Immigration: Agency, Responsibility, and Borders

Ralph C. Hancock is a Professor of Political Science at BYU and President, John Adams Center for the Study of Faith, Philosophy and Public Affairs.

Recently Meridian ran an article by Grant Hardy, professor of history and religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Ashville called “What the Book of Mormon Says about Immigration.”  and invited carefully reasoned responses.  Dr. Hancock responds.

Grant Hardy has put us all in his debt with his penetrating and profoundly important reading of the Book of Mormon (Understanding the Book of Mormon).   And now, in these pages, he has provided a very welcome service by bringing his scriptural knowledge, sincere concern for our fellow human beings and careful reasoning to bear on the difficult question how to address the problem of millions of undocumented immigrants living and working in the United States.  A factor that we Latter-day Saints must weigh very heavily is that an important number of these illegals are our brothers and sisters in a special sense, that is, they are members who worship and serve beside us in our wards and branches.

Brother Hardy is right to point out that it would be both intellectually simplistic and ethically insensitive to imagine that the problem can be adequately addressed by recourse to the authority of civil law alone.  To be sure, the authority of legitimately established law is a bulwark of any civilization, but that authority must finally be assessed in a larger context.  Over recent decades, the American people have, consented, mostly implicitly but with varying degrees of awareness of the stakes, to the acceptance within our territory of large numbers of illegal immigrants who have performed various important economic functions.  (I leave out of account the small minority of plain criminals, whom everyone agrees ought to be excluded.)    For some time now their numbers have become legitimately alarming, particularly to citizens in states along our Mexican border.  But to respond to this crisis by insisting simply that “law is law” is indeed inadequate.  Our enforcement of laws, and our efforts to revise and adapt laws, must take account of the human reality that confronts us. 

Thus far I agree with Brother Hardy.  I also agree with him that, where Latter-day Saints are concerned, such efforts ought to reflect the generosity of the LDS doctrine according to which, as he writes, “this is a land of liberty and refuge,” and indeed “the land of inheritance for the Lamanites.”  Like him I embrace the recent official statement of the Church counseling moderation and humanity regarding undocumented residents in our midst.  It is indeed curious and regrettable that many LDS citizens and lawmakers in Utah and elsewhere, and precisely those who on other questions would often be most eager to bolster their moral and political positions with church support, manage to ignore or somehow to discount the very clear direction the Brethren have given on this sensitive question. 

“The brethren,” as Hardy observes, “have wisely taken a very moderate position.”  He would have done well to end the article there.  For he ventures too far when he, without argument, discounts the brethren’s "circumspection" and then goes on to maintain that a specific and perhaps extreme (depending I suppose on the meaning of “certain conditions and penalties”) policy of amnesty and full citizenship can be simply deduced from “the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”   He seems to assume that "distinctions" a national state makes between citizens and non-citizens may be simply disregarded as we see things from a Divine perspective that far transcends national divisions.

To be sure, “it is worth remembering that ‘all are alike unto God’.”  But translating this insight into feasible law and policy requires just the moderation and circumspection that Brother Hardy for some reason forswears in his concluding paragraph.  It is a mistake to imagine that gospel principles can translate so simply and directly into sound law and policy.  For example, we know through revelation that mankind would be better off if no one consumed alcohol or tobacco, but it does not follow from this that the gospel requires us to support laws simply outlawing these substances.  To what degree they might usefully be regulated and their usage partially suppressed under any particular government will depend upon local culture, circumstances, etc.    Similarly, we know that all human beings are sons and daughters of God; but to ignore national divisions in governing ourselves is simply not an option.

Brother Hardy rightly reminds us of the principle of moral agency, but he fails to consider that this principle has political and legal ramifications that bear on the immigration question.  The Lord has given us commandments that we are free to respect or to reject.  He has also left us human beings with the responsibility to organize ourselves in political communities – a responsibility, it should go without saying, that is often abused by the more powerful among us (including sometimes powerful majorities).   None of these human communities will be perfect, but each performs a necessary function in organizing our collective lives under some authority backed by physical force.  As James Madison said, if men were angels, such enforced authority would not be necessary.  But we are not, and it is.  

Certain distinctions therefore necessarily come into play as we exercise our agency in trying to improve our lives and those of others.  Just as our most immediate responsibilities to our families and then to others within our circles of care (such as our wards, for example) must weigh more for us in practice than our universal humanitarian concerns (which of course must also have some weight), so we must recognize a necessary distinction between persons who are members of our self-governing national political community and those who are not.  Connecting our rights with our responsibilities requires that laws be made and equitably enforced over a determinate population and territory, and this is impossible without the defense of our borders. 

Just as individuals must first be stewards of their own security and health in order to be able to serve others, so citizens cannot afford to consider the “stranger” or foreigner as strictly equal to fellow citizens where human law and policy are concerned.   Even without the all-too-clear example that we witnessed on September 11 ten years ago, it ought to be obvious that a government cannot maintain the rights and security of its citizens if it cannot maintain its territorial integrity.  Moreover, the fundamental values of a nation are put at risk when large numbers of immigrants are admitted who do not share those values.   Political communities (if they are not to be reduced to sheer despotism) are held together by at least a minimal consensus concerning basic principles and priorities.  Thus, in Brother Hardy’s own Book of Mormon example, it would have made no sense for the Nephites to welcome the Anti-Nephi-Lehies as fellow citizens if the latter had not first joined the church and forsaken the ways of war.   Clearly the analogy between hospitality to an individual stranger and a nation’s immigration policy has limited application. 

Brother Hardy is right that mercy must not be forgotten in the enforcement, interpretation and revision of law.

But it is also true that compassion must be guided by wisdom.   No more than an individual can a nation afford to run faster than it has strength.   In the long run, we do neither ourselves nor those who desire to reside among us a favor by denying the necessary linkage between citizens’ rights and their responsibilities.   In immigration policy as in welfare policy, human rights and Christian compassion undermine themselves and cannot uphold true agency except by recognizing this linkage.

I deliberately leave open the question of just how fast we might be able to run in addressing the plight of undocumented residents among us in the United States.  For now I only submit that, by ignoring certain necessary limitations that define our human condition, limitations of which political borders are only the most visible evidence, Brother Hardy weakens his important case for mildness and even generosity in addressing the concerns of our undocumented brothers and sisters.    We must neither close our hearts to the “strangers” among us, nor close our minds to the legitimate and fundamental purpose of national borders. 

If, along with Grant Hardy, we hope that “compassion might overcome fear” concerning the immigration issue, then, following the example he cites of the chief judge who consulted “the voice of the people” concerning the Anti-Nephi-Lehies, we must perhaps first allow the American people to assure themselves that they have a voice, that is, that their legitimate interest in governing themselves and therefore in controlling their national borders is taken seriously by their political, intellectual and religious leaders.

Ralph C. Hancock is a Professor of Political Science at BYU and President, John Adams Center for the Study of Faith, Philosophy and Public Affairs.

Recently Meridian ran an article by Grant Hardy, professor of history and religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Ashville called “What the Book of Mormon Says about Immigration.”  and invited carefully reasoned responses.  Dr. Hancock responds.

Grant Hardy has put us all in his debt with his penetrating and profoundly important reading of the Book of Mormon (Understanding the Book of Mormon).   And now, in these pages, he has provided a very welcome service by bringing his scriptural knowledge, sincere concern for our fellow human beings and careful reasoning to bear on the difficult question how to address the problem of millions of undocumented immigrants living and working in the United States.  A factor that we Latter-day Saints must weigh very heavily is that an important number of these illegals are our brothers and sisters in a special sense, that is, they are members who worship and serve beside us in our wards and branches.

Brother Hardy is right to point out that it would be both intellectually simplistic and ethically insensitive to imagine that the problem can be adequately addressed by recourse to the authority of civil law alone.  To be sure, the authority of legitimately established law is a bulwark of any civilization, but that authority must finally be assessed in a larger context.  Over recent decades, the American people have, consented, mostly implicitly but with varying degrees of awareness of the stakes, to the acceptance within our territory of large numbers of illegal immigrants who have performed various important economic functions.  (I leave out of account the small minority of plain criminals, whom everyone agrees ought to be excluded.)    For some time now their numbers have become legitimately alarming, particularly to citizens in states along our Mexican border.  But to respond to this crisis by insisting simply that “law is law” is indeed inadequate.  Our enforcement of laws, and our efforts to revise and adapt laws, must take account of the human reality that confronts us. 

Thus far I agree with Brother Hardy.  I also agree with him that, where Latter-day Saints are concerned, such efforts ought to reflect the generosity of the LDS doctrine according to which, as he writes, “this is a land of liberty and refuge,” and indeed “the land of inheritance for the Lamanites.”  Like him I embrace the recent official statement of the Church counseling moderation and humanity regarding undocumented residents in our midst.  It is indeed curious and regrettable that many LDS citizens and lawmakers in Utah and elsewhere, and precisely those who on other questions would often be most eager to bolster their moral and political positions with church support, manage to ignore or somehow to discount the very clear direction the Brethren have given on this sensitive question. 

“The brethren,” as Hardy observes, “have wisely taken a very moderate position.”  He would have done well to end the article there.  For he ventures too far when he, without argument, discounts the brethren’s "circumspection" and then goes on to maintain that a specific and perhaps extreme (depending I suppose on the meaning of “certain conditions and penalties”) policy of amnesty and full citizenship can be simply deduced from “the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”   He seems to assume that "distinctions" a national state makes between citizens and non-citizens may be simply disregarded as we see things from a Divine perspective that far transcends national divisions.

To be sure, “it is worth remembering that ‘all are alike unto God’.”  But translating this insight into feasible law and policy requires just the moderation and circumspection that Brother Hardy for some reason forswears in his concluding paragraph.  It is a mistake to imagine that gospel principles can translate so simply and directly into sound law and policy.  For example, we know through revelation that mankind would be better off if no one consumed alcohol or tobacco, but it does not follow from this that the gospel requires us to support laws simply outlawing these substances.  To what degree they might usefully be regulated and their usage partially suppressed under any particular government will depend upon local culture, circumstances, etc.    Similarly, we know that all human beings are sons and daughters of God; but to ignore national divisions in governing ourselves is simply not an option.

Brother Hardy rightly reminds us of the principle of moral agency, but he fails to consider that this principle has political and legal ramifications that bear on the immigration question.  The Lord has given us commandments that we are free to respect or to reject.  He has also left us human beings with the responsibility to organize ourselves in political communities – a responsibility, it should go without saying, that is often abused by the more powerful among us (including sometimes powerful majorities).   None of these human communities will be perfect, but each performs a necessary function in organizing our collective lives under some authority backed by physical force.  As James Madison said, if men were angels, such enforced authority would not be necessary.  But we are not, and it is.  

Certain distinctions therefore necessarily come into play as we exercise our agency in trying to improve our lives and those of others.  Just as our most immediate responsibilities to our families and then to others within our circles of care (such as our wards, for example) must weigh more for us in practice than our universal humanitarian concerns (which of course must also have some weight), so we must recognize a necessary distinction between persons who are members of our self-governing national political community and those who are not.  Connecting our rights with our responsibilities requires that laws be made and equitably enforced over a determinate population and territory, and this is impossible without the defense of our borders. 

Just as individuals must first be stewards of their own security and health in order to be able to serve others, so citizens cannot afford to consider the “stranger” or foreigner as strictly equal to fellow citizens where human law and policy are concerned.   Even without the all-too-clear example that we witnessed on September 11 ten years ago, it ought to be obvious that a government cannot maintain the rights and security of its citizens if it cannot maintain its territorial integrity.  Moreover, the fundamental values of a nation are put at risk when large numbers of immigrants are admitted who do not share those values.   Political communities (if they are not to be reduced to sheer despotism) are held together by at least a minimal consensus concerning basic principles and priorities.  Thus, in Brother Hardy’s own Book of Mormon example, it would have made no sense for the Nephites to welcome the Anti-Nephi-Lehies as fellow citizens if the latter had not first joined the church and forsaken the ways of war.   Clearly the analogy between hospitality to an individual stranger and a nation’s immigration policy has limited application. 

Brother Hardy is right that mercy must not be forgotten in the enforcement, interpretation and revision of law.

But it is also true that compassion must be guided by wisdom.   No more than an individual can a nation afford to run faster than it has strength.   In the long run, we do neither ourselves nor those who desire to reside among us a favor by denying the necessary linkage between citizens’ rights and their responsibilities.   In immigration policy as in welfare policy, human rights and Christian compassion undermine themselves and cannot uphold true agency except by recognizing this linkage.

I deliberately leave open the question of just how fast we might be able to run in addressing the plight of undocumented residents among us in the United States.  For now I only submit that, by ignoring certain necessary limitations that define our human condition, limitations of which political borders are only the most visible evidence, Brother Hardy weakens his important case for mildness and even generosity in addressing the concerns of our undocumented brothers and sisters.    We must neither close our hearts to the “strangers” among us, nor close our minds to the legitimate and fundamental purpose of national borders. 

If, along with Grant Hardy, we hope that “compassion might overcome fear” concerning the immigration issue, then, following the example he cites of the chief judge who consulted “the voice of the people” concerning the Anti-Nephi-Lehies, we must perhaps first allow the American people to assure themselves that they have a voice, that is, that their legitimate interest in governing themselves and therefore in controlling their national borders is taken seriously by their political, intellectual and religious leaders.

Ralph C. Hancock is a Professor of Political Science at BYU and President, John Adams Center for the Study of Faith, Philosophy and Public Affairs.

Recently Meridian ran an article by Grant Hardy, professor of history and religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Ashville called “What the Book of Mormon Says about Immigration.”  and invited carefully reasoned responses.  Dr. Hancock responds.

Grant Hardy has put us all in his debt with his penetrating and profoundly important reading of the Book of Mormon (Understanding the Book of Mormon).   And now, in these pages, he has provided a very welcome service by bringing his scriptural knowledge, sincere concern for our fellow human beings and careful reasoning to bear on the difficult question how to address the problem of millions of undocumented immigrants living and working in the United States.  A factor that we Latter-day Saints must weigh very heavily is that an important number of these illegals are our brothers and sisters in a special sense, that is, they are members who worship and serve beside us in our wards and branches.

Brother Hardy is right to point out that it would be both intellectually simplistic and ethically insensitive to imagine that the problem can be adequately addressed by recourse to the authority of civil law alone.  To be sure, the authority of legitimately established law is a bulwark of any civilization, but that authority must finally be assessed in a larger context.  Over recent decades, the American people have, consented, mostly implicitly but with varying degrees of awareness of the stakes, to the acceptance within our territory of large numbers of illegal immigrants who have performed various important economic functions.  (I leave out of account the small minority of plain criminals, whom everyone agrees ought to be excluded.)    For some time now their numbers have become legitimately alarming, particularly to citizens in states along our Mexican border.  But to respond to this crisis by insisting simply that “law is law” is indeed inadequate.  Our enforcement of laws, and our efforts to revise and adapt laws, must take account of the human reality that confronts us. 

Thus far I agree with Brother Hardy.  I also agree with him that, where Latter-day Saints are concerned, such efforts ought to reflect the generosity of the LDS doctrine according to which, as he writes, “this is a land of liberty and refuge,” and indeed “the land of inheritance for the Lamanites.”  Like him I embrace the recent official statement of the Church counseling moderation and humanity regarding undocumented residents in our midst.  It is indeed curious and regrettable that many LDS citizens and lawmakers in Utah and elsewhere, and precisely those who on other questions would often be most eager to bolster their moral and political positions with church support, manage to ignore or somehow to discount the very clear direction the Brethren have given on this sensitive question. 

“The brethren,” as Hardy observes, “have wisely taken a very moderate position.”  He would have done well to end the article there.  For he ventures too far when he, without argument, discounts the brethren’s "circumspection" and then goes on to maintain that a specific and perhaps extreme (depending I suppose on the meaning of “certain conditions and penalties”) policy of amnesty and full citizenship can be simply deduced from “the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”   He seems to assume that "distinctions" a national state makes between citizens and non-citizens may be simply disregarded as we see things from a Divine perspective that far transcends national divisions.

To be sure, “it is worth remembering that ‘all are alike unto God’.”  But translating this insight into feasible law and policy requires just the moderation and circumspection that Brother Hardy for some reason forswears in his concluding paragraph.  It is a mistake to imagine that gospel principles can translate so simply and directly into sound law and policy.  For example, we know through revelation that mankind would be better off if no one consumed alcohol or tobacco, but it does not follow from this that the gospel requires us to support laws simply outlawing these substances.  To what degree they might usefully be regulated and their usage partially suppressed under any particular government will depend upon local culture, circumstances, etc.    Similarly, we know that all human beings are sons and daughters of God; but to ignore national divisions in governing ourselves is simply not an option.

Brother Hardy rightly reminds us of the principle of moral agency, but he fails to consider that this principle has political and legal ramifications that bear on the immigration question.  The Lord has given us commandments that we are free to respect or to reject.  He has also left us human beings with the responsibility to organize ourselves in political communities – a responsibility, it should go without saying, that is often abused by the more powerful among us (including sometimes powerful majorities).   None of these human communities will be perfect, but each performs a necessary function in organizing our collective lives under some authority backed by physical force.  As James Madison said, if men were angels, such enforced authority would not be necessary.  But we are not, and it is.  

Certain distinctions therefore necessarily come into play as we exercise our agency in trying to improve our lives and those of others.  Just as our most immediate responsibilities to our families and then to others within our circles of care (such as our wards, for example) must weigh more for us in practice than our universal humanitarian concerns (which of course must also have some weight), so we must recognize a necessary distinction between persons who are members of our self-governing national political community and those who are not.  Connecting our rights with our responsibilities requires that laws be made and equitably enforced over a determinate population and territory, and this is impossible without the defense

Just as individuals must first be stewards of their own security and health in order to be able to serve others, so citizens cannot afford to consider the “stranger” or foreigner as strictly equal to fellow citizens where human law and policy are concerned.   Even without the all-too-clear example that we witnessed on September 11 ten years ago, it ought to be obvious that a government cannot maintain the rights and security of its citizens if it cannot maintain its territorial integrity.  Moreover, the fundamental values of a nation are put at risk when large numbers of immigrants are admitted who do not share those values.   Political communities (if they are not to be reduced to sheer despotism) are held together by at least a minimal consensus concerning basic principles and priorities.  Thus, in Brother Hardy’s own Book of Mormon example, it would have made no sense for the Nephites to welcome the Anti-Nephi-Lehies as fellow citizens if the latter had not first joined the church and forsaken the ways of war.   Clearly the analogy between hospitality to an individual stranger and a nation’s immigration policy has limited application. 

Brother Hardy is right that mercy must not be forgotten in the enforcement, interpretation and revision of law.

52 Comments

1. jeff jacobs makes this comment

   Immigration: Agency, Responsibility, and Borders - Page 2

   Friday, 29 July 2011

   Excellent article, you have done us all a service in clarifying rights and responsibilities as we seek the welfare of all.

2. Mike Upchurch makes this comment

   Immigration: Agency, Responsibility, and Borders - Page 2

   Friday, 29 July 2011

   Amen. Thanks for this message. Bro. Hardy should read this and remember that the Lord has ordained this nation and it's Laws to keep us united. Bro. Hardy read D&C 134:5-6

3. Dave Weber makes this comment

   Immigration: Agency, Responsibility, and Borders - Page 2

   Friday, 29 July 2011

   A mild rebuke for Brother Grant's article. Legal immigration "Ellis Island" style required the immigrant to have a sponsor, job, and a place to live. They new the laws and the constitution. These fine people assimilated into America and became Americans. If the illegal's today followed the example of those hard working, law abiding legal immigrants from a hundred years ago, America AND the individual would be far greater than they are.

4. rgreer makes this comment

   Immigration: Agency, Responsibility, and Borders

   Friday, 29 July 2011

   This civil respectful and thoughtful discourse on a subject of passionate disagreement should set the tone for continuing discussion. A recurring problem which prevents this is our culture's tendency to equate a political viewpoint with the gospel itself, i.e., both are "true." But the gospel is always true and unchanging. Policies change with circumstances. To have a "testimony" of a policy or of a business model or a product and equate it with the Gospel of Jesus Christ diminishes the gospel, and adds nothing to policy.

5. D. Larson makes this comment

   Immigration: Agency, Responsibility, and Borders - Page 2

   Friday, 29 July 2011

   Thank you for a writing style that takes the time to state your meaning clearly. too many 'learned' men talk and write in a sort of short hand that the rest of us find hard to follow.

6. Corazon makes this comment

   Immigration: Agency, Responsibility, and Borders - Page 2

   Friday, 29 July 2011

   Interesting perspective. Thank you for sharing. I can't help but see that the times we are living now is heading towards the tumultuous times prophesied that will precede the Lord's 2nd Coming. The Book of Mormon was given to us to learn from the events that happened anciently that will parallel the winding up scenes before the Savior returns. Immigration was not an issue then - you were either a believer or a non-believer. Everyone else camped with who ever they believe to be right. The 2nd coming will usher the destruction of all worldly kingdoms to be replaced by the Kingdom of God. With that perspective, I see that Immigration is a principle in worldly kingdom. It will be interesting to see how that will all play out during the transition. May charity be the rule of law in the hearts of latter-day saints...for we know that all else will fail...but charity will never fail. Caritas Cristi Urget Nos!

7. grimalkin makes this comment

   Immigration: Agency, Responsibility, and Borders

   Friday, 29 July 2011

   Well said, Professor Hancock. You speak for many of us!

8. kim whatcott makes this comment

   Immigration: Agency, Responsibility, and Borders - Page 2

   Friday, 29 July 2011

   Its so nice to see two University professors disagree so "politely", it would be even nicer to have the two professors come to Arizona, or Texas or L.A.'s east side to see how being nice to the poor disadvantaged illegal has changed those neighborhoods. The immigration procedures put in place long ago were set up to intigrate or merge the new citizen into our country and help them become citizens. Its obvious to us non-professors who live as minorities in communities now that the illegals have no intension of becoming Americans, there presense here is purely economic. The reason "Laws" were put into effect was to prevent the very confusion, crime, and economic disasters that now exist in the border states. We can no longer afford the luxury of turning our heads at the illegal problem that you talk about in Utah. But continue as you are now and you will soon understand the problem like we do.

9. REvans makes this comment

   Immigration: Agency, Responsibility, and Borders

   Friday, 29 July 2011

   Whereas I was somewhat disturbed be Brother Hardy's idealistic comments, this article seems to make more sense,given the times in which we live.

10. Lorraine makes this comment

    Immigration: Agency, Responsibility, and Borders - Page 2

    Friday, 29 July 2011

    Thanks for the well-reasoned conclusions. There will always be problems with borders. To ignore border enforcement is perilous to our economy now & our children in the future. #1 We must stop anchor babies & chain migration policies now. #2 There are not enough jobs to go around--especially for unskilled labor, high school & college kids. This group has minimum wage & can be exploited too easily by unscrupulous employers. My nephew (a veteran & college graduate!) was recently hired by Denny's. He quit after being paid for one week when he had actually worked two. To be treated badly by management is a real risk when competition for jobs is fierce & desperate. But the illegal employees will have no recourse at all. To choose such a life is short-sighted, thoughtless, naive, &/or shows a lack of integrity. #3 Shame on illegals who knowingly force their children to be undocumented aliens hoping for a blanket amnesty someday! That's called gambling. . .

11. Amy makes this comment

    Immigration: Agency, Responsibility, and Borders - Page 2

    Friday, 29 July 2011

    If I have to answer truthfully to the temple questions whether Im honest with my fellowmen,then the too should be honest and tell the truth. If anything,the church should be helping them become citizens,not just hide out and do nothing in their spanish branches. Not only are illegal citizens taking from the US, but also they are taking from the welfare system of the church. I ask ,is this right? I say no. Im all for compassion,but also for what is right, and justice as well.

12. Rani makes this comment

    Immigration: Agency, Responsibility, and Borders - Page 2

    Friday, 29 July 2011

    As one who has come through Ellis Island, learned the language, and obeyed the laws it is heartening to see an article which somewhat refutes Bro. Hardy's position. Compassion on the basis of not splitting families is an interesting premise, especially considering logically that many more family members are left behind in the country of origin. I certainly can attest to that. The other interesting issue is how "honest in all your dealings" is a question that becomes situational and seemingly quite flexible.

13. wayne makes this comment

    Immigration: Agency, Responsibility, and Borders

    Friday, 29 July 2011

    Professor Hancock has hit the nail right on the head!! I was a contractor for 35 years, and saw, first hand, the endless problems created by the illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central America. It was absolutely imperative for me to, eventually give in to my competition, and , use illegals for my crews. This worked a real hardship on me, for many reasons---lack of communication being only one problem. Too many are so naive, thinking employers use them to increase their bottom line----absolutely false ! Anyone thinking they contribute to the economy needs to get better informed.! It is too complex to explain it all here; suffice it to say: I know what I'm talking about---I lived with it for 35 years !

14. Marjorie Bohlen makes this comment

    Immigration: Agency, Responsibility, and Borders

    Friday, 29 July 2011

    I have read both articles and bro. Hardy's touched me to the core. The question is What would Jesus Do? What does He think of all this. As for me I can only be more humane and avoid instigating e-mails like the plague. The sad part is when our own members send these instigating, "hate" e-mails.

15. Teri makes this comment

    Immigration: Agency, Responsibility, and Borders

    Friday, 29 July 2011

    PERFECT! Thank you for this well stated, balanced article. :)

16. James makes this comment

    Immigration: Agency, Responsibility, and Borders

    Friday, 29 July 2011

    It seems to me that everyone is forgetting that it is a crime to violate the Federal Law and come to the USA illegally or even remain here illegally. We say all should obey the law. Yet it appears we encourage disobedience by giving temple recommends to those who willfully disobey the law. This seems to me are conflicting messages.

17. Michael Scrimsher makes this comment

    Immigration: Agency, Responsibility, and Borders

    Friday, 29 July 2011

    Meridian, Shame on you. I’m frankly disappointed with these articles, especially with the sanitary and benign term “undocumented immigrant” label. Seems like a term that Korihor would have used in one of his arguments. Why don't we call it what it is, which is illegal. Just about every one of us had ancestors who followed the rules when they came to the USA. That doesn't seem to be the case anymore.

18. Larry M. Day makes this comment

    Immigration: Agency, Responsibility, and Borders - Page 2

    Friday, 29 July 2011

    What I believe prompted the current articles and their comments was a statement by the Brethren regarding how as fellow members of the Church we judge (or don't judge) those who are by the current laws illegal aliens. I think we need to consider the difference between sin and transgression. I won't amplify on Adam and Eve's role in the Fall but I think we might consider the example of the Savior. We accept that he lived his life without sin, yet he was constantly criticized by those who interpreted and enforced the law for being a law-breaker and assoociating with law-breakers. Shall we cast the first stone?

19. June makes this comment

    Immigration: Agency, Responsibility, and Borders

    Friday, 29 July 2011

    The Anti-Nephi-Lehi's were given their own lands, and supported themselves. They were 'lawfully' allowed to live in the land of the Nephites. It is hard as an individual for me to show Christian 'mercy', and at the same time realize the financial implications (burdens) that illegals have put on our government.

20. Rick makes this comment

    Immigration: Agency, Responsibility, and Borders

    Friday, 29 July 2011

    Nice article, but he actually says nothing specific. He only says to consider the political ramifications, and the legal context of the society/nation which is defining what an 'illegal alien' is for that nation. However, he then says nothing specific about what that consideration will result in for the USA. Basically, as he says: "I will leave open the question..." -- which he does for all questions raised by him. Sorry.

21. Dman makes this comment

    Immigration: Agency, Responsibility, and Borders

    Friday, 29 July 2011

    If you were trying to avoid being confrontational, you did a good job. I agree those who come into a nation should be willing to accept culture and tradition changes. I believe the problem here is that we have illegal immigrants who have no desire to adapt and want to create the same environment that exists in the place they fled.

22. M. A. Cheney makes this comment

    Immigration: Agency, Responsibility, and Borders

    Friday, 29 July 2011

    Oh you who live in the "Cloistered State of Utah" have NO idea of the effect illegals have on your economy and school system. Stand by, you may see it sooner than you planned. California and Arizona are almost bankrupt because of the cost illegals have on their states social services, education and prison systems. Yes it would be nice to help ALL God's children, but come into the country legally and help awaits you. I did.

23. Cindy makes this comment

    Immigration: Agency, Responsibility, and Borders

    Friday, 29 July 2011

    Thank you so much for this thoughtful and enlightening article! You have articulated the issues so very well. I am going to share this with my husband, because we have been troubled by the divisive responses of some of our brothers and sisters. Yet, we still believe that there are serious issues that must be addressed. Again, thank you so much.

24. Dick makes this comment

    Immigration: Agency, Responsibility, and Borders

    Saturday, 30 July 2011

    I understand the Church Leaders position on this imigration question. But it sends a confusing signal to eveyone. It tells people on the one hand it is okay to break the law. Then if someone breaks the law like rob a bank they get excomunicated.

25. JfC makes this comment

    Immigration: Agency, Responsibility, and Borders - Page 2

    Saturday, 30 July 2011

    1. I believe in Sustaining the law of the land. 2. Both American Continents are the Promise Land. 3. We are encouraged to grow the church in our own countries. 4. All other countries have strong border laws and they enforce them. U.S. Government is at fault and too lax. 5. I immigrated to this country and followed all the rules and laws and became a citizen. It takes time and sacrafice!! 6, I live in Arizona and have seen the down side of illegal immigration. Drugs, Human tarfficing, Idenity thieft, fraud and out right lying. 7. Many here have the attitude that U.S. own them and have disrespect for U.S. citizens.

26. Carol K makes this comment

    Immigration: Agency, Responsibility, and Borders

    Saturday, 30 July 2011

    "In the long run, we do neither ourselves nor those who desire to reside among us a favor by denying the necessary linkage between citizens’ rights and their responsibilities." To me, this is a fundamental key: the PRIVILEGE of living here, either as "legal resident" or new "citizen," is predicated on upholding the obligations and responsibilities associated with that state -- first of which is obedience to law.

27. John Long makes this comment

    Immigration: Agency, Responsibility, and Borders - Page 2

    Saturday, 30 July 2011

    I thought Bro. Hancock's article was more in line with the Gospel than Bro. Hardy's article was. We use the term of undocumented worker or undocumented immigrant as a euphemism for illegal worker or illegal immigrant. And to repeat an often used phrase, "What part of illegal do we not understand?" This article pointed out that some of the illegals are fellow members of the church, yes, that may be true, but we claim that we believe in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. Does that apply to our brothers and sisters in foreign countries, also? Being a member of the Church does not excuse one of entering this country illegally. I believe that the laws of the land should be enforced. John Long

28. LBK makes this comment

    Immigration: Agency, Responsibility, and Borders - Page 2

    Saturday, 30 July 2011

    Great article - reasonsing needs to be seen on both sides of this issues. Tolerances only going one way is selfishness. Citizens that want border enforcement should also be heard.

29. Jack makes this comment

    Immigration: Agency, Responsibility, and Borders

    Saturday, 30 July 2011

    What ever became of our requirement to Obey the laws of the land?

30. Jesse Fox makes this comment

    Immigration: Agency, Responsibility, and Borders

    Saturday, 30 July 2011

    Well we knew it would not be easy here and we accepted that before we came. I think that this immigration problem is simply another challenge that has the ability to help us grow as are all challenges that we face here during our turn on this Earth. Maybe if more of us LDS were active in our communities we would have a louder voice in dealing with the various situations that are sure to still come our way.

31. Chris Streeter makes this comment

    Immigration: Agency, Responsibility, and Borders - Page 2

    Saturday, 30 July 2011

    Thank you Professor Hancock, for your reasoned response to Brother Hardy's article. Without law and order our system will eventually fail and we will be left with nothing to share with others.

32. Gary Henrichsen makes this comment

    Immigration: Agency, Responsibility, and Borders

    Saturday, 30 July 2011

    In my copy of the Book of Mormon, on page 277 re the Children of Ammon, I have written "Ellis Island/new converts". Enough said.

33. David makes this comment

    Immigration: Agency, Responsibility, and Borders - Page 2

    Saturday, 30 July 2011

    the most comprehensive and moral assesment I've read so far.

34. Lewis Hall makes this comment

    Immigration: Agency, Responsibility, and Borders - Page 2

    Saturday, 30 July 2011

    I have long maintained that we as a nation will never be able to discuss civally the illegal immigrants among us till we can control our borders. When we control our borders, then and only then, we can determine how to deal with those within our borders in a compassionate way without fear of being overrun with hoards of additional illegal immigrants.

35. Judy Leiser makes this comment

    Immigration: Agency, Responsibility, and Borders

    Saturday, 30 July 2011

    Unfortunately the actual "mercy vs justice issue" of immigration is lost in the fear mongering of the media. My concerns are that with the unemployment rate rising and the economic concerns across the country, compassionate immigration policies will lost in the people's concerns about their jobs, rising taxes, loss of social programs, and other economic woes. The fire of these uncertainties is fanned by the media who encourages finger pointing at the less fortunate.

36. Gustave makes this comment

    Immigration: Agency, Responsibility, and Borders

    Saturday, 30 July 2011

    what part of ILLEGAL do all these people have trouble understanding. Articles of Faith point out obedience to the Laws of the Land. The Church would not have been allowed in East Germany if the Saints there obeyed the law like we are directed here.

37. Evelyn Golden makes this comment

    Immigration: Agency, Responsibility, and Borders

    Sunday, 31 July 2011

    I HAVE I have no problem with people from Mexico when they enter America with speaking our language and do what all other people do when they come to this country. If they don't they should go back to where ever if it is Mexico or another country. When you in America live, work, speech like all the Americans that are here and don"t take what is not there. Most work hard for what they have and no fair to have it taken away like so many people do when they come to this country. I am LDS and will be for ever it is my life. I love Jesus Christ. I will die for Jesus Christ and my country. I

38. Frank Barcellos makes this comment

    Immigration: Agency, Responsibility, and Borders

    Sunday, 31 July 2011

    The brethren, from Joseph Smith until Pres. Monson have always counseled members to obey the law of the land regardless of what country you live. So now that message has changed, how sad for the church. We now have LDS leaders, Harry Reid, that are openly lying to the people of this country and no comments from the brethren. Are they leading the church or just looking for political correctness?

39. Bonnie Hansen makes this comment

    Immigration: Agency, Responsibility, and Borders

    Sunday, 31 July 2011

    Thanks, I will sleep better having read this article. We can be conpassionate but firm in our belief in obeying and upholding the law as outlined in our articles of faith.

40. Rita makes this comment

    Immigration: Agency, Responsibility, and Borders

    Sunday, 31 July 2011

    Thank you for clarifying some very important concepts that Bro. Hardy tended to gloss over. While I agree with him and you that we have a responsibility to the 'strangers' in our midst, those same 'strangers' have a responsibility to work within our legal system. As a long-time temple recommend holder, I have often been brought up short by the question in the recommend interview, "Are you honest in your dealings with your fellow men?" I try to be, and work on being able to give an honest affirmative answer to that question. But how can someone who is here illegally, who is hiding from the authorities and ignoring our duly constituted laws be able to answer that question with an honest 'yes'? Does access to the blessings of the temple trump being honest in all things? This is a supremely difficult web to untangle, and as faithful members of the Lord's Church, we try to negotiate our way through by listening to the Spirit and to our Prophet.

41. Frank makes this comment

    Immigration: Agency, Responsibility, and Borders

    Monday, 01 August 2011

    Bro. Hardy also fails to recognize that much of the problem has to do with the willingness of the immigrant to do his best to blend in. Too many of the Mexican aliens, for example, have no desire to become Americans, but are fixed on a new "Reconquista". Hispanic culture has not had much success establishing stable, free governments. By contrast, most governments of English extraction are. Unless the English traditions that the US was founded on are adopted by the in-coming Hispanics, this country will not stay free or stable. Some consider this experiment in liberty to have been a bad thing on the whole; the replacement of it's culture by the Hispanic one bothers them not at all.

42. Frank makes this comment

    Immigration: Agency, Responsibility, and Borders - Page 2

    Monday, 01 August 2011

    Much of the problem is caused by the reluctance of the Hispanic community to blend into the rest of the population. Most visible is insistence on Spanish as their primary language, the continued loyalty to Mexico rather than whole heartedly adopting traditional American culture, and the notion that they are engaged in a new "Reconquista", reclaiming land that rightfully belongs to them. (Hint: It doesn't. The US won it, then paid for it, and UT, NV, CO and KS were not administered by anyone at the time.) One of the problems is that countries of Spanish derivation tend to be unstable, prone to dictators and little tradition of individual rights and liberty. Countries of English tradition tend to be stable, free, and yes, as a result, prosperous. Why would we wish on our children an America changed to the Mexican model? Free agency is a good thing, as we all agreed at one time. Let them come, IF they adopt the the good of the what we have, and abandon what they supposedly flee.

43. Grant Hardy makes this comment

    Immigration: Agency, Responsibility, and Borders

    Monday, 01 August 2011

    I was delighted to read Professor Hancock’s thoughtful response to my essay. I appreciate both his support for its main points and also his critique of the last paragraph (which was hastily tacked on to an already much-too-long article). I had hoped that my last sentence would carry more weight, where I noted that while all are alike unto God, “the United States government makes distinctions, with some merit.” I probably should have made my position clearer by stating that “the United States government necessarily makes distinctions.” I cannot imagine that completely open borders would lead to anything but chaos, and I agree that governments have a responsibility to maintain territorial integrity and determine who is and is not a citizen.

44. Grant Hardy makes this comment

    Immigration: Agency, Responsibility, and Borders

    Monday, 01 August 2011

    However, the latter point, as Brother Hancock notes, should be decided by “the voice of the people,” or at least by their elected representatives. Sometimes I hear the word “amnesty” spoken in the same tones as “cancer”—that is, as a completely unthinkable option. So my question was genuine: “What is wrong with offering full citizenship and even amnesty, given certain conditions and penalties?” I’m not absolutely convinced that this is the right path to take, but I think it ought to be on the table, or within the realm of acceptable discourse. Should people who have been here for years—working hard, raising families, paying taxes—be required to pay a fine in exchange for citizenship? To pass a criminal background check? To pledge loyalty to the United States? To learn English? Perhaps. (Though the last point is a bit of a canard; it is very difficult to learn a second language as an adult, but most second-generation immigrants are bilingual).

45. Grant Hardy makes this comment

    Immigration: Agency, Responsibility, and Borders

    Monday, 01 August 2011

    One of the great strengths of the United States historically has been its ability to assimilate newcomers, especially as compared to European countries. I am wary of policies that might create a permanent underclass, or a group of residents with fewer rights and less of a long-term investment in our nation’s future. But that’s my personal opinion. Brother Hancock is quite right when he observes that “it is a mistake to imagine that gospel principles can translate so simply and directly into sound law and policy.”

46. Grant Hardy makes this comment

    Immigration: Agency, Responsibility, and Borders

    Monday, 01 August 2011

    Indeed, far from “discounting” their opinion, I believe that the Brethren were very wise to focus on basic principles and take a moderate, somewhat vague position on the particulars: “The Church supports an approach where undocumented immigrants are allowed to square themselves with the law and continue to work without this necessarily leading to citizenship.” But notice that they do not entirely rule out citizenship either. It is a point that we Latter-day Saints should be discussing earnestly, as disciples of Christ who recognize our responsibilities both to our fellow citizens and also to the strangers among us.

47. rebwhat makes this comment

    Immigration: Agency, Responsibility, and Borders

    Monday, 01 August 2011

    Our country should make it easier for people to come to our country who can: 1. Support themselves, including paying taxes 2. Do not need Medicaid or welfare, 3. Do not commit crimes, and 4. Learn to speak English. We should welcome these folks with open arms. They should be allowed to come to our country with nothing but annual follow-up with the immigration service to verify that they are still complying with those terms. After ten successful years, they should be given their citizenship. If at any time they default on the agreement, they are deported, including their family (to keep their family together). I doubt any other country would offer terms as good as the above plan.

48. Molly makes this comment

    Immigration: Agency, Responsibility, and Borders - Page 2

    Tuesday, 02 August 2011

    The illegal immigrants that I know are excellent, family-oriented, hard-working people. I come from a family of law breakers. We have hired illegal immigrants from Mexico to work on our dairy farm. The wage we paid was more than minimum wage. Some local, native-born men worked for us as farm hands, some were illegals from Mexico. The two illegals we hired worked here and sent money to their wives in Mexico. Over time those men obtained US Citizenship (don't forget they were "wet backs", brought their wives to the US (who also obtained US Citizenship) and bore children in the US. One of those men with his wife has subsequently served a mission for the Church. And get this--they pay taxes. That seems to be the biggest gripe among our "compassionate" LDS folks--the immigrants use services without paying taxes.

49. Cindy makes this comment

    Immigration: Agency, Responsibility, and Borders

    Tuesday, 02 August 2011

    I saw a "blending in" when my husband and I attended a major league baseball game. We rode the train downtown, and on it were many of different races, all wearing the hometown team's logo on hats, shirts, etc., and all were excited to go and cheer for THEIR team. And when the national anthem was played, they all stood and saluted the flag. It was fun to be part of such a group.

50. Ralph Hughes makes this comment

    Immigration: Agency, Responsibility, and Borders

    Wednesday, 03 August 2011

    Two things are conspicuously missing from this discussion. First, the First Presidency has advised that members of the Church not come into the United States except by legal means. Second, There is no serious consideration given to the reasons that our FedGov has for years fomented and supported illegal immigration, even going so far as to obstruct the efforts of the Border Patrol to do their job. Clearly, this issue runs a lot deeper than most Americans realize.

51. Shash Nahalin makes this comment

    Immigration: Agency, Responsibility, and Borders - Page 2

    Thursday, 04 August 2011

    I was an Anglo bishop of a ward which was 40% Latino. Our ward was at the bottom of the economic scale in the stake, and yet we were net contributors to the Fast Fund, while wealthier, more Anglo wards were not. Our Latino brothers knew the difference between their needs and their wants and they took care of each other. They were also wonderful missionaries.

52. RDWinmill makes this comment

    Immigration: Agency, Responsibility, and Borders - Page 2

    Thursday, 04 August 2011

    "...neither were there Lamanites, nor any manner of –ites; but they were in one, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God. And how blessed were they! For the Lord did bless them in all their doings." I know, I know some will say this is too simplistic for our day. But is it really?