This is just too ridiculous: a Utah Republican, presumably a Church member, says Satan is behind illegal immigration.
Here is what Don Larsen’s resolution has to say:
“In order for Satan to establish his ‘New World Order’ and destroy the freedom of all people as predicted in the Scriptures, he must first destroy the U.S.,” Larsen’s resolution states. “The mostly quiet and unspectacular invasion of illegal immigrants does not focus the attention of the nations the way open warfare does, but is all the more insidious for its stealth and innocuousness.”
Can I just point out that, in addition to being nativist and racist, because it presupposes that Hispanics will “destroy the freedom of all people,” this claim is completely against what the scriptures say about the latter-Day gathering. Numerous scriptures point out that Israel will be gather to Zion, which is exactly what took place in the 19th century when tens of thousands of Europeans gathered to the United States. The gathering was both physical and spiritual. This gathering involves immigration, some of it illegal.
We are now in the time of the “fullness of the gentiles,” and in this particular time period modern-day Israel is being encouraged to stay at home. But as part of the spreading of the gospel, people from around the world are coming, at least temporarily, to the United States, where they are more likely to be exposed to the Gospel. Many of them learn of the Gospel here and take it back to their home countries. The Gospel was spread to South Korea, for example, by a Korean who came temporarily to the United States and then took it back to Korea. Bookslinger, a frequent commenter here, has handed out hundreds of Books of Mormon to immigrants, many of whom can potentially take the Gospel back to their countries.
Mexico has more than 1 million Church members, many of whom heard about the Gospel in the United States and then brought Books of Mormon home to their family and friends there. The same process takes place for many other immigrant groups.
I’ve posted on this several times before, but I will say it once again: 99.9 percent of illegal immigrants want to be legal, but the system is broken. They are not illegal because they are bad people, inspired by Satan. They are illegal because U.S. legislators do not have the guts to address the problem in a way that reflects the history of the United States, which is a nation of immigrants.
Seen from a long-term perspective, it appears to me that the immigration process is in fact a vital tool the Lord is using to spread the Gospel worldwide. To claim that it is part of Satan’s plan is, well, incredibly silly.
Geoff,
It is always nice to be on the same side of an argument as you. To your post, I say “Amen.”
This guy is a nutcase.
SLC leadership has never made such statements and likely never will.
I also think that illegal immigration should be stopped as most Americans do. But I understand why it occurs. You really cannot blame a poor guy who wants to work for jumping a border and getting a job.
There is nothing Satanic about trying to get a job and some upper mobility for the kiddos.
A close reading of the BOM leads to support of much of Geoff’s major points.
I personally think that immigration should be more orderly then it is now.
Nice post, Geoff!
Now could we get some Utah members to vote this nutcase out of office???
Geoff,
I agree. 🙂
Sorry, Brian. Nutcase in question has the support of the State Republican Party. I’m not saying that all Republicans around here think similarly on the question of immigration, but most Utah members I know would vote Republican if Andrew Dice Clay ran as a Republican against Mother Theresa as a Dem.
Oh, no. I’m moving from California to Utah in June. What am I getting myself into?
Moving from a left-wing nuthouse to a right-wing nuthouse.
This reminds me of the letter to the Provo Daily Herald I once read that argued for the 2nd amendment based on the “fact” that we might have to repel a military invasion from Mexico someday and so an armed citizenry in the Western USA would be able to do that. Or something.
And I’m moving from Salt Lake to Ann Arbor.
Same conundrum.
Given the words of Jesus in 3 Nephi 20:14-20, it is not surprising that Brother Larsen might see the remnant of the house of Jacob as a threat to the United States. What is odd is that he identifies with the unrepentant Gentiles and sees the seed of Lehi as instruments of Satan. Has some strange new heresy sprung up among the Republicans in Utah?
14 And the Father hath acommanded me that I should give unto you this land, for your inheritance.
15 And I say unto you, that if the Gentiles do not repent after the blessing which they shall receive, after they have scattered my people—
16 Then shall ye, who are a remnant of the house of Jacob, go forth among them; and ye shall be in the midst of them who shall be many; and ye shall be among them as a lion among the beasts of the forest, and as a young blion among the flocks of sheep, who, if he goeth through both treadeth down and teareth in pieces, and none can deliver.
17 Thy hand shall be lifted up upon thine adversaries, and all thine enemies shall be cut off.
18 And I will agather my people together as a man gathereth his sheaves into the floor.
19 For I will make my people with whom the Father hath covenanted, yea, I will make thy horn iron, and I will make thy hoofs brass. And thou shalt beat in pieces many people; and I will consecrate their gain unto the Lord, and their substance unto the Lord of the whole earth. And behold, I am he who doeth it.
20 And it shall come to pass, saith the Father, that the sword of my justice shall hang over them at that day; and except they repent it shall fall upon them, saith the Father, yea, even upon all the nations of the Gentiles.
Ivan: the letter to the Provo Daily Herald I once read that argued for the 2nd amendment based on the “fact” that we might have to repel a military invasion from Mexico someday
Dude — Didn’t you see Red Dawn?? “WOLVERINES!!”
I agree with you Geoff B., this guy must be a total nutjob. (How embarrassing if he really is Mormon…)
The Church’s track record with language wards in the U.S. is proof positive that the general authorities aren’t too concerned with illegal immigration.
In my wife’s mission, they even moved a branch specifically to avoid an INS checkpoint.
[I should also point out that the Kingdom of God, when truly established on the earth, is going to destroy the U.S.]
That’s just like the lamebrain primary opponent to Chris Cannon (Utah County’s congressman) who said it was Satan (he said “the adversary”) that prevented him from closing some big deals and having more money to pour into the campaign to unseat Chris.
It’s the old problem of people so confident that God is on their side when they should instead be worrying whether they are on God’s side.
If the Republican Party had any cojones, they’d kick him out.
Fredo Arias-King:
“When I aided the foreign relations of presidential candidate and president-elect Vicente Fox back in 1999 and 2000, I met with almost 80 U.S. congressmen and senators during numerous trips and at several events. With just over 50 of them, my colleagues and I spoke about immigration in some depth, as it is one of the important bilateral topics. My findings were reported in a Backgrounder published by the Center for Immigration Studies called ‘Politics by Other Means.’ It is a dense and academic paper, but the basic finding was: Indeed, American politicians are overwhelmingly pro-immigration, for a variety of reasons, and they do not always admit this to their constituents. Of those 50 legislators, 45 were unambiguously pro-immigration, even asking us at times to ‘send more.’ This was true of both Democrats and Republicans.
“These empirical findings seemed to confirm what some analysts without that level of access termed as a political ‘perfect storm’ of widespread political-elite support for immigration despite its general unpopularity with the average American. The paradox is that immigration is the only issue (perhaps besides trade policy) that represents a notorious discrepancy between elite and popular opinion in the United States. But this contradicts the established conventional wisdom of a representative democracy such as the United States. If mass immigration from Latin America has debatable benefits for the United States as a whole, if a majority of the American people is against it, and if immigrants cannot vote until they become naturalized (which can take years after their arrival), why would nine-tenths of the legislators we spoke with be so keen on increasing immigration?”
. . .
“While Democratic legislators we spoke with welcomed the Latino vote, they seemed more interested in those immigrants and their offspring as a tool to increase the role of the government in society and the economy. Several of them tended to see Latin American immigrants and even Latino constituents as both more dependent on and accepting of active government programs and the political class guaranteeing those programs, a point they emphasized more than the voting per se. Moreover, they saw Latinos as more loyal and ‘dependable’ in supporting a patron-client system and in building reliable patronage networks to circumvent the exigencies of political life as devised by the Founding Fathers and expected daily by the average American.
“Republican lawmakers we spoke with knew that naturalized Latin American immigrants and their offspring vote mostly for the Democratic Party, but still most of them (all except five) were unambiguously in favor of amnesty and of continued mass immigration (at least from Mexico). This seemed paradoxical, and explaining their motivations was more challenging. However, while acknowledging that they may not now receive their votes, they believed that these immigrants are more malleable than the existing American: That with enough care, convincing, and ‘teaching,’ they could be converted, be grateful, and become dependent on them. Republicans seemed to idealize the patron-client relation with Hispanics as much as their Democratic competitors did. Curiously, three out of the five lawmakers that declared their opposition to amnesty and increased immigration (all Republicans), were from border states.
“Also curiously, the Republican enthusiasm for increased immigration also was not so much about voting in the end, even with ‘converted’ Latinos. Instead, these legislators seemingly believed that they could weaken the restraining and frustrating straightjacket devised by the Founding Fathers and abetted by American norms. In that idealized ‘new’ United States, political uncertainty, demanding constituents, difficult elections, and accountability in general would ‘go away’ after tinkering with the People, who have given lawmakers their privileges but who, like a Sword of Damocles, can also ‘unfairly’ take them away. Hispanics would acquiesce and assist in the ‘natural progress’ of these legislators to remain in power and increase the scope of that power. In this sense, Republicans and Democrats were similar.”
http://www.cis.org/articles/2006/back706.html
But wo unto the rich, who are rich as to the things of the world. For because they are rich they despise the poor, and they persecute the meek, and their hearts are upon their treasures; wherefore, their treasure is their god. And behold, their treasure shall perish with them also.
2 Nephi 9:30
Sarah, are you referring to the Wall Street Journal crowd who support uncontrolled immigration because it keeps employee wages down and don’t care if it moves lower-class unemployment up?
That’s an old canard from the anti-immigrant fringe, John Mansfield. Show us the data that prove immigration in fact has an adverse effect on working class folks.
Are you kidding, he probably just gained votes in the next election.
Data? Some group called the Coalition for the Future American Worker ran a quarter page on A19 of Tuesday’s Washington Post with the claim that “hiring of low-skill immigrants is responsible for 40% of the decline in employment among Black American men.” It references National Bureau Of Economic Research Working Paper 125218. The abstract:
The authors are George J. Borjas, the Robert W. Scrivner Professor of Economics and Social Policy at the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University; Jeffrey Grogger, the Irving Harris Professor in Urban Policy in the Harris School, University of Chicago; and Gordon H. Hanson, the Director of the Center on Pacific Economies and Professor of Economics at UCSD.
Someone want to counter this?
papers.nber.org/papers/w12518
http://www.americanworker.org
In fairness, I should agree that it is ridiculous that Satan is promoting immigration because 1) Satan isn’t real, and 2) loss of immigrant labor would increase the cost of food, beverages, and entertainment.
John, a few thoughts on your #19.
1)This study does a bad job on the issues of correlation vs. causation. Yes, there have been problems with black employment since the 1960s, but there have also been a lot of other things going on at the same time. I would argue that biggest single factor is education, not immigration.
See here for more:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0DXK/is_13_21/ai_n6169071
Then you need to look at the affect the welfare state has had on employment in the African-American community. There is a direct correlation between the implementation of AFDC and black joblessness. Drugs are obviously an issue as well.
2)Having said all that, I am not unsympathetic to this situation and I do believe that immigration has an influence on African-American joblessness. This is basic economics, supply and demand. If the supply of workers increases, wages will decrease as competition for jobs increases. However, many recent studies have shown that the “displacement” argument really doesn’t hold water on a national scale.
Take a look here:
http://sorrel.humboldt.edu/~economic/econ104/immigrat/
3)This particular post doesn’t really deal with the issue of whether immigration is a good thing or not. It focuses more on the role of immigration and the Gospel. It seems to me counter-arguments should address that issue. Can you make an argument that in the latter days, we as a Church should support the restriction of immigration from a Gospel perspective? I think any analysis of that issue will come down on the side of more freedom of movement, not less.
Geoff, see comment #14 for a plausible description of how massive levels of immigration could weaken the structure of the United States. More than economic effects, I think this is the kind of thing that Don Larsen was getting at. I don’t think it’s crazy to think that Satan would promote a problem like Fredo Arias-King describes. However, it’s pretty useless and usually incorrect to characterize political ideas we oppose as the work of the adversary.
Note that I was asked to provide data to support an idea that Mark B. had dismissed as a canard. I brought up that idea because I think the rich in Sarah’s 2 Nephi 9:30 are much more likely to be employers looking for ways to hold down wages than to be lower class workers worried about losing their jobs.
I take the opposite perspective from the Honorable Representative.
Any — any — limitation on immigration that depends on the economic impact on American workers as justification is immoral, both from a gospel perspective, as well as from the perspective of all of the policies embedded in US competition law.
From a gospel perspective, we should no more prefer one group’s economic success over another than we should love ourselves more than our neighbors. Limiting immigration to preserve an economic benefit to people we identify with (co-nationals) and to bar access to the same economic benefit to people we identify with less closely (non-nationals) is precisely loving ourselves more than our neighbors. I’m not saying that there are not reasonable justifications for some limits on immigration — only that justifications based on preferring one group’s economic welfare over another’s cannot pass gospel muster.
From a legal policy perspective, the US enacted the Sherman Act in 1890 to prevent people from banding together to preserve their own economic positions by restricting competition. I don’t argue that immigration law violates the Sherman Act. It doesn’t. But I do contend that immigration restrictions for the purpose of preserving a favorable economic position for one group by denying those economic opportunities to a different group does violate the policies that justify the Sherman Act. Does cheap immigrant labor reduce wages? You bet it does. “Wages” is the same thing as “prices” — a wage is the price paid for a particular amount of labor. Lower prices are what competition is all about. Competition is what the Sherman Act endorses.
I’m reminded of Adam Smith’s point:
“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”
The Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapter X
Adam Smith’s next sentence: “It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice.”
I agree with greenfrog. In my opinion, restrictionist immigration policies are one of the last types of “tribalism” still acceptable in polite society.
Yes, John, I’m familiar with Borjas’s article. And, if my memory were any good, I’d track down the Stanford (?) economist who has some pretty convincing counter arguments.
Maybe Borjas doesn’t deserve the “canard” label–it’s his ideological allies who daub with a broader brush (Lou Daubs?) that conjure up the usual ducks.
Sebastian Mallaby has a fairly interesting piece into today’s Washingotn Post dicussing some of the studies. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/29/AR2007042901322.html
As a convert when I read that part of the BofM I was under the impression that those that were given this land and did not except the BofM and the restored gospel then they would be put upon by those Laminites. How this was to take place I have no idea. When this whole immrigation issue started to heat up I was pretty up set about it and did a lot of thinking and praying and I was given the overwhelming impression to keep my mouth such. I have neve had this happen before and take it that this is in the hands of God. I just know I am bound to obey the law reguardless of or if the goverment inforces me to do so.
Geoff, I agree 100% with you here.
I remember hearing in a stake conference, that immigrants have been welcomed, and has helped the church in so many ways, expanding it to areas in the United States purely by Immigrant members. Hispanic members are growing in a fast pace.
No, wonder the United States is in so much trouble. I really have much doubt that nation will survive. First of all, all of America is the Promised Land, not just the lawless United States of America.
Second of all, this land is blessed above all other lands only when certain conditions are met. If not it is cursed above all other lands and that unfortunately is the current state of the lawless United States of America.
Now, I don’t want to say much about the hoards of illegal invaders but they are in criminal violation of the law. Most of them deserve to be deported. But nothing is absolute. I don’t want punish people who were brought over here as a small child and who now are adults. Likewise I think we can forgive those that came over here illegally escaping from a brutal despotic regime. They really understand they concept of freedom and quite frankly make better Americans than some of us. But in case the exceptions are few.
It is morally wrong to grant twelve to twenty million criminals access to welfare and public goods from monies stolen from the lawful inhabitants of this land. As a matter of fact the United States government has no constitutional authority what so ever to administer welfare programs of any kind for anybody. You’d know that had you ever read the Federalist Papers or the writings of Ezra Taft Benson. As the powers the Federal Government has are enumerated in the constitution.
Now, the backers of amnesty want to grant the invaders tax amnesty as well. Don’t think that is quite unfair to the rest of this nation’s inhabitants? Doesn’t the principles outlined in the fourteenth amendment mean too much anymore. What some have proposed amounts to anarchy. Joseph Smith was not killed by a lawless mob. He was killed because of a lawless government refused to reign in the mob
No, I don’t want this nation perish but it seems that many of you do. Because you refuse to honor, uphold and sustain the law.