I Would have had Some Rich, Meaningful Experiences by Now

   I listened with great interest to Elder Patrick Kearon's talk in General Conference today. My understanding is that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not trying to dictate immigation policy -- not trying to direct governments on when or if refugees should be accepted -- but it is calling for church members to help those in need..
   I think it wonderful.
   I also see that I, personally, should be looking for something to do. I remember how a couple or so years ago, I almost became a mentor for youth refugees here in Salt Lake. That was through Catholic Charities. I didn't go through with the application, partly because I had questions about a form I was asked to sign.
   At any rate, I wonder what I now could do. I wonder about recontacting Catholic Charities. I wonder -- as I did then -- if being a mentor would be too time consuming. I also consider on the rich experiences I would have had by now if I had gone ahead with the work back then. This was when there was the crisis of children immigrants flooding across our southern border, and some of those children were ending up here. I could have been helpful That would have been good.

We Let Them die -- With no Apologies

   Medicaid expansion? I consider the expansion offered up by the Utah Legislature to be a first step. We should never let people die, yet we do -- with no apologies. We look at those not receiving medical insurance and not receiving full medical benefits -- and dying as a result -- and we actually believe what we are doing is just and right. How can we think this way? Of course we need to cover them.
   The question should not be whether we should expand Medicaid, nor even, really, whether we can afford to -- for we have to -- but how we are going to pay for it. Unfortunately, we cannot wait for an answer to that. When lives are at stake, you save them, then figure out how to pay for it.
   I will say this: There are things we can do to reduce the cost of medicine.

Who Knows but What Lobbyists Wouldn't Learn to Like the Openness

   As you might know, I've thought some on what it would be like if the public were invited along every time a lobbyist sat down to talk to a government official. Maybe it would be, the public would only be invited when prospective legislation is discussed. No matter on the specifics of whether the public comes along all the time, or just some of the time.  At any rate, the public would be there live and also on the Internet.
  And, I've wondered how lobbyists would take this. Now, among all the lobbyists, there are  a number with good causes and good hearts.
   Yet, they might be apprehensive of having their meetings opened to everyone.
   Here's my thought:  Even though they might feel a reluctance at first, they might well find they like the public tagging along. Even though it might change what they do, and how they speak, and what they say -- they might grow to like it. And some of them, for all we know, already could have their meetings open to the public, without making any changes.

I Was a Stranger is an Effort Worthy of Praise

  Okay, then, it is just an invitation to do good. Yesterday, I wondered if The Relief Society of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was rolling out a program to help refugees. Today, I read through the website, iwasastranger.lds.org, and it said, "This is not a program; it is who we are."
   It is a wonderful effort, a wonderful invitation, the same. The sisters are asked to look around and seek ways that they might administered relief to those in need. The Relief Society is not the only church organization making the invitation, as the Young Women, and Primary joined in the invite.
   I hail the pro -- I mean, effort. The plight of the refugees is a situation that cries out for help from others. As travelers on this earth together, it is good that we should lift up and help those in need
 It is good that such a large body of people are being encouraged to pray and consider what they can do to relieve the distress and discomfiture of others.
   I think of Christ, and how He spent much of his ministry healing those in need, and I see this effort as a reflection of that, finding those in need and doing what can be done to help them.

Refugees: Those Who do Care can be the Ones Who Give the Care

   I open Facebook. A poster laments immigrants coming to the United States from Mexico. I comment back, suggesting it would be nice if just those of us who do care about them could help them.
   And, yes, it would be nice if the burden of caring for them could be relegated just to those of us who want to help them. It would be nice if the burden of care didn't need to be handled by those who feel we should not be allowing them entry.
   As I posted my reply, I wondered if such a program -- one that singles out those who care to do the giving, does exist. I haven't caught up with the story yet, fully, but The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints just called on its members worldwide (or, at least on the members of a church service organization, the Relief Society)  to help refugees. Is that just the European refugees, or does it also apply to the immigrants coming across our southern border?
   I take a moment to open the website the church has announced, iwasastranger.lds.org, and quickly search, wondering. But, I find no verbiage other than that speaking of refugees. Perhaps, so far, the church is leaving it to the individual to decide if they want to include those coming across the southern border. Some, however, would probably say it does not apply to those people, as the term "refugee" normally is not used for someone coming across the southern border.
   "For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me in; I was in prison, and ye came unto me." The church website does quote that verse from Matthew 25.
   I only know there are many coming from across the southern border who are in this situation of needing help, the same as those who are refugees over in Europe.
   “For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me in; Naked, and ye clothed me; I was in prison, and ye came unto me.”   Matthew 25:35-36
 
 

This Would be the Most Open Government in History

   What if our government was so open, that when a lobbyist scheduled a meeting, the date and time was posted online, along with an invitation to either come and view the meeting live, or to view it online?
   Hey, what if there were bleachers (or whatever we should call the seating), in the offices of our legislators, where we could come and view the legislators as they met with the lobbyists?  When a large company, or a powerful group such as the Eagle Forum scheduled a meeting, we could say, "Ooo --I want to be there for that meeting."
  Governance would obviously be given a major makeover, if we did this. Ours would be more open and accountable than any government in history has ever been.

Secrecy is no Friend to the Public, but a Tool to Circumvent the Public

   When laws are being made, you are bidding the public's business. So, why not do it in public? And, if you think I refer only to the legislative sessions, oh!, you sell this idea short.
   Keep the legislative sessions open, most every minute. Indeed. Of course. For sure. But, I mean meetings with lobbyists. I mean, every time a lobbyist steps a foot in your door, you, the legislator, pull out the microphone . . .
   And, record it, live on the Internet.
   We live in a wonderful world. Never in the past has such a thing been possible. Only in the last few years has such a thing been plausible. And, now that it is, we should do it. We should take advantage of technology to bring openness to government.
   I would not make it law that every time a person meets with a legislator to discuss legislation, it be mandatory that it be placed online. But, I would make it law that every time a person meets with a legislator, the legislator be encouraged to place it online. To make it mandatory would be oppressive. It would make it illegal to run into someone and discuss legislation. Besides, if the legislator is going to meet with the lobbyist off the record, he or she is going to do it.
   But, if you make a matter of being the correct practice to hold no private meetings, to do nothing behind closed doors, you set a standard that throws the system open to the public. This will be well enough.
  Government is the public's business, so why not invite the people to come in, sit down, and listen to everything you say? Lobbyists shouldn't be left to play in back rooms; Their doings should be in the light of day.Secrecy is not a friend of the public. but a tool of those who seek to circumvent the public.
  So, were I a lawmaker, would I call for such a law, a law that brings such radical openness to government? We have some openness, but this would be unprecedented. I would think about it. I would consider on whether such legislation were wise and such practice good.
   But, as I think on it at the moment, yes, I think though it be a drastic change in how we conduct our business as a government, this would be a good change.