nations experience great prosperity by opening their borders and overcoming their natural prejudices in Helaman 6 : 7 – 9.

  247. Jaasiel Rodriguez says:

    Hi! As a Mexican-American raised in Los Angeles, going to somewhat liberal schools there, then studying up at highly conservative BYU Idaho, I have become torn by this issue. Many of the people I know are illegal and I can share first hand the worry that many have, specially in the southwest, about the question of crime amongst illegals, the legality of their stay here, and so forth.

    I seriously agree with the idea that many immigrants living here treat it as a right, and not as a privilege. They fly the mexican flag in defiance of the nation we live in. At the end of the day, some American family is footing the bill for the sweet social systems we have set up there in Cali. College education is cheap in Cali, but that doesn’t mean that it is free. I find myself troubled by my people’s disregard for it’s value. Fortunately enough, I will tell you, those of my peeps who use your money to the fullest are of the highest caliber, good citizens to illegal’s, with at least decent morals.

    However, I think that one thing I question is whether this ineherent desire to separate american communities from the international scene is actually a real possibility. The reality at the end of the day is that even though this country is very prosperous, much of that comes from its interaction with other countries. Most of the manufactured products bought in just about any store comes from other countries; the money goes there. The type of lifestyle we enjoy here in the United States is intricately connected with foreign resources and so forth. Further, as a society, with the video games, big televisions, media sources, and so forth, we have adopted cheap as a part of our lives. We will NOT pay the costs of having things manufactured in the United States. Even if we reduced government regulations on manufacture, the culture we have adopted in general, won’t accept the low wages or the increase in prices. Even with products made here we demand high quality for lower prices, i.e. fast food.

    Furthermore, the intervention of this country in foreign affairs is too much to be disregarded. CIA activities in other nations is real, and we intervene in policies affecting people’s lives on the other side of the planet for our own personal security. I would honestly like to go back to what George Washington advised us to do and avoid foreign affairs, but we gladly adopted too many of the artifacts of the industrialized world. This lead to the post-modern globalization of anytown america.

    The very fact that you are looking into a computer screen connects you to people thousands of miles away, not only because of the internet, but because of the circuitry in your computer. Ideally, we would like the reality that our relationship to our business partner ends when the trade is done. That, however, is not possible. Chinese workers sweating in a cramped factory in China to make cheap underwear to sell at a walmart somewhere in the United States inherently involves emotion, the will to live, suffering, and everyday activity.

    This is the crucial factor: that we can no longer seperate ourselves from our global environment. I, as a Mexican, with all of my heart long to live in the place of my origin, in my home land, to have lived there in peace, to worry only of my peoples. Yet, that is no longer possible. I have become connected to you: your funds payed for my education as well as many of my friends and relatives. In the sweat of my eyebrow I have built your homes, I have picked your fruits, I have even tutored your children. You cannot cast me away as a simple laborer. And I cannot cast you away as some white folk with dough. In the end, we have become connected intimately, and we better figure that out.

    I think that is the reason the Lord has had the church issue those kinds of directives to the lay clergy. The reasons behind illegal immigration inherently involve the American way of life. Though he might not be condoning illegal immigration, I think also that he wants us to realize that you can’t solve the problem by just kicking people out. The problem is not solved quickly because it did not start quickly. It took at least a hundred years to develop. Just about any person can look at the Mexican American war and have some serious doubts as to it’s legitimacy (Abe Lincoln did). I honestly don’t contest that california should be given back (in fact, sometimes I wonder why the US didn’t just conquer all of mexico); but, the reality is that we feel its effects up til now, and they only build up. We can’t do without each other.

    • John C. Clark says:

      Jaasiel Rodriguez, I appreciate your comments. You have a clear view of the situation. I look forward to working with you among us. I hope you can become one of our leaders–world or national. We do need to think of people of all nations as brothers and sisters. As these posts show, the differences AMONG people of the same race and/or nation are greater than the differences BETWEEN one nation/race and another.

    • Nunn says:

      At some point, we must stop rationalizing illegal immigration. Employment of illegal aliens is NOT a benefit to the country at large. It benefits only the unscruplous businessmen who hire them. The rest of the country pays the price, in a wide variety of ways. Having grown up in the Los Angeles area myself, I am a first-hand witness to this fact.

      • John C. Clark says:

        I, too, oppose illegal immigration. But a good way to avoid it is to have had reasonable visa quotas in the first place. I believe there is room for greatly increase quotas, as immigrants strengthen, not burden, our economy. With unreasonably strict quotas we pressure responsible family heads to choose between survival and a misdemeanor.

        With larger quotas we would be open for the more law-abiding of these economic refugees to come in the right way.

        Having failed to do this in the first place we are left with a poor, but unavoidably necessary second choice: amnesty.

  248. Linda says:

    I commend you for this beautiful, well stated article on a subject that is vastly misunderstood by the average person and church members. As Americans we have become so prideful because of the abundant blessings we have received living here in this Choice land. As I see it we are commanded to live by the spirit of God and call upon him in all our decision, be it temporal or political.


    Instead we turn on a TV and whatever the majority is saying we pick up on that and base our opinions on the topic of the day or what is most fashionable. Trust me if we were able to go back in time. back to the year of 1900 and ask the saints of that time how they felt about other people coming to this country. Overwhelmingly they would give them their blessing because “THEY” knew well that “”THE AMERICAS” was indeed GOD choice land, not just the United States Of American, but, Canada, South America, and Central America were all within that Blessing and the indigenous people of these lands were His people! Period end of discussion!

    Turn your tv sets off people and get on your knees. You don’t need to read anything the church puts out, you don’t need to view any polls, you just need to read the Book Of Mormon and get on your knees and repent! Then after that you may get some inspiration on which way is correct!

    Stop making up your own minds believing you so smart and well educated on what’s right and wrong, allow Heavenly father to guide you to what HE wants, not what some politicians want!

  249. George says:

    The only way to keep a cat from following you is to not cuddle it or feed it. By trying to go and convert “the heathens” abroad the mormons are exactly doing that and this includes people like Russell Pearce of Arizona. If anyone from a non-white country asks a missionary about studying or working in the missionary’s country, the missionary will pontify saying how the local guy or gal’s skills are needed in the country. Actually, that is not the intention of most missionaries. Most white missionaries want converts but dont want non-white converts in their neigborhood. Similarly for many mormons. They want converts all over the world, but dont want non-white converts in their neighborhood. Russell Pearce is a typical example of this.

  250. Brittany says:

    First, I admit to scrolling down to the bottom of this page to add my comment without reading the vast majority of previous comments, so if anyone else has figured this out & already posted, allow me to add my second witness. The very first time I posted this, it was under a nom de plume on in response to the statement: “How to stop illegal immigration.”

    This list is crap. Illegal immigration will actually be solved when people wake up and realize all they have to do is shop for their food at a local FARMER’S MARKET. Do some research people. Answer the following questions: 1) What is NAFTA? 1a) When was it signed? 2) When did the US begin to see a major shift in the numbers of illegal immigrants coming from Mexico/Central America? 3) How has New Deal & the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 affected farmers in the USA? 4) What is the average expected profit per acre of a large scale farm in the USA? 4a) What is the average expected profit per acre of a hobby farm in the USA? 4b) What causes this difference? 5) What are the two largest resources for Mexican Gross National Revenue today? 6) What is the largest demographic of Mexican/Central American people affected by illegal immigration? Or which demographic of people are immigrating? (hint: It’s not about rich & poor, it’s city v country lifestyles). 7) What difficulties exist for a farmer in Mexico or Central America that may impede their ability to get financial assistance from their governments? (hint: g_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ t c_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ n & e_ _ _ _ _ _ _ n). 8) In the USA, what type of farms get government subsidies? 8a) Where do they sell their crops? 9) Who buys surplus grains or other foods in the USA, and where do they sell them? 10) How does the average US consumer affect government policy? (hint: It’s not by voting ballot).

    Now that you’ve completed your research, answer these questions: Why are people illegally immigrating to the USA? What needs to happen so they will want to stay in their country? What can we do to make this happen? Take a deep breath, yes, it really is THAT SIMPLE.

    Really, there are two things that need to happen. 1) People spend their money at Farmer’s Markets, allowing for more opportunity on the Mexican side of the border with true price competition. 2) End the subsidies of the US Department of Agriculture to the large farms in the US, and NAFTA.

    It took 30 years to get here, it won’t change over night, but the faster we can get the truth out there, and policies changed the faster it will happen.

  251. John C. Clark says:

    Let me correct some of the thinking about the 14th amendment. The crucial phrase is “and under the jurisdiction thereof.” Diplomats and foreign are two examples of foreign residents who are not “under the jurisdiction” of U.S. law. They either have diplomatic immunity or are under a Status of Forces Agreement. Practically all others are under the jurisdiction of our laws. That’s why we have green cards. Even those without documents are expected to obey traffic laws, pay income tax, get drivers’ licenses, have insurance, etc. There is no requirement for their parents to be citizens, naturalized or otherwise. For practically all residents born to foreign nationals, born here = citizens.

    • Nunn says:

      Wrong. They are subject to the law, yes, but are not under the “jurisdiction” of the United States. That is a different matter. Mexico (for example) understands this fully; that is why Mexico claims children born in this country to Mexican nationals illegally invading this country as their own — under the jurisidiction of Mexico — and rightly so.

  252. John C. Clark says:

    About “obeying the law.” It IS LEGAL for us to broaden the visa quotas and allow a more free flow among nations. We are accountable for the current unjust immigration laws that we have passed for selfish, short-sighted reasons over the last 130 years. The current cruelly stingy and complicated visa system is a shame, just as a few of our previous laws have been. Allowing freer movement will enrich all sides and return some of our moral reputation as Christians.

  253. John C. Clark says:

    To those who wish for more clarification from Church leaders about the immigration issue. They are fully aware of the arguments on all sides. Listen to what they say. Do what they say. I feel we should pay more attention to the things they keep repeating clearly over and over instead of trying to parse the intent of the few things they do say about immigration. Don’t we have a hard enough time being a good parents, spouses, and neighbors without becoming alienated over issues which our leaders are mostly leaving up to our own discretion? Pray for details from God if you need them. Keep reading all the scriptures.

    God does reveal mysteries to the faithful for their own edification if they ask Him in faith and if He sees fit. But those authorized to speak for the Church want us to be focus on the very things they talk about the most. If we do that we will be prepared to face the hard decisions ahead of us.

    • Nunn says:

      Throughout history, members of the church have been taught the importance of verifying proper authority and have been provided with various keys for doing so. One of these is the counsel to follow the PROPHET. If the prophet speaks, he will do so in HIS OWN NAME and likeness and in the capacity of his priesthood office. ANONYMOUS statements, issued by the NON-priesthood Public Affairs Department — such as the church statements on immigration — do NOT pass the authority test.

      • John C. Clark says:

        Do you believe it is likely that the public relations department would publish something directly opposed to the wishes of the First Presidency? Perhaps it is POSSIBLE that the First Presidency agrees with their public relations department, but chooses not to turn it into an official proclamation.

        For example, articles in The Ensign about Church doctrine have a disclaimer that the authors’ opinions do not necessarily constitute official doctrine. But where on the scale of likelihood would you say that statements by the public relations department agree with or approximate official doctrine?

  254. Victor Reyes says:

    Not ONCE have i seen in any comments the word CHARITY.

  255. Erick Sosa says:

    I commend you brother West.
    I think Charity and awareness of our lack of knowledge in all things goes a long way. Not all immigrants are evil, and not all of them that are evil shall remain so, we need to fight evil with good. I see a lot of hatred being spewed here, but I also see true Latter Day Saints, that condemn not their less fortunate brothers. I see people here that have not been blinded by telestial politics. People can still love this country and love our lamanite brethren, because in the end, it will be more about how much love and charity one bestowed upon others than obeying the letter of the law… to those that call themselves patriots, and cannot fathom having “these people” come over, remember that before God we are all beggars, and no one is above anyone else. Sadly in some english/spanish wards there seems to be a disconnect, and sadly at times it may be more than just the language barrier…. it is the barrier of blindness and hatred, a large beam of sorts that keeps us from judging and spewing all sorts of evil speaking of those that descend from Prophets…of which I am humbled to be a part of.
    Thank you brother West and everyone else that sides with Christ, charity, compassion.

    • Nunn says:

      “…we need to fight evil with good.” What’s that platitude supposed to mean? Yes, I know what it means, in this context. It means, “Look the other way at illegal immigration.” You are rationalizing.

      You also are bearing false witness against thy neighbor (“I see a lot of hatred being spewed here”). One can still love his country and still expect his neighbor to “Repent and sin no more.” (“Repent and sin no more” is NOT “telestial politics,” after all.) And you do pervert the right way of the Lord, by implying, as you clearly are doing here, that the 12th Article of Faith — and, for that matter, the 13th A of F, and Ten Commandments 8, 9, and 10 — are trumped by the commandment to “Love thy neighbor.” “Let no man break the law of the land. For he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land.” (D&C 58:21)

      The fact is that “love and charity” work both ways. This means that it is time for foreign nationals to to show a little love for THEIR neighbors to the North — by respecting the laws of a sovereign nation, and building up their communities and the Church in their own countries. After all, these are not “above” the law.

      And there is no true compassion in condoning a lifestyle of chronic dishonesty, illegality, dishonor, and disrespect for one’s fellow man, which is the lifestyle of the typical illegal alien.

      “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20)

      • Erick Sosa says:

        Your comments make me sick Nunn, you are basing your comments on your own reasoning, not the reasoning of the Spirit…

        • Nunn says:

          I’m basing my comments on scripture. If that makes you sick, perhaps some soul-searching is in order.

          • Erick Sosa says:

            Yup, by twisting them to fit your hateful agenda…
            “which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.”

        • Nunn says:

          “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.” (John 10:1)

          Is Jesus himself “wresting the scriptures” here?

          Is Jesus manifesting a “hateful agenda?”

          Of course not.

          The accusation of “hateful agenda” toward those who accept Articles of Faith 12 & 13, and Ten Commandments 8, 9, and 10, is one of the standard instances of “bearing false witness against thy neighbor” among unscrupulous businessmen in Utah and elsewhere, who want illegal aliens here for their cheap labor, who, in their pure greed, don’t want to have to pay their fellow Americans a fair wage. Surely Jesus foresaw such boundless greed in our day and recognized it would be a major problem.

          “And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” (Matthew 19:24)

          There are others, as well, who make false accusations of “hate.” Among these are those which covet the sovereignty of the United States. “Thou shalt not covet.”

  256. Pingback: We have already lost the war against illegal immigration. - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

  257. Erick Sosa says:

    Again taking scriptures out of context, but what can I expect from a ( dare I say?) religious fanatic like you?
    I am sorry to call you that but that is what you come across as, the truth is YOU and all of your hate will NEVER EVER stop immigration by the children of Lehi…. you are the son of immigrants yourself….but you will deny this…you will rationalize it… be that as it may, none of your nagging will change anything…good luck and may one day you realize how hateful you’ve been….

    • Nunn says:

      Illegal invaders of a sovereign nation are not “immigrants.” Once again this is an attempt to “call evil good and good evil.”

      The notion that illegal aliens are the “the children of Lehi” is pure conjecture.

      And the Gentiles are very much part of the covenant by adoption, providing they are righteous.

      And being as God is not a liar Himself, unrepentant liars and thieves will be NOT be in God’s favor and will NOT be among those who build the New Jerusalem. (So you can forget about that rationalization for illegal immigration.)

      And you once again do bear false witness against your neighbor,. by falsely accusing me of being “hateful” and by denying that my ancestors came to this country not only legally but with a love in their hearts for America and what it stands for (a love that illegal aliens do NOT have, as manifest by their obvious disrespect for this country, its sovereignty, its laws and its citizens). Actually, this is a giveaway that your motivations are not as pure as you pretend.

      • Erick Sosa says:

        “Invaders’? buahahah.
        Do you deny what the Prophets have said in regards to Hispanics being direct descendants of father Lehi? You even call it “pure conjecture”?…man! you are completely deluded….If mental issues were not part of the equation I would tell you to remember every scripture dealing with charity (there’s way too many) , a concept that obviously eludes you.
        I am sorry but my integrity keeps me from continuing arguing with someone with that thinks he owns America, just because he was born in it…he foolishly forgets it is God’s to give to the righteous… remember those illegals you hate so much are your own spiritual kin…whether you like it or not… even the early pioneers crossed into Mexico illegally by your standards… and no Utah was NOT American territory… it is just not ethic….

      • John C. Clark says:

        We were just reading in 2 Nephi last night and came across multiple warnings from Nephi about the pride of the Gentile Nation in the last days. After having been blessed with the restoration of the Church and after having brought the Book of Mormon to the remnant of Lehi’s children, we would become rich and proud. If we then did not repent and humble ourselves, we would no longer be counted among the House of Israel.

        2 Nephi 28:32 “Wo be unto the Gentiles, saith the Lord God of Hosts! For notwithstanding I shall lengthen out mine arm unto them from day to day, they will deny me; nevertheless, I will be merciful unto them, saith the Lord God, if they will repent and come unto me; for mine arm is lengthened out all the day long, saith the Lord God of Hosts.”

        Nephi’s expression of God’s warning does not seem to show any great confidence that the Gentiles will humble themselves and repent. But the opportunity is still there.

        My view of the history of America is that we were doing pretty well until we became so rich and powerful. The more successful we became the less we welcomed poor strangers to our shores. The Chinese were the first victim of our racial prejudice. We encouraged them to come and take hard, dangerous jobs, like building the transcontinental railroad. Then we forced them to return to China. Gradually our policy of excluding poor minorities become more and more refined, until we now practically have a wall around us. “Only the rich and successful need apply,” we seem to say.

        The Constitution of the United States had no restrictions on immigration– only a provision stating who in the government would be in charge of granting citizenship to the newcomers.

        We are no longer acting like the Christian nation we have claimed to be.

  258. Erick Sosa says:

    Oh and Jesus was not talking about immigrants in those scriptures..maybe some soul searching is in order…?

  259. Erick Sosa says:

    Oh and enjoy this article… Morns and Illegals do share something in common…

    “They say the best lessons learned are those that we learn from our past. I have been thinking about that statement with regard to this year’s legislative initiatives aimed at curtailing the driving privileges of immigrants who have been living in the state without proper documentation from our government.

    Historically, we know that the first people to enter Utah illegally came under similar circumstances as today’s illegals. The Mormon pioneers had suffered tremendous persecution, as well as political, religious and bigoted bias. They suffered economic hardships and could see that — though they loved their country — for their posterity to have any hope for a future they would have to endure the physical trials of going to a new land, crossing hostile deserts and leaving the life they had known, all for the hope of a new future for them and their families.

    Today’s illegals have similar stories. If you could talk to each one of them individually, you would hear tales of political persecution, of people who refuse to live under tyranny, pay drug lord tributes or watch as their children grow with no hope of educational enlightenment. These individuals bring with them a strong work ethic and a will to do whatever is necessary to see that their families progress and grow with dignity.

    Utah was part of Mexico when the Mormon pioneers settled in the Salt Lake Valley. They did so without proper consent of the Mexican government. Yet no one would argue that the valley is a better place because of the rich and beautiful heritage that the Mormon immigrant legacy implanted in the state.

    I wonder how Brigham Young would have received these people. Would he have sent covered wagons to rescue them in the dessert when learning of their certain doom to perish there? Would he have seen that they had the means necessary to work and provide for their families, as he did for the early immigrants who came to Utah from Scandinavia, England and Germany?

    A driver’s license in today’s world is as necessary as a horse was to the Mormon pioneers. Without a horse, they could not have plowed their fields or brought the materials to build their homes for shelter.
    Laws and borders may change with time. Utah is no longer in Mexico. But men yearning for a better way of life for himself and his posterity will always remain the same.”

  260. Erick Sosa says:

    Oh and enjoy this article… Mormons and Illegals do share something in common…

    “They say the best lessons learned are those that we learn from our past. I have been thinking about that statement with regard to this year’s legislative initiatives aimed at curtailing the driving privileges of immigrants who have been living in the state without proper documentation from our government.

    Historically, we know that the first people to enter Utah illegally came under similar circumstances as today’s illegals. The Mormon pioneers had suffered tremendous persecution, as well as political, religious and bigoted bias. They suffered economic hardships and could see that — though they loved their country — for their posterity to have any hope for a future they would have to endure the physical trials of going to a new land, crossing hostile deserts and leaving the life they had known, all for the hope of a new future for them and their families.

    Today’s illegals have similar stories. If you could talk to each one of them individually, you would hear tales of political persecution, of people who refuse to live under tyranny, pay drug lord tributes or watch as their children grow with no hope of educational enlightenment. These individuals bring with them a strong work ethic and a will to do whatever is necessary to see that their families progress and grow with dignity.

    Utah was part of Mexico when the Mormon pioneers settled in the Salt Lake Valley. They did so without proper consent of the Mexican government. Yet no one would argue that the valley is a better place because of the rich and beautiful heritage that the Mormon immigrant legacy implanted in the state.

    I wonder how Brigham Young would have received these people. Would he have sent covered wagons to rescue them in the dessert when learning of their certain doom to perish there? Would he have seen that they had the means necessary to work and provide for their families, as he did for the early immigrants who came to Utah from Scandinavia, England and Germany?

    A driver’s license in today’s world is as necessary as a horse was to the Mormon pioneers. Without a horse, they could not have plowed their fields or brought the materials to build their homes for shelter.
    Laws and borders may change with time. Utah is no longer in Mexico. But men yearning for a better way of life for himself and his posterity will always remain the same.”

    • Nunn says:

      “Do you deny what the Prophets have said in regards to Hispanics being direct descendants of father Lehi?”

      What make you of the change made to the Book of Mormon Introduction, that the Lamanites are “AMONG” the ancestors of the American Indians — not the “PRINCIPAL” ancestors of the American Indians, as was once supposed? In this context, I suggest you review D. Todd Christofferson’s talk of two General Conferences ago, regarding revelation, doctrine, and prophets.

      Regarding Charity: Many are perverting the right way of the Lord, by purposely implying that to have “charity” is to look the other way at illegal immigration and the criminality and dishonesty and dishonor which go with it.

      “…he foolishly forgets it is God’s to give to the righteous…”

      True. And trampling upon that nation’s Constitution which He established — and upon the laws pertaining thereto — is not counted by God as righteousness (Article of Faith 12, 13, Ten Commandments 8, 9, and 10, etc.).

      “…immigrants who have been living in the state without proper documentation from our government.”

      You characterize the situation of lack of documents as though someone simply left their documents behind accidentally. Remarkably you completely sidestep what the lack of documentation REPRESENTS, namely: disrespect for this nation, its sovereignty, its borders, its laws, and its people.

      The pioneers were kicked OUT of this country illegally. Illegal aliens ENTER this country illegally. And the pioneers were not defying established immigration law when they emigrated. There is no comparison between the pioneers of yesteryear and today’s illegal aliens.

      “These individuals bring with them a strong work ethic and a will to do whatever is necessary to see that their families progress and grow with dignity.”

      Yet they will not do as the prophets have counseled — which is to REMAIN IN THEIR OWN COUNTRIES and build up the church and their communities there. And how much “dignity” is there in a lifestyle of furtive illegality, dishonesty, dishonor, and disrespect for one’s fellow man — the lifestyle of the typical illegal alien?

      Shoplifters and bank robbers also are our spiritual kin (spiritual brothers and sisters). They also are doing what they are doing in search of a better life for themselves and their families. However, these things do not make shoplifting and bank robbery okay.

      I suggest you stop rationalizing the illegal invasion of the United States and instead consult the scriptures — including the Articles of Faith, the Ten Commandments, D&C 58:21, other scriptures, and the words of the modern prophets.

  261. Greg West says:

    Brothers Nunn and Sosa,

    As the author of the piece which is being debated here, please allow me to encourage you to tone down the political rhetoric and name-calling. We are brethren in common submission to God and his Christ and we should allow our discussions to be tempered by love. After all, Jesus shed his blood for all of us and none of us is without need for repentance.

    This subject is very emotional. The purpose of the article is to propose that we move toward a more spiritual approach to the problem, because the political solutions are not working. The responses we’ve seen here represent a broad range of opinions. We’ve had replies from Hispanics, Pacific Islanders, and many others who have given us a wide range of perspectives. When we appreciate that Europeans invaded the American continent and took it away from the First Peoples, the arguments against illegal immigration change.

    There is so little we know about the ancient history of the Americas. Findings like the discovery of Kennewick Man, or the presence of Celtic, Basque, Proto-Hebrew, and other languages carved in stones pre-dating the birth of Christ have thrown into doubt much of what was considered established history of migrations to the Americas. The Book of Mormon is now supported by a “cloud of witnesses” that tell us that we really understand very little about America’s history.

    When it comes to arguments about illegals “invading” a sovereign nation, we have to intellectually ask what does it mean to have sovereignty. Who gives sovereignty? God? In that case, to whom did God give this land by covenant? I don’t think political boundaries that are sovereign only because of our military might are necessarily the conclusive fact that stops the argument. I’ve written a follow-up piece and submitted it. Hopefully the site editors will have it posted soon.

    Anyhow, thanks for reading. As this article has been read over 50,000 times now, I’m hoping it is having some affect on changing hearts and minds on the subject.

  262. Pingback: Illegal Immigration and the Fulfillment of Book of Mormon Prophecy – Part II | LDS Liberty

  263. Yolanda says:

    I have felt, for some time, that even though I recognize the difficulties brought upon our nation by the burden of illegal immigrants, that somehow it has to be part of the “plan.” Thank you for an insightful expose’ on the topic!

    • John C. Clark says:

      You’ll be relieved to learn that immigrants, even undocumented ones, have blessed our country greater than any burden you think they have imposed. See my response to Mike, who also is convinced that my glasses are rose-colored.

  264. Nunn says:

    Immigration does not strengthen an economy, in a climate of mass unemployment, underemployment, and under-compensation of American citizens. It only enhances the profits of greedy businessmen — who don’t want to have to pay their fellow American a fair wage. Besides, there is plenty of legal immigration allowed in this country already, which has the most generous immigration policy in the world.

    Quotas do not “pressure” foreign nationals into becoming criminals. Rather, they reveal these criminals for what they already are at heart. “Thou shalt not covet.”

    Amnesty is patently unjust and unfair. And it is not the only “solution.” The real solution is earnest and uniform enforcement, and meaningful penalty. Most illegal aliens would then self-deport.

    • John C. Clark says:

      Perhaps you did not ready my earlier reference explaining how immigrants-both documented and undocumented-create more jobs than they take. I wrote it in response to Nunn about 6 days ago. My points were:

      1. Immigrant workers usually take different jobs than local workers—they complement each other.

      2. Immigrant workers and their families are consumers who create more demand for goods and services, stimulating the economy.

      3. They are less likely to take management jobs. They instead create white-collar jobs for locals who supervise them and do related administrative work for them.

      4. They are more likely than our native born to be entrepreneurs, creating jobs for the native born instead of taking then away.

      5. Areas with increased immigration experience increases in wage rates for the native-born.

      6. One exception to point 5. is that in areas that experience high immigration rates, the tendency of wages to increase may not hold true for one narrow categories: native men without a high school education.

    • John C. Clark says:

      Regarding the popular myth that the U.S. is the immigrant friendly country in the world, Forbes Magazine offers the following information:

      We are the 22nd most friendly in terms of new immigrants as a percentage of population. Canada has double our rate of inflow, and the numbers go up from there with Belgium, Slovenia, Australia, Norway, Austria, New Zealand, Ireland, Spain, Iceland, Switzerland, and Luxembourg. Luxembourg’s rate is over 7 times ours!

      Perhaps that’s not fair, because our immigrants tend to stay longer than in many of those other countries. We can check the numbers for immigrants as a total percent of population. Then we are the 12th most friendly, with 12.1% of our nation being immigrants. Above that rate lie Belgium, Germany, Sweden, Austria, Estonia, Canada (18.3%), New Zealand, Australia (24.7%), Switzerland, Israel, and Luxembourg (32.8%).

      Forbes comments, “Are immigrant populations like this untenable in the U.S.? The data does not suggest this is the case. Immigrants make up over 20% of the population in New York, California, and New Jersey. These states also happen to rank 3rd, 10th, and 16th by median income. Instead of 1 million immigrants a year, these numbers suggest we could be letting in as many as 3 million a year and we would still not rank in the top 5. If we want to actually be the most immigrant friendly country in the world we’re going to need to do even better than that.”

    • John C. Clark says:

      One more point, I don’t believe we are as generous to foreigners living here as many other countries. In my personal experience living in Sweden for two and a half years was that they gave me free medical care, cheap dental care, free language classes with free text books, and many other free government services. Every town had a workers’ restaurant where we could have cheap meals subsidized by the government and/or workers’ unions.

  265. Greg West says:

    Check this out from the SL Tribune:

    “President Barack Obama’s outline for immigration reform matches the values of the Mormon faith, according to Dieter F. Uchtdorf, second counselor in the LDS Church’s governing First Presidency.”

    President Uchtdorf represented the Church at a meeting with 13 other faith leaders and President Obama to discuss immigration reform. President Uchtdorf referred to the Utah Compact as a “pillar” of the immigration reform movement.

    I think this shows that the First Presidency is most definitely supportive of reforms that many of the conservatives on this site oppose. I think this adds a lot more support that my article’s premise is scriptural and aligned with the leadership of the current Church leadership. Time to re-evaluate?

    Read the article at:

  266. Nunn says:

    Mr. West — You would have a point — if President Uchtdorf were in fact speaking to the press in behalf of the First Presidency in official representation of the Church (as distinct from merely attending the meeting, which President Uchtdorf said he was authorized to do) and if every word proceeding forth from the mouth of any member of the First Presidency automatically constituted the Word of God in the first place.

    In this case, it is easy to see that President Uchtdorf’s words were not the Word of God. For one thing, he himself acknowledged that his words on this occasion constituted his opinion only. His words, to the Tribune: “My personal feeling is…” Also, his words fail to comport with the measuring stick of the established Word of God as set forth in official scripture. For example:

    Articles of Faith #12 – “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.”


    2 Nephi 28:8–9 – “And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God. Yea, and there shall be many which shall teach after this manner, false and vain and foolish doctrines…”

    Amnesty clearly is wrong — whether President Obama and President Uchtdorf say it is or not. It is immoral. It is unjust. Worse, it undermines the God-ordained Constitution and the rule of law which necessarily is attached to it. Ultimately it is no more “compassionate” than is the false doctrine reported in 2 Nephi 28:8, above.

    This does not mean that we do not sustain Elder Uchtdorf in his calling. It just means that we stop being unfair to him by incorrectly attributing to him some sort of deific, omniscient, infallible status. After all, he is only a mortal man, like the rest of us. Nor do we know exactly why Elder Uchtdorf said what he did. He may well be deceived by the Machiavellian cunning of the authors of the Utah Compact, for example. Again, General Authorities are not deities; they are not infallible, they are not omniscient — even though many Latter-Day Saints erroneously think they are. We should sustain them and pray for them.

    Quite pertinent to the recent situation in Washington D.C are the words of Elder D. Todd Christofferson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, which he delivered to the General Conference of the Church in October of 2012:

    “At the same time it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that ‘a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such.'”

    Elder Christofferson then reminds the saints of certain keys for determining whether something a General Authority utters is correct or not.

    The Doctrine of Christ
    By Elder D. Todd Christofferson
    Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
    General Conference
    October 2012

  267. John C. Clark says:

    I believe this is a good time to address one reason some resist larger immigration quotas–that we don’t have room for “floods” of immigrants. Contrary to the common belief that we face a population problem with limited resources, the fact is that we face seriously declining birthrates among nearly all populations of the world, especially in the United States. The only reason our population is not already declining in the United States is thanks to our immigrants. Our choice to limit the migration of honest workers and their families to this country will be seen as one of the great follies of our time. We of the “baby boom” will have few children and grandchildren to sell our big show homes to or to pay into our social security. Even Mexico’s birth fertility is dropping down to near mere replacement levels. We face a potential demographic winter. Satan’s battle against family values has succeeded in convincing many people that marriage, let alone raising children, is not longer important. A growing culture of selfish personal gratification and individualism is replacing our tradition of social responsibility among almost all cultural groups except a few that are religiously devout.

    Our greatest natural resource is people. We must continue to populate the earth or face desolation.

  268. Dave says:

    You said that, “anyone who invests their energies to confront and fight against illegal immigration misspends his energies.” Did Mormon “misspend” his energies, even his very life, to defend the Nephite nation against the Lamanite invaders? As a prophet, he was more than aware of the future consequences of wicked Nephite behavior and, even at the hands of the Lamanites, who themselves, were not righteous either. Why then did he work tirelessly to defend his nation, even giving up his life, against them. You misunderstand the meaning of the “Lord’s Plan,” which you interpret to mean inevitable consequences, no matter what we do (do you really think the Lord wants this to happen? He doesn’t. He’s only stating the consequences if we don’t shape up.). The Lord Himself gives us the choice to avoid these consequences of our nation’s unrighteousness. By your logic, do you ever even try to make good choices to avoid the consequences of sin or have you already consigned yourself to hell because the Lord has stated that as the consequence of sin? Also, you, as do many, misinterpret the statements on the remnant building the New Jerusalem (see statement by Bruce R McConkie). You’re just another liberal trying to skew LDS doctrine to conform with your false socialist beliefs.

  269. Greg West says:

    Dear Brother Dave,

    Despite your name-calling and judging, I wish to respond with an olive leaf of peace. You have a number of misunderstandings about the demise of the Nephites. You wrote:

    “Did Mormon “misspend” his energies, even his very life, to defend the Nephite nation against the Lamanite invaders?”

    The last war of the Nephites had its seeds in the book of 4th Nephi. See 4 Nephi 4:17–20. After the Savior’s ministry to the people, they became one people. There were no divisions. They lived in the united order. They had all things in common. They abolished poverty and eliminated social classes. There were no more “Lamanites.” They blended and became one ethnic and cultural group.

    Then, just before the end of the second century, there was a group of people who “…had revolted against the church.” These apostates were not “ethnic” Lamanites. They were apostates. They became a social and political entity that strove against the mainstream Nephite religious and social traditions. These were not people of another race who “invaded.” They were a single society that began to break up.

    Fourth Nephi verses 25 and 26 tell us that the church became worldly and prosperous and it abandoned the united order. They began to be “divided into classes” and the Nephite church began to fracture and split in to factions and what we would call denominations. Verse 27 tells us that they began to deny “the more part of his gospel.” They began to administer gospel ordinances to those who were unworthy. Another denomination began to deny Christ altogether. These factions persecuted the humble members of the true Nephite Church.

    Verse 42 tells us that the more wicked part of the people began to adopt the oaths of the Gadianton robbers and secret combinations began to be a corrupting force in the land. Verse 46 says that everyone was wicked, except for “the disciples of Jesus.”

    So you see, there was not one nation invading another. It was a break-up of one single society that fell into civil war. They were one people who broke into factions. The “Lamanites” in the end, were essentially a collection of anti-Christian groups that formed into a political entity similar to a political party. Mormon chapter 1, verses 8 and 9 tell us the factions who made up the two parties.

    In Mormon 3:9–10, the wicked Nephites seal their own destruction. They decide to wage a war of annihilation against the Lamanites. (Remember, these are political groups–not races!) They changed their military doctrine to an offensive one. In all of Nephite history, their wars were defensive in nature. The Nephites did what George W. Bush did with the “War on Terror.” They adopted a “pre-emptive” (strike first) military doctrine. The Lord’s spirit withdrew from them and Mormon refused to lead them.

    If you will study the passages indicate, you will understand better the nature of the last Nephite/Lamanite war. It was not an invasion of a foreign people into the territory of another. It was a civil war. It is also a type and shadow of the kind of war that will eventually destroy the United States. Study the prophecies of the early LDS apostles who foresaw the destruction of the country. We will destroy ourselves. Immigrants will not destroy us.

    Furthermore, as members of the Church, we need to foster unity. Name-calling and condemning one another to hell over political opinions is probably one of the symptoms that led the fragmentation of the Nephite Church. There are LDS members who live in countries that have socialistic governments and also under monarchs. The gospel transcends politics, economic systems, race, and national borders. The gospel is the unifying power that kept the Nephites in peace for two centuries, not politics. It will be the unifying power that preserves us and brings to pass Zion in our time. I wish you all the best the gospel has to offer.

  270. Mitch van Biljon says:

    This idiotic statement tells me this author has no clue of moral doctrine…

    “scriptures tell us that God ordains that the poor shall be “exalted” by humbling the rich, which most definitely involves redistribution of wealth. (Doctrine and Covenants 104:16)”

    I ask one question when does God approve of the theft of one’s property to give to another. This is in direct violation of D&C 134:5. The authors interpretation of D&C 104:16 is a pathetic effort to justify socialism.God will never exalt another at the expense of another. The humbling of the wealthy is the humbling of attitude. The Lord does it no other way and certainly is not through a redistribution of wealth from those that earned such morally.

    Just another ignorant socialist spouting doctrine that is Satan’s.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *