The kid can't catch a break.
A post on immigration is sure to bring the fires of blog hell upon anyone and it seems that Adam is the latest victim.
I disagree with Adam on nearly every issue of any import at all (at least issues that are blogged about). Despite that, he really got an unfair shake on the latest T&S mammoth thread. After all, he did specifically say that he's not turning in any Church members that happen to be illegals. He does acknowledge that there are problems with the way deportation is conducted and knows that there are significant issues. In view of this, I'm surprised that Mosiah 4:27 ("see that these things are done in wisdom and in order") didn't surface at any point. I'm about as supportive of immigration as anyone and even I acknowledge that there should be limits and regulations in these fields.
I happen to think that American policy toward Latin America is so poorly conceived that current regulations are not just and that turning in illegals is not required. But another question is raised: Should we, as individuals, enforce unjust applications of a generally just law? Had this question been raised in the T&S debate, things might have been illuminated. As it is, it basically descended into an ideological food fight.
The doctrinal emphasis on sustaining governments is just plain bogus, in my view. This has a lot more to do with worshipping authority than any sound doctrinal or moral reasoning. On several occasions on that thread, commenters attempted to relate this doctrine to potential Church violations of immigration law in the missionary program and to the possibility of going after businesses that employ illegals more fully. As expected, no response whatsoever. We didn't sustain laws against polygamy. We sure didn't submit meekly to the Missouri extermination order. The point is not that we're any worse than anyone else in this regard, but simply that the status of a command as law is dwarfed by a consideration of the inherent morality of the command itself.
I'll post my thoughts on immigration more fully in the future, but for the present, I'll summarize: Adam grasped a nettle and got a real rough deal. His position is a lot more nuanced than the folks over there were willing to admit. Of course, that's the problem with these blogs: I've never heard a civilized and nuanced discussion that included more than maybe a dozen people. Such are the wages of bloggernacle domination :)