Today’s guest post is from Tim. He is an immigration attorney and has alternated between lurker and infrequent commenter at W&T since at least 2007.
In August, a program called “Keeping Families Together” was initiated in the U.S. by President Biden. The impact? Hundreds of thousands of families would be able to stay together, instead of living under the threat of being physically separated.
A lawsuit against it was soon filed by attorneys general in a number of states, including Idaho. Idaho’s attorney general—and the other attorneys in Idaho listed in the lawsuit—are all BYU graduates.
First, some background on the laws that make Keeping Families Together so essential. For the last few decades, the U.S. has heavily penalized immigrants who enter the U.S. illegally. Immigrants who enter legally can typically get green cards through a U.S. citizen spouse, even if the immigrant overstayed their visa. The green card gives them permanent residence—it allows them to legally live and legally work in the U.S. Immigrants who entered the U.S. illegally just once typically cannot get green cards, even if they are married to a U.S. citizen, unless they leave the U.S. for ten full years.
If they’re in the U.S. illegally they can be deported by the Department of Homeland Security. This was especially a problem when Trump was president, as he focused on deporting as many people as possible, regardless of their criminal history or family ties. This had a horrific cost on many families in our communities, such as this one in small-town Eastern Idaho, as detailed in the New York Times.
Imagine a young college student at BYU was originally brought into the U.S. by their parents at the age of 3. They serve an LDS mission (in the U.S. of course) and at age 23 they get married in the temple to a U.S. citizen who they met at BYU. What now? There’s a chance they might qualify for some sort of visa or waiver, but the reality is that they’re probably out of luck. Unless they leave the U.S. for ten years, there’s likely no pathway forward to a green card. They’re not able to live or work in the U.S. legally. They’re at risk of being separated from their spouse and young children for ten years.
That’s ten years away from their families. That’s missing out on ten years of a child’s life. Ten years of living in an unfamiliar country. Ten years apart from their spouse. How many families survive this kind of separation? And if they somehow manage to survive, everyone involved is deeply scarred, including the couple’s young children.
Keeping Families Together changed this. For immigrants with one illegal entry who had been in the U.S. since June 17, 2014 or earlier, who were married to a U.S. citizen on or before June 17, 2024, and who could pass a background check, there was a pathway forward. A legal mechanism to where they could be “paroled” into the U.S. without having to leave, and thus apply for and receive a green card. The process is expensive and time-consuming, but they could remain in the U.S. with their families while the process moved forward. The government estimated that 500,000 families could be helped by this program.1
This “Parole in Place” has been used for a long time for spouses of active military members. Keeping Families Together merely extended it to non-military families. But the reaction among several states was swift. They sued to stop the program, claiming—falsely—that keeping families together harmed their states.2 Top listing on the lawsuit went to Texas. Second listing went to Idaho. I suspect that that’s because Texas and Idaho were primarily responsible for putting together the lawsuit. The other participating states were then listed in alphabetical order. The lawsuit was filed in a specific jurisdiction in Texas, so that a hand-picked judge would hear the case. This judge quickly stopped Keeping Families Together. Because of the results of the recent election, it’s almost certainly stopped for good.
Three attorneys in Idaho are listed on the complaint to stop Keeping Families Together. The first is Idaho’s Attorney General, Raul Labrador. He’s a BYU grad and served a mission in Chile. He was previously a U.S. congressman, and before that an immigration attorney. Last week he visited Mar-a-Lago, which makes me wonder if he’s being considered for a position in the next administration. 3
The second–whose signature actually appears on the filing–is Alan Hurst. Hurst writes sometimes for Deseret News. A recent article by him bears the headline “The Supreme Court is doing its job.” . He’s a graduate of BYU and taught at the law school.
The third name from Idaho, Michael Zarian, is also a BYU grad.
All three people from Idaho whose names are on the lawsuit to stop Keeping Families Together are BYU grads. My assumption is that all three of them are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
How does this lawsuit align with the pro-family stance of the LDS church? It’s diametrically opposed.
The Family Proclamation states, “We warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.” Isn’t filing a lawsuit to stop Keeping Families Together contribute to the disintegration of the family on a mass scale? The scale of 500,000 families?
In the immigration context, the church recognizes the “foundational principle” that there’s “an ever-present need to strengthen families. Families are meant to be together. Forced separation of working parents from their children weakens families and damages society.” 4. And, more broadly, “The Church supports an approach where undocumented immigrants are allowed to square themselves with the law and continue to work…” 5
Although the church hasn’t made any comments regarding Keeping Families Together, I’m hopeful that it will continue to stand up for immigrant families. I’m hopeful that it won’t give in to the fear of upsetting its more anti-immigrant members. I’m hopeful it will choose the right and let the consequences follow.
While much of the world—like the states that sued in order to stop Keeping Families Together–is intent on tearing families apart, I’m hopeful the rest of us can provide support to immigrant families in any way we can. Immigrants and their families are going to need our help these next four years.
Wheat & Tares 
There should be some space for compassion among us as a nation, and among us as Latter-day Saints.
I have always said that the idea of living in a theocracy (even an LDS theocracy) is scary to me. People may think they are upholding God’s law, but true servants of God would find ways to show compassion wherever possible. Power corrupts, even among those who proudly call themselves saints — and self-righteous zealots are scary.
”… I’m hopeful the rest of us can provide support to immigrant families in any way we can.”
Any suggestions? I want to help.
Chadwick,
If you’re able to donate money, Lifting Hands International does good work, both in the U.S. and abroad. Catholic Charities does too.
If you’re able to donate time, your local Spanish-speaking branch could possibly use assistance in the near future. For example, a program that allowed many families from Venezuela to enter the U.S. is likely going to end soon, and those individuals are going to lose their work permits and their ability to legally stay in the U.S., while Venezuela remains unsafe for them and their children to return to. Chances are your local Spanish-speaking branch has several families from Venezuela. Some organizations that assist immigrants could use your donated time–for example, in some areas Lifting Hands International can use volunteers.
My recommendation–start helping now, even before January 20th. The challenges of the next few years will open up additional possibilities for service, and if you’re already involved in helping, you’ll be better positioned to notice additional areas where you can assist.
Naming the Idaho attorney general is probably fair game, since he’s making policy and is speaking for the state of Idaho. But naming (doxxing?) two of the attorneys who helped write the brief, and judging their morals, pushes my buttons the wrong way. Attorneys are paid to make a case, and nothing says that they have to believe in it. Latter-day Saint attorneys regularly defend criminals of all kinds, but that doesn’t mean that they support the crimes. The attorneys who write and sign petitions are putting forward a case, and are defending it, but that doesn’t mean that they personally endorse it. Nor does that mean that we should question their faith or their morality. If LDS attorney John Brown (made up name) wrote a petition on behalf of a child molester, and represented the child molester in court, would that mean that Brother Brown’s membership in the church should be in question? Would I be justified in not allowing my children to play with his children? In our system, we don’t judge the attorney by the clients he takes, because in our system even the worst clients who do the worst things are allowed to have a decent attorney.
Whether Keeping Families Together is good public policy is certainly a discussion what we can and should have, and I want Congress to come up with a solution to our immigration issues. Naming the attorneys who wrote a petition for the purpose of denigrating them is probably a foul in my book. Many years ago I had a stake presidency counselor who worked for a tobacco company (delivering tobacco products to vendors). The church opposes tobacco. Should his name have been dragged through the mud? An LDS waitress may serve alcoholic beverages to customers in the restaurant. Is her job incompatible with the church’s teachings? The church opposes gambling, but I hear anecdotally that a lot of LDS people work to support the casino industry. When I worked at a convenience store many years ago, we had pornographic magazines for sale behind the cash register. Was I part of the pornography industry, working against the teachings of the church? Didn’t Brother Marriott rent adult movies in his hotels some years ago? I don’t criticize attorneys by name for the cases they take. Even bad people should be able to have good attorneys.
Political “morals” outweigh religious morals and entering the US illegally is the biggest sin according to Trumpists and far outweighs the advantage of keeping families together. I think that is stupid and unkind and immoral, but then I must be some kind of horrible “libral”.
Georgis,
You have some good hypotheticals, and I think each deserves separate consideration. But none of those hypotheticals involve government actors (except for perhaps public defenders, who do a noble and essential work), and none of them involve directly tearing families apart. They’re not defending an individual who’s entitled to representation. They’re actively trying to shut down a program that would help keep thousands of families in Idaho together.
When it comes to powerful government actors, I don’t put much faith in excuses like “just doing my job” or “just following orders,” especially when it comes to tearing families apart. I know over the years a lot of government employees have used that as an excuse. Jordon Dyrdahl-Roberts, a former ICE employee in Montana who quit his job because he didn’t want to tear families apart, is a great example of the moral choice. Government attorneys shouldn’t be exempt from making moral choices because they’re attorneys.
From the viewpoint of legal ethics, there is really no question: every plaintiff or defendant, whether an individual or a state actor, gets an attorney if they want one and can afford it (and often if they cannot). Lay persons get squeamish about it sometimes, but attorneys don’t. If a particular attorney has personal or moral qualms about representing a particular client, they don’t have to take the case. End of story.
More interesting is what you might call “church ethics,” whether membership in the LDS Church should cause a particular attorney to think harder about representing, and be more inclined to not represent, what you might call an immoral client or a flawed case. I’d say probably yes, but every attorney gets to make their own call, although like any moral decision it might have consequences.
The idea that lots of times people get to make their own decision rubs a lot of LDS the wrong way, because Church teaching often gives the idea that there are clear moral rules (Church rules) that guide almost all decisions in life. When LDS encounter an issue where personal discretion controls — where we each make a decision based on our own moral compass — LDS often force that issue into the “clear moral rule” box, then declare any view other than their own to be wrong or immoral. This is a good way to alienate a lot of non-LDS people.
Tim, I agree with you in part, and said that I agreed that the attorney general should be held accountable for his policy positions. But the roles of the other two attorneys named in the original post are not made clear. You suggest that they are government employees. Maybe they are. Excepting people like the attorney general, most of the employees in Idaho’s Justice Department (if that is what they call it) are good people trying to do and keep a job so that they can pay their rent and keep medical insurance for their families. They can’t just quit and walk away. They are no different from school teachers or police people. These two attorneys (whom I do not know) wrote a legal brief. A good attorney should be able to write that brief independent of his personal opinions. The opinions in the brief reflect the opinions commissioned by the AG, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the brief’s authors.
But there’s a much bigger issue. Isn’t it better to defend a position on its merits than it is to attack the people who write a brief for the other side? To say that this person, by name, graduated from BYU and is a member of the Church, and therefore he is wrong for defending a contrary position–is that how we engage in honest discourse on issues? We attack the integrity and morality of the attorney on the other side? I don’t like that.
The original post condemns these employees by name. The original poster is free to encourage people to think a certain way on any issue, and even to criticize the AG by name for his policy position. But why criticize the two employees by name? Why throw stones at individuals when we’re discussing public policy? They’re working for a living, and lawyers write briefs all the time to defend some position, and there is no requirement that they embrace the opinions in the brief. I say leave them alone, and attack the ideas and not the people.
But what exactly is the position of the church? The church’s position might not be as clear as the original post makes out. For example, isn’t it an article of our faith that we obey the law? And entering a country illegally breaks the law, so doesn’t that also violate the teaching of the church? The church also taught, at least we did at one time, that members should no longer emigrate to Zion but should remain in their own lands and build up the church there. I’m am perfectly fine the poster thinking that people can do more to help illegal immigrants, and she can help whenever she wants to with her own time and resources, but I’m not sure that the original poster is correct when she suggests that the two attorneys on the brief are bad members of the church because the brief takes a position contrary to the church’s position. We also teach self-sufficiency, and coming illegally and getting on the dole might not be a good model for self-sufficiency. (Our teachings on the dole have changed over time.) I don’t know that the church has a clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal position on illegal immigration, nor have they expressed an opinion on what members of the church should think and do on these issues. Accordingly I can’t agree with someone who criticizes people by name for going against church teachings, when we don’t know if they’re going against church teachings. I respectfully think it is better to discuss ideas than to denigrate people.
In all of this, no one should assume to know where I stand on the merits of the Keeping Families Together policy. I haven’t articulated any position on that yet. What I am saying is that it is unfair to say that the church says XXX when, in reality, maybe the church hasn’t said XXX.
I agree that shutting down Keeping Families Together is diametrically opposed to the teachings of the Church as well as those of Jesus Christ Himself. I am also appalled, but not terribly surprised, that Mormon BYU grads from Idaho had key roles in the legal challenge.
While the Church has a well-established public pro-family stance, the part many devout conservative members cling to (but would never say out loud) is that *certain kinds* of families are more valid than others (e.g. white, American, traditional/intact, cis-hetero, active LDS, etc.). Remember, this is a Church that still actively preaches against same-sex marriage, as well as against same-sex couples raising children (DHO never misses an opportunity to reinforce this). For decades, even within my lifetime, this Church preached to young adults to only date and marry “one’s own kind” (i.e. same race/nationality), only recently moving away from teaching this but never repudiating it. And one of the most important core Mormon teachings is that only temple-sealed families will be allowed to remain together in the hereafter, while all other less-worthy, less-deserving people will be separated from their loved ones eternally, because…God loves us and made this plan for us…(?). Yes, we literally teach that family separation is an eternal principle. RMN has said as much over the GC pulpit, and repeatedly.
In other words, the Church claims to love and support families, but only while adhering to its own very narrow definition of the word. So it’s not much of a stretch that a handful of conservative Church-broke Idahoans in positions of power would latch on to this in the worst possible way.
Imagine if the average number of children per female were 3-4 in the US (It is currently 1.66). Would people be reacting about overpopulation in the country and how people need to have fewer kids? No. In 1960, TFR in the US was 3.5. We need immigrants here. They are a net gain. I understand we can’t accommodate everyone at once. I support deportation. But we don’t need to resort to draconian means to achieve it. Too many white LDS are smitten by immigrant-phobia. Immigrants commit fewer crimes than citizens do. They work for cheaper. And they pay into a benefit system that they don’t benefit from.
My message to the US, Europe, and East Asia is to accept more migrants, naturalize them and reconceptualize what it means to be American, Hungarian, or Chinese. NBA star Giannis Antetokounmpo is a black Greek. He speaks Greek as a first language. Yes, his parents were born in Nigeria. But he was born in Greece. We need more Antetokounmpos in the world. The days of the US being a strictly white English-speaking country (with a reluctantly accepted black minority) are gone (and I think that MAGA is code for bringing that America back). In fact, the US has the fifth largest Spanish-speaking population in the world. When I go to West Valley, I speak Spanish. When I go many places in California, I speak Spanish. It is a not a foreign language, but an important language of the US. Immigrants have reshaped the US drastically over the past 6 decades. For the worse? Goodness no. For the better. The US has grown in so many ways since then.
What they mean to say is… We warn that the disintegration of the [white, hetero, cis, patriarchal] family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.
Other types of families don’t really matter and some don’t even exist.
I don’t know about those BYU grads–but folks from Utah do a pretty-good job at keeping families together.
I suspect that the Family Proclamation was referring more to the general societal challenges facing families (divorce, addictions, media, society viewing the family as less important etc), than it was to changing laws about illegal deportations, even if that fits a contemporary situation. However, the other church statements linked to do support allowing illegal immigrants to stay (especially in families). Do we know exactly what the BYU graduates opposing the law were actually arguing in court?
And ironically, for what it’s worth…
…was actually a decent article explaining that the law is complicated and most people don’t both actually reading the reasoning underpinning court decisions.
Thanks for this thought-provoking post. I clicked on the link to read the Complaint. Utah is not one of the states suing to stop this program. Perhaps that says something about the Church’s stance on this issue, since Utah politics are so closely tied to Church attitudes. Idaho, in my experience, is even more conservative than the Church typically is.
The Complaint argues that the Biden administration, the Dept of Homeland Security, exceeded its authority by creating this program, i.e., that Congress makes the laws about immigration and the Executive Branch shouldn’t be able to make substantive changes to the immigration laws. I know very little about immigration law, so I can’t offer an opinion on the merits of the legal arguments in the Complaint.
The program itself seems to be motivated by compassion. The existing laws make it very difficult to impossible to gain legal citizenship, even if the immigrant is in the USA due to no fault of their own (like their parents brought them here when they were a little kid). What a great idea! To allow these people, who have to show they have not committed any crimes and they are married to a legal U.S. resident, to become legal residents themselves.
As far as the ‘doxxing’ allegation goes … Raul Labrador and Paul Hurst’s bios are easily accessible on the Idaho Attorney General’s website, including their graduations from BYU. There is nothing personal about the info included in the post. All attorneys routinely put their name and education online. Their work emails and phone number are on the Complaint, which Tim linked to. Tim didn’t put up any home address info, private phone numbers, or even say if they’re on social media. These attorneys have not been doxxed at all.
Isn’t opposition to Keeping Families Together in line with LDS theology? The logic goes like this: families can be together if all rules are followed exactly. If any rule is broken by any member, then punishment is required to satisfy justice. Once justice has been satisfied, mercy and forgiveness can step in and families may once again be together. Punishment cannot be circumvented as justice cannot be robbed for the sake of mercy.
I don’t know where Jesus and grace fit into that model, but maybe that is the point.
Personally, I think opposing laws to keep families together is horrible and immoral. As to the question of how people who profess to follow Jesus could actively be involved in separating families, maybe the answer is that some people are political before they are religious. Maybe for others, in order to feel like a winner, there have to be losers. Maybe some people don’t understand the love and security that can abide in a family because they have never experienced that type of family themselves.
Sea Urchin,
This lawsuit is a very specific example of one of the general societal challenges facing families–specifically, society viewing the family as less important. In this case, society in certain U.S. states viewing the family as less important than anti-immigrant conservative politics.
Part of the problem–addressed in Texas and Idaho’s complaint as well as by one of the other commenters above–is this false belief that immigrants are “on the dole” or that they’re an overall cost to our society and the government. I realize these are popular talking points on certain media, but they’re wrong. Especially when it comes to immigrant spouses of U.S. citizens, who tend to be working age. The American Immigration Council has a recent report up regarding the cost of mass deportation–what it would cost to implement and what it would cost the economy to lose that work force.
The RWNJ want to dismantle the administrative state. All regulations must be set out in the law However, when RWNJ are in power they can’t even pass a budget but rely on continuing resolutions to keep the Feds going.So no administrative power nor directions for the government. With the dismantling of the administrative state, they want all services to plummet to the lowest common denominator. (I’m looking at you Texass and Aiabama). RWNJ want to send most legislative power to the States. It’s a State’s Right POV. They are in favor of State’s Rights…unless it’s a right with which they disagree.
vajra2, I think by RWNJ you mean Right Wing Nut Job, so I assume that you’re thinking more of Republicans than Democrats. You write that “when RWNJ are in power they can’t even pass a budget but rely on continuing resolutions to keep the Feds going.” Is that accurate? According to 2023 Pew Research: ““Congress has passed all of its required appropriations measures on time only four times [in] fiscal 1977, 1989, 1995, and 1997.” According to the GAO: Congress has passed continuing resolutions to keep government agencies running between budgets “in all but four of the last 40 years.” I don’t think that Republicans have controlled Congress for all but 4 of the past 40 years. I think that Right Wing Nut Jobs (if that means Congressional Republicans) and Left Wing Nut Jobs (if that means Conressional Democrats) have both proven themselves equally incapable of passing a budget. And that doesn’t even get to the merits of whether budget passed was good or bad!
I write only in the interest of fairness, if vajra’s post suggested that people on the right (Republicans?) are worse at governing than people on the left (Democrats?), then I think it might be wrong. I see both as having failed over and over again.
I have not expressed an opinion on the dismantling of the administrative state. That’s a complicated issue that merits an honest discussion.
I forgot to give my sources.
Pew, 2023 report: Government shutdown? Congress’ history of spending bill delays
GAO, 2018 report: Budget Issues: Continuing Resolutions and Other Budget Uncertainties Present Management Challenges | U.S. GAO
Georgis, As you know, any friend or family member of mine who voted for tRUMP is dead to me. I’m not a member of the “Let’s Be Fair To Fascists” club. Rethuglicans do NOT believe in the Federal Government, except when they’re trying to limit an individual’s autonomy. Hence, the GQP is now the true spawn of the Confederacy. States Rights and damn the Constitution especially those parts that say women and POC are equal. Rethugs like Black people, for example, and think every White cis male should own one.
vajra2,
I want you to know as a registered Republican who has voted Democrat on everything except local politics (county commissioner with no Dems on the ballot), since 2020, your comments are not persuasive or helpful. While I agree it’s not safe or helpful to vote Republican right now, your rhetoric is more likely to persuade Republicans to vote Republican again, than it is likely to persuade them to vote Democrat. You display the same kind of unthinking partisanship displayed by the worst elements in both parties. Your rhetoric is hateful and full of put downs and ad hominem attacks just based on party.
You ought to consider the actual effects of your words. If you want people who actually think about politics, and could be persuaded to consider your point of view and to listen to you, it will be necessary for you to speak with more respect for other people of all varieties of thought.
I am not suggesting we be fair to fascists. I am suggesting we talk to people who voted for Trump for a variety of reasons in a way they can hear what we have to say. You are not doing that. Your words put more nails in the coffin of America’s fascism. Don’t let them use you. Think about it.
Been there. Done that. It didn’t work. No factual or kind conversation is effective. You can’t talk to people who think China will pay the tariffs, that Obama Care is a Communist plot but want to keep their ACA, and believe that a blastocyst should have more rights than the woman who carries it.
”With reasonable me, I will reason; with humane men I will plead, but to tyrants I will give no quarter, nor waste arguments where they will certainly be lost.”
I’m with vajra. I thought the Democrats did near everything to persuade independents and others to vote for them. Biden’s accomplishments were huge. And at the end of the day what happened? Ignorance prevailed and a plurality of Americans voted a criminal rapist serial liar into office. I’m sort of done trying to be civil.
Thanks so much for this OP.
For another answer to “what can I do?”—being informed and sharing good information is really important and more helpful than you may realize. You may not be undocumented. You may not think you have undocumented family or acquaintances, but knowing your rights and theirs could make all the difference. Even something as simple as never, ever opening the door to ICE without a warrant (signed by a judge!, slipped under door—don’t even open the door a crack to ICE unless you see a warrant signed by a judge) is information that is vital for people to have.
Margie, I appreciate it. You are right. We don’t how our positive efforts to offer good information may help anyone.
vajra2 and Brad D,
I am not going to give up and lay on the floor and throw a temper tantrum about not getting my way. I am going to continue to work with whatever tools I have at my disposal to resist fascism. Respectful informed speech is a much more effective tool than childish name calling.
The elimination of Keeping Families Together would be terribly cruel and a tragedy. I’m in favor of keeping it (and also fixing DACA). But I’m with Sea Urchin on this. This article stretches too much in an attempt to be more persuasive. And for me, the added drama backfires. As another example, take the hypothetical couple… Does it really change things that they got BYU degrees and were married in an LDS temple? And why say, “They’re at risk of being separated from their spouse and young children for ten years.” Yes, Keeping Families Together should be preserved. But if keeping families together is truly as important as the article professes, the family can eliminate the risk by moving with the deported spouse. (But again, hopefully compassion and common sense will prevail so this isn’t the only solution).
Pagan,
I gave the example I did in order to point out that many of these people are in our communities. They very well may be people we know.
As far as moving to another country goes, even separate from the difficulties of (probably) learning a new language, leaving family and friends behind, changing jobs (often from a good-paying job to a poverty-level job) and getting legal permission for the family to live in another country, for many individuals they’d be moving their U.S. citizen families to a country that’s not safe–especially for U.S. citizens with limited means. The U.S. State Department has issued travel warnings of various levels for over 100 different countries. U.S. citizens face greater risks in some of these countries due to the fact that gangs and cartels often kidnap U.S. citizens for ransom.