The debate about what to do about immigration problems is a big issue in Utah and other states. St. George’s newspaper, the Spectrum has reported that Stephen Sandstrom, a Republican from Orem is sponsoring a bill that
would allow local law enforcement to check people’s residency or citizenship status if officers have “reasonable suspicion” they have entered the country illegally. It would also allow for a warrantless arrest if an officer has a “reasonable suspicion” that the person they are facing is here illegally.
It seems to be modeled after the controversial Arizona law. Some Latino activists are upset with the proposed bill. Many opponents of Sandstrom’s bill have been unhappy about this heavy-handed approach to immigration problems, and have reminded him that the LDS church has supported the principles of the Utah Compact, a document that says,
We must adopt a humane approach to this reality, reflecting our unique culture, history and spirit of inclusion. The way we treat immigrants will say more about us as a free society and less about our immigrant neighbors. Utah should always be a place that welcomes people of goodwill.
The LDS Church has endorsed the Utah Compact, and the New York Times supports the Utah Compact. Some Latino activists would like the church to do more. They would like the LDS church to help influence Mormons (such as Sandstrom) to embrace less hostile forms of legislation. The Salt Lake Tribune is reporting that Raul Lopez-Vargas
A former vice president of a local community group has penned a letter to Mexican President Felipe Calderón seeking the temporary suspension of visas issued to Mormon missionaries in response to his view the LDS Church hasn’t stood tough against Utah-based immigration reform bills.
There are those that think the LDS church should not be involved in any politics, from gay marriage to immigration. Yet sometimes they are pulled into the fray. What do you think? Is such a position tenable, when the LDS church must work with foreign governments for missionary work?
Mormon Heretic 
This is one I think the LDS church should stay out of. It is clearly political in nature. I think that instead, the legal Mexican residents and their supporters should initiate a PR campaign outreach to the citizens of Utah to explain their concerns and attempt to sway public sentiment in their favor.
Extortion is not the way to sway public sentiment.
Glenn
Well, the church isn’t out of it. And if Lopez-Vargas convinces President Calderon to stop missionaries from the U.S., then the LDS church is going to be forced to get into the politics business whether it wants to or not. Are you saying that if visas get denied to Mexico, the church should continue to be silent on the immigration issue?
I’ve never really bought the issue that the church should stay out of politics. We all have our interests in government, and the church is no different.
I think the church should be leading by example and show that government isn’t the solution but the problem. Yes, they should interact with government when it gets in the way but government is the hindrance many times. For example, the gay issue. They shouldn’t be leading a campaign to ban gay marriage but they should be leading a campaign to restore freedom, like getting rid of the income tax (so it doesn’t matter who’s married and who isn’t), creating a climate where people can use the shaming principle again (see the experience that Cain received after killing Abe). How to create a climate like that? Restore property rights.
If the church has to recall the missionaries, it will do so. But I don’t think that their stance has been made clear on the issue and should not actively try to influence legislation on the matter one way or the other.
Glenn
Sounds like Lopez-Vargas wants to hold missionary visas hostage. I say we don’t negotiate with hostage-takers. Once we start doing that, it’s a slippery slope. Oh, and I happen to like Sandstrom’s legislation. What exactly is hostile about requesting documentation? Is it hostile to require U.S. citizens to carry and produce documentation (ie. driver’s license or other id) when suspected of illegal activity?
Should the church get involved? I lean towards no, unless I see compelling evidence to convince me otherwise. I don’t think the church should get involved in issues that don’t pose a direct threat to the church. You say that this does because of the missionary issue. Well, yes it does, but like I said, we shouldn’t negotiate with hostage-takers. I suspect the church will have to figure out another way to proselytize is Mexico. Mexico may have to draw on its existent membership more for that purpose.
Do you support the Utah Compact?
@MH
I think it sounds reasonable.
tara,
the people opposing sandstrom’s bill say it is not in conformity with the utah compact. sandstrom’s bill is not compassionate and has unreasonable (and unconstitutional) arrests. as someone who claims strong support for the constitution, I would think you would readily see these constitutional problems, and I am quite surprised that you support sandstrom’s bill. additionally, as a strong supporter of the church, I would think you would readily see that the church’s support of the utah compact and compassionate solutions to the immigration problem would lead you to see that sandstrom’s bill is in violation of the utah compact and is not a compassionate solution. we all know there are immigration problems that need to be solved at the federal level, but sandstrom’s bill turns utah into a police state, trampling on liberty.
@mh
I’m not surprised that opponents of Sandstrom’s bill view it as not compassionate. I do have a problem with unwarranted arrests in general, but I’d have to know more about those specific provisions before I take a position on that. I don’t have a problem with the church’s support of the Utah Compact. But I think some people define compassion and kindness differently. I think you can uphold the law and still show kindness and compassion. But yes, Sandstrom’s bill is in conflict with the Utah Compact on at least one point. Immigration enforcement is a federal matter. However, the federal government has abdicated their responsibility in those matters. As a result, I believe it is coming to the point that states are going to have to take up the issue of enforcement and I have no problem with that, particularly in the case of Arizona and all of the problems that they are forced to deal with. Perhaps it hasn’t gotten to that point in Utah.
the immigration problem is here in utah. I am sure sandstrom’s bill is borne of frustration with the federal government. but sandstrom’s bill (and arizona’s law) are clearly an over-stepping of government. I understand the frustration, but it is clearly a wrong-headed solution. strict constitutionalists such as yourself should be up in arms over these clearly unconstitutional over-stepping powers sandstrom is proposing. any constitutionalist should clearly reject this unlawful solution, and advocate a repeal in arizona, imo.
@mh
I’ve said I generally oppose warrantless arrests. However, if someone is in this country illegally and does not have any documentation to prove otherwise, then they do not have any Constitutional protections, so I’m not sure where this is unconstitutional.
Anyway, I’m not sure Sandstrom’s bill is in opposition to the Constitution. It is not over-stepping the Constitution for a state to act in its own defense when the federal government is not fulfilling its mandated responsibilities. As a matter of federal law and long-standing practice, it encourages states to assist in enforcing federal immigration law. In fact, it relies heavily on them. So I’m not sure how Sandstrom’s bill is an overstep of government if it is only enforcing laws that are currently in place on a federal level. If you can show me how it is, I’d like to see it.
If Sandstrom’s bill is a wrong-headed solution, then what solution do you suggest?
tara, I think george washington would be appalled that police can stop anyone with an accent and detain them without due process. isn’t that what the bill of rights is all about-preventing unlawful search and siezure?
would you like to be thrown in jail because you left your wallet home when a policeman asked for your drivers license? I find your logic on this issue highly flawed when you continually emphasize your strong support of the constitution. how is this not an over-reach of police powers, and why would the founders support such a proposition if king george supported these unlawful searches in 1776?
the immigration bill under the bush administration would have gone a long way toward fixing the immigration problem.
I’m not an american. but to me it seems that Americans invaded what was originally owned by the Mexicans. With this knowledge in place then the Americans should be more tolerant as they are in fact the ones who are the illegal immigrants and not the Mexicans.
Original is an interesting idea. The Mexicans invaded the land of the Native Americans, and Spain invaded the land of the Incas, Aztecs, and Mayans.
But I understand your point.
@Tara,
The constitution is for everyone. Read it again and the declaration of independence. These are documents meant to show that everyone is free and have unalienable rights. I don’t know where the fallacy started that the Constitution isn’t for everyone. Yes, it has no force outside the US but inside it needs be applied equally among us all, whether someone is here illegally or not.
Stand by principles of freedom and you will be free, don’t do that and we’ll move ever closer to a complete police state.
@mh
Law enforcement officers are not allowed to arrest someone on the basis of an accent. I think that is an extreme exaggeration. There has to be reasonable suspicion. In learning more about what reasonable suspicion is, it is a legal standard of proof in the US. It doesn’t mean you can just arrest someone because of you want to, or because of an accent. It is less than probable cause, but more than just a hunch. It has to be based on specific and articulable facts taken together with rational inferences from those facts. So I may have to take back what I said about being generally opposed to warrantless arrests. They are lawful under certain circumstances and for good reason, like when an officer witnesses a criminal act. The Bill of Rights protects against “unreasonable [as opposed to unlawful] search and seizure.” There are laws set in place, even with regard to warrantless arrests, which are intended to prevent “unreasonable search and seizure.”
Where do you get the idea that an illegal immigrant who may be arrested without a warrant is going to be denied due process?
“would you like to be thrown in jail because you left your wallet home when a policeman asked for your drivers license?”
Can you offer any evidence that this sort of thing would occur? Would simply being without my driver’s license provide reasonable suspicion that I’m in the country illegally?
How do you suppose Bush’s immigration reform would’ve helped? I’ve read where a number of activist Latinos and Latino government officials have suggested that most illegals would not go through the hassle of all the paperwork in order to become a documented worker, only to have to pay fines and back taxes and then to possibly get sent out of the country once their visas expired.
@Astral_Lds
I think we should be tolerant, but I don’t believe that means we ignore our laws. Is that what you are suggesting we do in the name of tolerance?
@Jon
At the time that the Constitution was constructed and ratified, there were no naturalization laws, so there was no need to make specific distinctions. Now that we nave naturalization and immigration laws, non-citizens are under immigration law. That does not mean that illegals should be subject to harsh and unfair treatment. That does not mean that we don’t allow many of the same protections to illegal immigrants that we do to citizens. But I’m not sure that the Constitution applies as broadly as you suggest.
And certainly the Declaration of Independence states our unalienable, God-given rights. But if we are to apply the right to the pursuit of happiness in the case of illegal immigrants, then does that mean we must permit them to stay in our country in their pursuit of happiness? If they cannot pursue happiness in their home country, then are we obligated to allow them to pursue happiness in our country simply because they crossed the border? If so, then where does it stop? If not, then how do we appropriately apply the meaning of the Declaration of Independence in the case of non-citizens? Also, how do we suppose it is our duty to also ensure the God-given rights of life and liberty on those individuals if it is not our obligation to also ensure their right to pursue happiness?
By law, the breaking of law means that you lose certain rights, like the right to walk free, or sometimes the right to vote, or the right to own a gun. Sometimes, you lose the right to live. These are losses of liberty. When an person enters this country illegally, he has not promised to abide by the laws of this country, so we have no contract with that person, but yet we are supposed to say that regardless of the circumstances of your entering this country, you are entitled to the same rights and protections as anyone else? We do not force individuals to come to our country. Yet when they do so illegally, meaning, in violation of our laws, we are bound to uphold their God-given rights, the same as anyone else?
Tara, you’re entitled to your opinion, but I think you’re way off base here on the intent of the Constitution. I think the founders would be absolutely appalled with the Arizona law, and I don’t think they would think very highly of it if the British government imposed these unreasonable searches and arrests in 1776. These are the kinds of unreasonable arrests that the Constitution was designed to protect us against. Sure, the law may catch some illegals, but it will catch a significant number of citizens too, (especially those of hispanic descent with a strong accent) who will be jailed until they can produce documentation showing their innocence simply because the policeman suspects they might be here illegally. It turns us to a police state and Patrick Henry would be shouting from the rooftops about the liberty that has been violated for these people.
@Mormon Heretic
If the founders would be appalled by the Arizona law, then they would also be appalled by the federal law, because the Arizona law does nothing but mirror federal law. I think you’ve read and heard some misleading propaganda relating to this issue.
Here’s another link analyzing how Arizona law mirrors federal law.
I have no doubt that the arizona law will get a supreme court challenge, and I will be very surprised if it is not overturned on constitutional grounds.
@mh
Then you must also believe that federal immigration law needs to be overturned on constitutional grounds.
does federal law allow for warrantless arrests like sandstrom’s bill?
@mh
Did you read the links I provided? That might help. I don’t know what federal immigration law specifically provides, but I do know that warrantless arrests are legal and have been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court.
I just read an article about Sandstrom’s bill from back in August where he says that his bill will not allow for warrantless arrests. Here is a link to that article. So I’m not sure why the Sandstrom bill is being misrepresented.
I think the august article is from last year’s legislative session. the spectrum article referenced in the op is from feb 12, and mentioned the warrantless arrests I quoted in the op. perhaps sandstrom’s bill from last year was ‘nicer.’ I haven’t had time to review your links, and can’t until this evening.
@Tara
if the laws are unjust by unfiarly dicriminating against those who were the owners of the land before the Americans came and invaded the country then they should be ignored in favor of equity and social justice.
As I understand it, I could be wrong, Americans need the illegal immigrants to keep thier economny going. the cheap labor they provide enables the production of good that would otherwise need to be imported. SO by ousting the illegal immmigrants from Arizona and Utah they will actiualloy be damaging their local economies.
Tara,
What do you believe would constitute reasonable suspicion that a person is in the United State illegally? I can’t think of a single thing, to be honest, other than skin color and accent. The commission of another crime is not reasonable suspicion that a person is in the country illegally, especially as studies show that illegal immigrants have a lower rate of violent and property crimes that legal Americans. So what we have are laws that essentially allow police officers to detain any person looking or sounding “Mexican” that does not carry documentation around with them constantly. This is a severe violation of our constitution, and almost by definition not humane as the church is encouraging us to be.
As for whether the church should get involved politically, I don’t think they should. They shouldn’t be lobbying or directly involved in political matters in almost any case, in my opinion. What they should be doing is making strong statements in General Conference and in letters to the wards detailing how they believe members should be acting towards illegal immigrants, and how “some” proposals cross the line.
@Jacob S
I am not in law enforcement, so I can’t say what would constitute a reasonable suspicion. All I know is that the Arizona law states that skin color and accent are not acceptable proofs to provide reasonable suspicion. I will take the law at its word. But I suspect that the professionals know what is allowable under a requirement of reasonable suspicion.
You “assume” that the law allows the police to detain any person looking or sounding “Mexican.” Yet the law specifically states otherwise. Many other laws in our country also dictate standards that law enforcement must follow regarding the treatment of citizens. Should we also “assume” that since those standards will be ignored in some instances that we just shouldn’t pass any laws? Should we just do away with all our laws because there’s a good possibility that someone’s liberty will be violated because we just can’t expect the authorities to operate within the law? That is essentially what you are saying. The law specifies the standard that must be met and the criteria that is not acceptable to meet that standard of reasonable suspicion. Yet you make the assumption that there will either be no ability to abide by that standard or that it will just be ignored. So therefore, the law should not be upheld.
As for your suggestion that the church is encouraging us to be humane (have they even themselves said that independent of the text of the Utah Compact?), has the church specified what it considers to be humane in this regard? Have they said that they oppose the Sandstrom bill or the Arizona law? Have they said that unwarranted arrests are inhumane? Have they said that judging skin color and accent as meeting the criteria for reasonable suspicion of a person being illegal as inhumane? As far as I can tell, they haven’t. The most recent statement from the church is that the Utah Compact is “a responsible approach to the urgent challenge of immigration reform.” Notice it say “A” responsible approach. It doesn’t say “THE ONLY” responsible approach. So don’t automatically assume that the church is opposed to the Sandstrom bill or the Arizona law if they haven’t explicitly stated that they are. They may find them as reasonable as the Utah Compact.
Tara, if a police officer smells alcohol, he’s going to suspect a person has been drinking. If a person has a strong accent and no ID, is it rocket science to wonder if the person is here illegally? Reasonable suspicion isn’t defined–read the Sandstrom bill. If the officer can’t get an ID and the person has an accent, what other “reasonable” suspicion is he going to need to detain him? This isn’t rocket science that you’re making it out to be. There are going to be false arrests under the Sandstrom bill. I don’t see you making the same arguments about the searches in airports.
@MH
He may think it, or suspect it, but that doesn’t mean he will act on it. He may ask questions, but that doesn’t mean that he will determine his suspicions are enough to warrant an arrest. But did you know that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in a 1975 case that race may be considered in enforcing immigration law?
It isn’t up to the bill to define reasonable suspicion. It is a legal standard already in place and approved of by the Supreme Court.
You “assume” there will be false arrests, but do you have any empirical evidence to back it up?
And why should I make the same arguments about the searches in airports? That’s another subject that we haven’t addressed.
Tara,
I understand that the AZ law says that officers can’t take “Mexicanness” into account for reasonable suspicion, but what other things could they take into account? Do illegal aliens drive in a certain way different than everyone else? Do they dress in a certain way that gives them away? Is there anything you can think of that would pass as reasonable suspicious other than looking and sounding “Mexican”? You don’t have to be a cop to think this through, either, just use your judgment.
They wrote in that disclaimer after the initial uproar of the law, and maybe the law specifically says one thing, but that doesn’t mean the officers aren’t human. It doesn’t make them bad to take race/accent into account when trying to figure out if someone is illegal, it is just human nature. A law that is specifically set up to violate the Constitution, in that there is no other way to enforce it, is wrong.
“Should we just do away with all our laws because there’s a good possibility that someone’s liberty will be violated because we just can’t expect the authorities to operate within the law? That is essentially what you are saying.”
That’s ridiculous, don’t play hyperbolic slippery-slope arguments with me.
As to the church, I specifically said that is what I would like the church to do, not what they are currently doing. Although if you read their support for the compact, and the several op-eds in the Deseret News about immigration, the only reasonable conclusion is that the Church is attempting to persuade its members to be more tolerant of illegal immigrants.
I heartily endorse Jacob’s comments, especially about the slippery slope. But if I may play a little devil’s advocate a bit, let me address your question: “we just do away with all our laws because there’s a good possibility that someone’s liberty will be violated”
Clearly the founders had MAJOR problems with unreasonable searches and seizures because the British were guilty of these. Their philosophy was that it is better that a guilty man be set free than an innocent man jailed. I dare you to refute that. You’re not following the founder’s principles at all here. Tara, on another post you continually beat the drum that you were such an advocate for the constitution, when clearly you only follow the constitution when it fits your views, so anybody who claims such strong support for the Constitution as you do should have a problem with the Sandstrom bill and the Arizona law.
Since we’re talking about the issue of unreasonable searches, I don’t mind taking this post in the direction of airport screenings. Jason Chaffetz, the tea party golden boy and Congressman from Utah, has MAJOR problems with the unreasonable searches of airport scans, and is trying to get rid of them. He thinks they’re completely unreasonable. There is a new law concerned with the misuse of airport images that were leaked on to the internet. I don’t know where you stand Tara, but you’ve been quite a Tea Party advocate in the past, and Chaffetz clearly thinks these full body scanned images are an invasion of privacy and an unreasonable search.
@Tara,
When I talk law I talk of God’s law and not man’s. Therefore, when a law isn’t under a natural law then it isn’t applicable to the person and they can choose not to follow that man made law. Now, it may not be prudent to disobey the man made law, like taxes, they are unjust but it’s prudent to pay them if you want some of your property, and don’t want to be thrown in jail or killed by the state.
In a free society you would see more of an open border like we had before and latinos would choose only to come and work and go home, sure some would stay but, like people everywhere, most people prefer to stay in the region where they were born and only a few choose to leave. Same with the Latinos. The main reason they choose to stay is because it is so difficult to go back and forth. It has been estimated that up to 90% of the illegal immigrants would return home if it weren’t for the arcane laws here in the US (see Cato Institute). When the Irish came over to the US back in the day people viewed them the same way they view Latinos now. Only 1/3 of them ended up staying.
The constitution applies to everyone. If it were otherwise (which it is) then we would see a march towards despotism (which we see now, e.g., a president can order an American assassinated without due process). We much hunger and thirst for freedom and not rationalize ourselves out of the natural laws that protect us. These are core principles that everyone must live by. If we stood by the constitution then we wouldn’t have a drug war. If we didn’t have a drug war then Mexico would be seeing it’s government crumble and you wouldn’t see it’s people desiring to flee.
@Jacob S
Example: A police officer pulls a minivan over for speeding. A dozen passengers are crammed in. None has identification. The highway is a known alien-smuggling corridor. The driver is acting evasively. Those factors combine to create reasonable suspicion that the occupants are not in the country legally.
I understand that law enforcement officials are human. The people who enforce our current laws are human and they make mistakes all the time. The thing is that we have law, and we have established procedure of how to enforce the law. When that procedure is not followed, there is due process and those problems are sorted out and dealt with. Maybe still it isn’t dealt with perfectly and some cases will slip through the cracks. But we don’t avoid creating law because it might not be enforced properly. We construct law so that it falls within the standards layed out in the constitution, and then expect that the law will be followed properly. If, for some reason, it isn’t, then hopefully due process will correct any mistakes or abuses.
Who says the law is specifically set up to violate the Constitution? You? Your limited understanding prevents you from seeing how the law can be enforced in a Constitutionally consistent manner, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t Constitutionally sound.
My comment was not directed at your last paragraph where you gave your opinion regarding how the church should act. It was directed at the last sentence of the previous paragraph where you said, “This is a severe violation of our constitution, and almost by definition not humane as the church is encouraging us to be.” You made the assumption that the church is opposed to the Sandstrom bill and that the bill is inhumane. My suggestion was that you not assume that the church shares your views considering that they haven’t elaborated on what they consider to be or not to be humane.
@MH
I don’t refute that and I do understand and endorse the principle. But I differ with you on this law being in violation of that principle. It follows along with current established law already sanctioned by the Supreme Court.
You can do whatever you want with this, but I would prefer not to expand the scope of this discussion as it is already becoming tedious for me having to respond to multiple comments. So, don’t expect me to engage the subject.
@Jon
I understand your point, but I’m not sure how this relates to the discussion.
I’m not sure how I feel about a free society with open borders. It seems like it would be very disordered and I don’t know how government could function properly in such a society.
But I would disagree with you and say that the main reason that people from Central and South America stay is not simply because it is too difficult to travel back and forth, but because the governments of those countries are oppressive with many living in poverty, and they can come here for work, but also for handouts. Our society makes it easy and desirable to stay, so there is no incentive for immigrants to return. They might prefer to live in their native countries, but there is nothing for them there as compared to here.
Why?
Seriously? So the only reason the government of Mexico is crumbling is because of a drug war?
@Tara,
So you don’t feel good about people being able to cross your state border without border patrol? It’s the same thing. People should be free to move around. We had more of an open border before and didn’t have any problems. Don’t the Repubs make you scared of nothing.
So why don’t we address the core problem instead of putting band aids on it? I’ll answer that for you. It’s because it’s easier to say we don’t like that group of people therefore we should blame all of our problems on them. No. We fix the problems. Is it because they like the handouts? Then let’s get rid of socialism in our country. Is it because they have oppressive governments? Then let’s start having free trade with those countries (the fastest way to overthrow bad countries is by love not hate), free trade would also cure the poverty problem.
The constitution didn’t allow alcohol prohibition without an amendment why can it all of a sudden ban drugs of any sort by it’s whims? It can’t. It’s illegal according to the constitution and by natural rights it’s illegal also (and studies have shown that it doesn’t really solve any problems but just makes more criminals, watch the John Stossel episode on drugs).
There are sure to be other reasons too but the drug war is right up there. Their president has up the ante in the drug war and all he has done is made the drug lords more powerful. I would give you the source but I don’t remember it anymore. I’m sure you can google it.
@Jon
No, it isn’t the same thing. We are all citizens of the same country regardless of what state we are living in and there are no restrictions on travel between states.
Why should people be non-citizens be free to move around? They do have some freedom to move around the country, but they aren’t permitted to stay and live indefinitely without gaining citizenship first. It has to be done in an orderly manner or else our borders would be over-run and our system would run the risk of becoming over-burdened.
With the original Constitution, the states were the ones who made their own immigration laws and decided who they desired to immigrate into the state. Since the adoption of the Constitution, there have always been immigration laws, although that was a power held by the states. There has never been any such thing as “open borders” in the United States.
Many of them very much do. There are others who are very good though.
I agree. I would love to see real solutions that address the core problems in our country. But that isn’t going to happen any time soon. Knowing that it won’t, I don’t see any better solution than to continue applying band-aids while remaining as faithful to the Constitution as we possibly can.
I agree with ridding the country of socialist policies and engaging in free trade with other countries.
The fact that the Constitution didn’t allow alcohol prohibition without an ammendment does not mean that it didn’t allow an ammendment. It’s not illegal according to the Constitution or by natural rights. I do believe, however, that Prohibition was bad because of how it was applied, but not because it was a bad idea.
I also disagree with whatever studies may suggest that it doesn’t really solve any problems. I love John Stossel, but I have to disagree with him on this one. I don’t really want to go deep into this subject because I don’t want to get off track here, but check out this article which makes a good case for why the war on drugs may be much more effective than given credit for and why it is not unconstitutional.
You don’t seem to understand natural law. The whole earth is God’s. We are ALL God’s children, therefore all the land belongs to everyone who plow’s the earth and makes that land his. AKA, it’s all about property rights. No nation owns anything, it is only the individual. The only reason for even having government is to protect the rights of the individual (a la AZ constitution, etc.). If an individual cannot cross a border and purchase land or contract with another individual to work for them then it is contrary to natural rights.
Here’s a better solution, stick with the principles and let them guide you. This is the reason I left the so-called “conservative” party. They have no principles. Comprise is not letting your guiding principles lie to be trodden on. That is what happens when you compromise and we end up living in a police state where you can’t even drive in your own country without being pulled over by federal officials with the threat of being beaten for trying to exercise your 4th amendment rights (look on youtube for pastor Anderson in AZ).
Just so you know it is not the constitution that we need to stay faithful to, it is the idea that it espouses, that man is meant to be free and have liberty to guide his own life.
Prohibition was bad because it took away man’s natural right of liberty, which is the right to pay for the consequences of his own sin not some man made law.
I perused your article but it is also bologna.
What do you call Sodom and Gomorrah? Was this beyond God’s law? The Israelites were horrendously evil before they got themselves a king (and after for that matter) but a prophet of God still said it is better to not have a king. Why? Because God can punish the wicked through natural law. If natural rights were restored people would be able to exercise the “shaming” principle (found in the story of Cain and Abel). If people cannot exercise the rights of over their own properties the “shaming” principle cannot be used. Since the government makes this more difficult do we need to have the “state” step in and do it for us? No, we need to fight for our true and natural rights and if the “state” doesn’t give it back with let vengeance be God’s on the wicked. It is not our place.
@Jon
I do, actually, understand natural law. But I think you are not understanding that the land of this nation belongs to this nation’s people. We, as citizens of this nation, plow the earth of this land. It does not belong to the people of other nations unless and until those people become citizens of this nation. So they don’t have a natural right to live or work or trespass here, any more than I have a right to plant a garden on my neighbor’s property without his consent.
This guy is a nut job. He appears to me to be out for publicity, and he shamelessly spews some of the most hateful venom. This man, who is supposedly Christian, has no problem using the word hate directed at those he disagrees with, and not just their actions, mind you, but the people themselves. He prays for the death of his enemies. I wouldn’t doubt that he provoked everything that happened to him.
Oh, and not only does he pray they will die. He prays that they will go to hell.
@Tara,
And I guess that is where we differ. You believe that man’s laws (the creation of a nation, which is man made) trump God’s laws (the right of the individual to own property and contract freely with others). One must respect others property but a nation does not neither can own property as a collective because the “state” does not produce anything and can only take land by use of violence or the threat thereof.
If you consider Pastor Anderson a nut job because he wishes to exercise his 4th amendment rights then I think you should look at yourself and think if you true believe the constitution should exist. He went through the check point several times and then got fed up with it because it is not the federal governments position to have check points in the US (and abroad only if there is a declaration of war, and even then it is suspect). When he went through the check point all he said was that he was unwilling to say if was a citizen or not (and they already knew since he traveled that route so much). So when he got to the border patrol stop (which isn’t on the border, he was traveling from Yuma to Tucson) all he did was say “Are you detaining me or am I free to go?” They refused to answer him and then they broke his windows and tazered him rubbed his face in the glass and took him to one hospital (but they didn’t like it) then took him to another all the while making him hold his urine so he would soil himself. The first part of the encounter is on video on youtube. If you think that this man is bad because he chose to exercise his rights than I don’t know what to say, he may not be perfect but at least he is trying to fight for our freedom. I say he is a hero for exposing the lies of the government and trying to let others know that the direction we are heading is despotism. That is the direction you wish we head because that is the only way that the government can do all that you wish it to do.
So how did everyone feel about the Homeland Security Act, post 911?
The church believes that a country’s law trumps God’s law.
One small example being polygamy.
Read the articles of faith.
Leviticus 18:24-25,28-29
“Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants….That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you. For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.”
I don’t believe man’s law trumps God’s law. You can if you would like. I’ve always had a problem the article of faith that says we are subject to kings, etc. The scriptures are full of accounts of disobedience to man’s law (even Paul the apostle disobeyed). So I don’t really know how to make sense of the Article of Faith that says to obey man’s law. Now it may be prudent or wise to follow certain parts of man’s law but it is only a temporary thing until we become free. As the scripture above says the true and pure law would mean that we obey natural law and natural law will be the arbitrator of justice with some of the justice being met by the “shaming principle” I mentioned earlier (also mentioned in the scripture above).
Really we can make the scriptures say anything we want them to say and they tend to be or at least seem to be contradictory in some cases so you have to try and understand the principles and be open to the spirit to try and understand them. So I don’t believe I have a perfect knowledge of anything. I do reject the concept that God can’t punish certain sins through natural law though like the article Tara linked to. There’s just to much scripture to contradict that concept.
I disagree with the Homeland (In)security Act along with the (Un)patriot Act. These two laws definitely were a step to despotism and not freedom. But, since the people wish to be enslaved that is their choice, but I’ll still disagree with it. Governments have a history of making people fear that which should not be feared. As long as we seek after righteousness, as a people, we will be protected and free, but when we don’t we will be enslaved and have our rights taken from us, as has recently happened in the past. Imagine, if instead of seeking retribution, like we did after 9/11, that we instead repented of our wickedness and also, as a nation, stopped inter-meddling in the affairs of other nations (and creating dictatorships, see http://mises.org/daily/5055/Conservatives-versus-Freedom).
Jon, you bring up an interesting point. It seems impossible to think the US could repent of its “wickedness”, etc. yet we don’t hesitate to believe this happened in the Old Testament and Book of Mormon.
Articles of Faith? How about reading D&C 134. That goes for Tara, too. Might be some surprises there…
Of course, anyone that believes Sandstrom’s bill is compatible with the church’s take on immigration is so entrenched in their opinion that they will probably have trouble comprehending what’s being said in D&C 134.
Yea, for example, some might find verse 12 a bit surprising.
Rick, I think we saw a brief repentance but it didn’t last very long as people let themselves be fooled into thinking that their is a boogey man that will get them if we don’t attack the whole world.
Yes, verse 12 is ironic considering that any person that has to support another person against their will is a bond servant. Considering all governments work under this concept are we not all bond servants of the government? So the only government that would not practice this would be the kind that has only voluntary taxation.
@Tim
I’m not sure what I’m supposed to be surprised about regarding D&C 134.