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.
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). 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.
Ralph 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.” 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.
