A faith divided: (From Deseret News

[Mansquatch]

It is pretty well documented. Mexican authorities used the military to imprison and usher out Americans trying to settle in their territory without a visa -- a pass from the governor in Monterrey. John C. Fremont writes all about his experience. As do other trappers and traders who spent time incarcerated.

In the Great Basin, however, Mexican presence was almost non-existent. Mexican garrisons were in California and Santa Fe, not the Salt Lake Valley. But that didn't make squatting lawful just because the owner wasn't there to shoo them off. Brigham Young, in my view, made a calculated decision to go there and specifically there. Exactly what he thought would happen, happened. The US took an interest in the valley and took it.

In 1846 the US congress was already introducing legislation that would effect the territory of Utah as gained in the Mexican-American war. The Great Basin was, in effect, already part of the US the moment congress decided to go to war in 1846. It was painfully obvious that the US would easily win the war and get the new territories. So Brigham in 1847, heading into Utah which was, at the time, a captured territory would present no legal problem from the controlling nation. There was no "what he thought would happen", because it had already happened. They were never squatting.

[Bob Crockett]

In 1846 the US congress was already introducing legislation that would effect the territory of Utah as gained in the Mexican-American war. The Great Basin was, in effect, already part of the US the moment congress decided to go to war in 1846. It was painfully obvious that the US would easily win the war and get the new territories. So Brigham in 1847, heading into Utah which was, at the time, a captured territory would present no legal problem from the controlling nation. There was no "what he thought would happen", because it had already happened. They were never squatting.

The Great Basin was Mexican Territory when the Saints entered it. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed Feb 2, 1848, ceding the territory to the United States. I don't know how you could possibly say that the Saints didn't enter into Mexico, or entered with their consent or the force of law.

What is the legislation to which you refer? What possible authority would such legislation have before Mexico gave up the territory (at the point of a gun)?

Even today, Mexican school children are taught that Upper California was seized illegally and that the treaty was unjust, and that the grounds for invading Mexico were fiction. I wonder what they or legal professors in Mexico would think of an argument justifying occupation of Mexican territory before the treaty?

Having said that, I don't think the Mormons had a choice. They were canonnaded out of Nauvoo. The point of this argument, however, is to note that the first European settlers of the Great Basin were illegal. No big deal to me, but I think immigration laws are often unChristian.

[Jeff K.]

what was the "immigration policy" in 1847 or even BY got there?

What "laws" did he and LDS violate in entering the Wastach front?

Mexico did have immigration laws, the charge they did not was wrong. For instance when Austen and the Americans moved to Texas they had to swear loyalty to Mexico, become Catholic to own land, and would recieve more if they married Mexican women thus integrating the next generation into the nation. The charge there was no immigration law is inaccurate.

[Jeff K.]

In 1846 the US congress was already introducing legislation that would effect the territory of Utah as gained in the Mexican-American war. The Great Basin was, in effect, already part of the US the moment congress decided to go to war in 1846. It was painfully obvious that the US would easily win the war and get the new territories. So Brigham in 1847, heading into Utah which was, at the time, a captured territory would present no legal problem from the controlling nation. There was no "what he thought would happen", because it had already happened. They were never squatting.

It wasn't yet there land Mansquatch, and thus Mormons entered illegally and without permission. It is a fairly lame excuse to call the territory captured since there were no soldiers or outposts there, mainly empty land. I find your attempts at justifying Mormon illegal immigration under the guise of what was an unjust war unseemly and somewhat hypocritical. We stole their land so we didn't really enter it illegallly? Come on.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 06 January 2011 - 01:30 PM, said:

Stake Presidents and Bishops and the church disagree with you on your first point.

"Are you honest in your dealings with your fellow man (Unless it involves immigration status)?" - We should really get on amending that.

Apparently they don't think entering the country illegally is being dishonest with their fellowman, much as you enjoy that mantra, immigration must not be that important to Stake Presidents and Bishops.

Jeff K., on 06 January 2011 - 01:30 PM, said:

On your second point: The fact that you have to state Mexico is not beyone hope reflects how deteriorated things are.

No it doesn't. I do not believe the USA to be beyond all hope either.

Your comparison asks us to overlook the 30+ murders in Mexico in the last few years. It is delusional to believe that somehow Mexicos present problems with crime are somehow the equivalent to the US as you blithely imply it is. Hope based on such delusion is little more than a willingness to turn a blind eye to a desperate people.

Jeff K., on 06 January 2011 - 01:30 PM, said:

And the CIA has already begun running scenarios of a total government collapse. Something that has ticked up significantly. Mexico's problems are considerably worse than most Latin American Countries I have lived in, and I have lived in Mexico for quite a number of years. Not sure who your friends are, perhaps they are well off in well protected neighborhoods.

From your description it sounds like Mexico could use some hard working people back there to clean things up. The CIA runs scenarios on all kinds of things that never happen. Mexico is not a place from which people need to claim asylum. That may change, but for now the majority of its citizens live normal, productive and even fulfilling lives. And no, my friends are not rich and protected.

Maybe if Americans would stop financing the criminals they could. But since our nation is their drug lords biggest customer it makes it difficult for hardworking men and women to get ahead. I doubt you really know how Mexicans live given your lack of personal knowledge and the claim of "friends" living down there. Seems to be a disconnect with reality.

Jeff K., on 06 January 2011 - 01:30 PM, said:

On your third point, the church does not require you to go back to your home country to be baptized if you are here illegally, that person may well have decided to return and "make things right" for other reasons.. Again your opinion finds itself at odds with prophets and apostle and the church. I can see perhaps some revelation regarding what you should do personally, but revelation regarding what other people should do when you are not in authority to state as much?

My mission president and area authority required us to tell him to go back. They seem to have represented "the church".

They should have both been released from their callings for denying the gospel for something the church deems unimportant. Though I wonder why an area authority would have to be involved, smells fishy to me.

Jeff K., on 06 January 2011 - 01:30 PM, said:

The church should never be an arm of the state and require people to leave the country for baptism.

The church requires people to do a lot of things to bring their lives into accordance with the teachings of the church. Of which, I might add, the 12th article of faith is one, or have we amended that too?

So you would have immediately loaded your gun and killed Mormons when Governor Boggs gave the extermination order? The state uber alles eh? 12 Article of Faith after all .

Jeff K., on 06 January 2011 - 01:30 PM, said:

Do you give up your temple recommend when you speed? Regardless of whether or not you are caught?

I do not speed. And I am not kidding.

Yes, and no rolling stops, or literring or loitering, or any number of other laws. You in essence claim yourself to be a perfect animal of the state. How nice that you are perfect even as the state is perfect, and therefore you follow the states commandments to the letter. Orwell would have been proud of you.

Mexico didn't even have immigration laws in 1847, as in 1833 they got rid of some anti-immigration laws that were established in 1830. Thus the church's immigration was not illegal. In 1847 the ownership of the Utah territory was up in the air anyway. Mexico, the USA, the Shoshone and the Utes all had claims. The Mexican-American war was happening which would result in the official 1847-1848 claim of Utah as an American territory. That was easy.

The territory belonged to Mexico, it wasn't up in the air. Our purchase of the Louisiana Territory required us to acknowledge the soveriegn borders that existed among colonial powers. The boundaries were established primarily by France through the exploerer La Salle. The territories were settled with a portion belonging to Spain as established territory recognized by the US, and then when Mexico achieved its independence, the US recognized Mexico and its soveriegn territory. For Americans there was no dispute in the land, it did belong to Mexico unitl the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. So your point is as barren as our knowledge of the US history.

The fact is there is no justification no matter how hard you try to make the inconsistencies consistent. It was Mexican Territory when Brigham Young went into Utah. I am sure if the US had lost then Brigham Young would have negotiated with Mexico (which by the way was much friendlier to Mormons than the US was) for the land. In either case, it was an illegal incursion.

[Mansquatch]

The Great Basin was Mexican Territory when the Saints entered it. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed Feb 2, 1848, ceding the territory to the United States. I don't know how you could possibly say that the Saints didn't enter into Mexico, or entered with their consent or the force of law.

The Great Basin was occupied US land at the time the Saints entered it.

What is the legislation to which you refer? What possible authority would such legislation have before Mexico gave up the territory (at the point of a gun)?

The Wilmot Proviso to ban slavery in the captured territories first introduced in 1846. The full authority of a country that just beat another country in a (land grab) war. Really you answered your own question there with the whole "at the point of a gun" thing.

Even today, Mexican school children are taught that Upper California was seized illegally and that the treaty was unjust, and that the grounds for invading Mexico were fiction. I wonder what they or legal professors in Mexico would think of an argument justifying occupation of Mexican territory before the treaty?

Having said that, I don't think the Mormons had a choice. They were canonnaded out of Nauvoo. The point of this argument, however, is to note that the first European settlers of the Great Basin were illegal. No big deal to me, but I think immigration laws are often unChristian.

The Hidalgo Treaty was a somewhat merciful move to Mexico. The US could have taken over Mexico but did not since they only wanted to reach the Pacific ocean and had no "destiny" to go south.

Mexico did have immigration laws, the charge they did not was wrong. For instance when Austen and the Americans moved to Texas they had to swear loyalty to Mexico, become Catholic to own land, and would recieve more if they married Mexican women thus integrating the next generation into the nation. The charge there was no immigration law is inaccurate.

First of all, Austins were in Texas before Mexico existed, as the original deal was with Spain. Immigration laws in Mexico came and went frequently, at one time that I can name they made all immigration illegal. That anti-immigration law was repealed in 1834. In order to apply to be an empresario or to begin to become a citizen you had to come to Mexico. They did not have the internet or phones. They had to talk to people and look at land in person, imagine that. So, in this magical world where a country has been defeated by another country but keeps sovereignty over territories they have been driven out of, the mormon pioneers would need to show up to follow the same kind of process that the Texans had to follow. Thus their mere presence was not a violation of the law (you know, the one that didn't even apply to the land they were on).

It wasn't yet there land Mansquatch, and thus Mormons entered illegally and without permission. It is a fairly lame excuse to call the territory captured since there were no soldiers or outposts there, mainly empty land. I find your attempts at justifying Mormon illegal immigration under the guise of what was an unjust war unseemly and somewhat hypocritical. We stole their land so we didn't really enter it illegallly? Come on.

There were no laws of the land except what the US military said. They did not enter illegally and needed no permission. It is lame to say that since there were no outposts that it wasn't captured and to ignore that to follow Mexican immigration laws people had to first be there. The US was blatantly and obviously grabbing land for manifest destiny but that fact does not put the Mormons at fault. And it does not mean they did anything illegal, in fact, it means they didn't.

[Jeff K.]

rcrocket, on 06 January 2011 - 05:09 PM, said:

What is the legislation to which you refer? What possible authority would such legislation have before Mexico gave up the territory (at the point of a gun)?

The Wilmot Proviso to ban slavery in the captured territories first introduced in 1846. The full authority of a country that just beat another country in a (land grab) war. Really you answered your own question there with the whole "at the point of a gun" thing.

The Wilmot Proviso was not legislation is was rejected by the Senate and never had the rule of law behind it. In fact at the time of the Wilmot Proviso the outcome was still uncertain. The war had barely started.

[Jeff K.]

rcrocket, on 06 January 2011 - 05:09 PM, said:

Even today, Mexican school children are taught that Upper California was seized illegally and that the treaty was unjust, and that the grounds for invading Mexico were fiction. I wonder what they or legal professors in Mexico would think of an argument justifying occupation of Mexican territory before the treaty?

Having said that, I don't think the Mormons had a choice. They were canonnaded out of Nauvoo. The point of this argument, however, is to note that the first European settlers of the Great Basin were illegal. No big deal to me, but I think immigration laws are often unChristian.

The Hidalgo Treaty was a somewhat merciful move to Mexico. The US could have taken over Mexico but did not since they only wanted to reach the Pacific ocean and had no "destiny" to go south.

The Gadianton could not have said it better. We have stolen your land and now we will mercifully pay you what we think its worth. Not America's finest hour and no patriot true to American ideals would suggest it was "merciful".

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 06 January 2011 - 06:10 PM, said:

Mexico did have immigration laws, the charge they did not was wrong. For instance when Austen and the Americans moved to Texas they had to swear loyalty to Mexico, become Catholic to own land, and would recieve more if they married Mexican women thus integrating the next generation into the nation. The charge there was no immigration law is inaccurate.

First of all, Austins were in Texas before Mexico existed, as the original deal was with Spain. Immigration laws in Mexico came and went frequently, at one time that I can name they made all immigration illegal. That anti-immigration law was repealed in 1834. In order to apply to be an empresario or to begin to become a citizen you had to come to Mexico. They did not have the internet or phones. They had to talk to people and look at land in person, imagine that. So, in this magical world where a country has been defeated by another country but keeps sovereignty over territories they have been driven out of, the mormon pioneers would need to show up to follow the same kind of process that the Texans had to follow. Thus their mere presence was not a violation of the law (you know, the one that didn't even apply to the land they were on).

You might want to get your history straight.

Hoping that more settlers would reduce the near-constant Comanche raids, Mexican Texas liberalized its immigration policies to permit immigrants from outside Mexico and Spain.[44] Under the Mexican immigration system, large swathes of land were allotted to empresarios, who recruited settlers from the United States, Europe, and the Mexican interior. The first grant, to Moses Austin, was passed to his son Stephen F. Austin after his death.

Let us hope this ends any idea that Mexico (yes MEXICO) did not have an immigration policy.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 06 January 2011 - 06:14 PM, said:

It wasn't yet there land Mansquatch, and thus Mormons entered illegally and without permission. It is a fairly lame excuse to call the territory captured since there were no soldiers or outposts there, mainly empty land. I find your attempts at justifying Mormon illegal immigration under the guise of what was an unjust war unseemly and somewhat hypocritical. We stole their land so we didn't really enter it illegallly? Come on.

There were no laws of the land except what the US military said. They did not enter illegally and needed no permission. It is lame to say that since there were no outposts that it wasn't captured and to ignore that to follow Mexican immigration laws people had to first be there. The US was blatantly and obviously grabbing land for manifest destiny but that fact does not put the Mormons at fault. And it does not mean they did anything illegal, in fact, it means they didn't.

The cesession was not signed until February 2, 1848 at which time the land was ceded to the United States. Under General Winfield Scott Mexican laws were upheld, there were no soldiers in the Utah territory, but the legal laws of that land were Mexico's. Even Fremont knew he had to declare a republic of California in order to institute a change in laws.

Your history teacher should be flogged.

[Bob Crockett]

The Hidalgo Treaty was a somewhat merciful move to Mexico. The US could have taken over Mexico but did not since they only wanted to reach the Pacific ocean and had no "destiny" to go south.

Wow. Oh well; I can understand the belief that to the victor goes the spoils. I am not attacking the U.S. by any means and am glad it won the war and the area is in the U.S.

But, the point remains -- the Mormons did not have visas when then settled in the Great Basin. Without visa or permission of the governor, they didn't have a legal right.

[Mansquatch]

Apparently they don't think entering the country illegally is being dishonest with their fellowman, much as you enjoy that mantra, immigration must not be that important to Stake Presidents and Bishops.

They are wrong then. It is obviously dishonest. It is not a mantra but a requirement for a recommend.

Your comparison asks us to overlook the 30+ murders in Mexico in the last few years. It is delusional to believe that somehow Mexicos present problems with crime are somehow the equivalent to the US as you blithely imply it is. Hope based on such delusion is little more than a willingness to turn a blind eye to a desperate people.

I ask no one to overlook anything. There is trouble in the world and people get murdered everywhere. I never implied that Mexican crime was equivalent to the US in fact I implied in multiple places that it was worse. Please stop putting things into my statements that were never there or I shall bring up how you implied that you want to punch babies in the face.

Maybe if Americans would stop financing the criminals they could. But since our nation is their drug lords biggest customer it makes it difficult for hardworking men and women to get ahead. I doubt you really know how Mexicans live given your lack of personal knowledge and the claim of "friends" living down there. Seems to be a disconnect with reality.

You seem disconnected with the reality of Mexico. People live there and have good lives without being super rich. Do they have a lot of crime? Yes. Is that bad? Of course. Should it be ignored? Of course not. Same for everywhere else in the world.

Why quote "friends", do you not believe that I have Mexican friends? I can have them write you letters and tell you about their normal lives.

They should have both been released from their callings for denying the gospel for something the church deems unimportant. Though I wonder why an area authority would have to be involved, smells fishy to me.

This was not a one time incidence but a blanket policy. This brother never met our mission president or the area authority. They were never "involved" in his situation. We found out he was illegal and told him what would have to be done according to the policy and he did it. Others did the same but I never met any of them. Most people just stopped seeing the missionaries.

So you would have immediately loaded your gun and killed Mormons when Governor Boggs gave the extermination order? The state uber alles eh? 12 Article of Faith after all .

You also seem to have a problem with equivalencies. Coming into a sovereign nation in an orderly way does not even compare to slaughtering people. But since it is brought up, do you condemn the LDS who fought for the Nazis?

Yes, and no rolling stops, or literring or loitering, or any number of other laws. You in essence claim yourself to be a perfect animal of the state. How nice that you are perfect even as the state is perfect, and therefore you follow the states commandments to the letter. Orwell would have been proud of you.

I am a perfect driver. So sue me. That doesn't mean I am subservient to big brother

The territory belonged to Mexico, it wasn't up in the air. Our purchase of the Louisiana Territory required us to acknowledge the soveriegn borders that existed among colonial powers. The boundaries were established primarily by France through the exploerer La Salle. The territories were settled with a portion belonging to Spain as established territory recognized by the US, and then when Mexico achieved its independence, the US recognized Mexico and its soveriegn territory. For Americans there was no dispute in the land, it did belong to Mexico unitl the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. So your point is as barren as our knowledge of the US history.

What about the Shoshone claim?

It was up in the air as another sovereign nation had just invaded and captured the territory. Pretty much though, as soon as congress declared war that land was already gone. Ulysses S. Grant fought later said that he hated that war because it was unjust and was a much more powerful nation picking on a weaker one. You know nothing of my knowledge of US history so don't pretend so you can make condescending comments.

The fact is there is no justification no matter how hard you try to make the inconsistencies consistent. It was Mexican Territory when Brigham Young went into Utah. I am sure if the US had lost then Brigham Young would have negotiated with Mexico (which by the way was much friendlier to Mormons than the US was) for the land. In either case, it was an illegal incursion.

No inconsistencies. It was a captured territory when Brigham entered. As I pointed out already the mere presence of people was not breaking any law that might have existed before, since they had to show up in Mexico to "negotiate" with Mexico and follow the process of Mexico. If the mormons had been kicked out and then returned it would have been different and they would have been breaking the law.

[Jeff K.]

On two other ponts that were valid.

The Saints had no choice, there was murder, they lost their homes, finances, there was nothing in the way of opportunity for them to live decently, and while some might argue that such hard working people should have found a place in the American territories, it was obvious that they could not make a living there. Brigham Young promised them a better life, one with more freedom from the persecution, the murders, the poor economic conditions brought on by a corrupt government. One might say these are legitimate reasons to strike out on their own.

I also believe that was the best outcome for the United States. I look at the cities of Mexico in Baja California (Sur and Norte), they remained undeveloped even though their coastline is as good as ours (heck with the Sea of Cortez it pretty much doubles that coastline). Why is that? A government and series of revolutions that pretty much undid any chance of opportunity. A corrupt one party system that kept the nation enthralled for almost a hundred years, and finally the riches of America's decadence, the Sodom and Gomorrah that is part of our own nation which we have not been able to stamp out. Our presidents inhaled and snorted, and we paid for the bullets and the blood. It is a sad part of our legacy with that nation, but one we must acknowledge, even though few if any of us have imbibed in such things, it is our nation that has wrought much of the havoc, even if we didn't mean to.

[Mansquatch]

The Wilmot Proviso was not legislation is was rejected by the Senate and never had the rule of law behind it. In fact at the time of the Wilmot Proviso the outcome was still uncertain. The war had barely started.

It was legislation and I never said it was passed. I said it was introduced. Can you find a condescending way to claim that it was not introduced? The outcome was very certain just ask Ulysses S. Grant. The whole point of the war was to grab land and it was like taking candy from a baby.

[Mansquatch]

The Gadianton could not have said it better. We have stolen your land and now we will mercifully pay you what we think its worth. Not America's finest hour and no patriot true to American ideals would suggest it was "merciful".

How is it not merciful to not take over the entire country? Seriously. Of course yes they were taking land but there was a little mercy involved in not taking the whole thing. Hence my use of the word "somewhat".

[Mansquatch]

You might want to get your history straight.

Let us hope this ends any idea that Mexico (yes MEXICO) did not have an immigration policy.

You should get your history straight. Check out when Moses Austin and the Old 300 made a deal with Spain not Mexico. The deal was re-done with Mexico after they officially became independent.

And I also stated before that "Immigration laws in Mexico came and went frequently" that sort of established that Mexico did have an immigration policy or two or three.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 06 January 2011 - 06:36 PM, said:

Apparently they don't think entering the country illegally is being dishonest with their fellowman, much as you enjoy that mantra, immigration must not be that important to Stake Presidents and Bishops.

They are wrong then. It is obviously dishonest. It is not a mantra but a requirement for a recommend.

I respect the principle you want to put forward, but I think you are misquided in making the laws of the land an overriding principle.

Jeff K., on 06 January 2011 - 06:36 PM, said:

Your comparison asks us to overlook the 30+ murders in Mexico in the last few years. It is delusional to believe that somehow Mexicos present problems with crime are somehow the equivalent to the US as you blithely imply it is. Hope based on such delusion is little more than a willingness to turn a blind eye to a desperate people.

I ask no one to overlook anything. There is trouble in the world and people get murdered everywhere. I never implied that Mexican crime was equivalent to the US in fact I implied in multiple places that it was worse. Please stop putting things into my statements that were never there or I shall bring up how you implied that you want to punch babies in the face.

This is what disturbs me (by the way it isn't 30+ but 30K+), to minimize what is a very bad situation. It isn't "oh its bad everywhere", that is a poor excuse akin to stating "I am not my brothers keeper". When you say "I still have hope for America" in the same tone that you have hope for Mexico you do indeed imply an equivalency. You may be doing it for rhetorical purposes, but it is a shameful thing.

Jeff K., on 06 January 2011 - 06:36 PM, said:

Yes, and no rolling stops, or literring or loitering, or any number of other laws. You in essence claim yourself to be a perfect animal of the state. How nice that you are perfect even as the state is perfect, and therefore you follow the states commandments to the letter. Orwell would have been proud of you.

I am a perfect driver. So sue me. That doesn't mean I am subservient to big brother

All laws? Not just driving (those infractions being the least)? I seriously doubt it.

Jeff K., on 06 January 2011 - 06:36 PM, said:

The territory belonged to Mexico, it wasn't up in the air. Our purchase of the Louisiana Territory required us to acknowledge the soveriegn borders that existed among colonial powers. The boundaries were established primarily by France through the exploerer La Salle. The territories were settled with a portion belonging to Spain as established territory recognized by the US, and then when Mexico achieved its independence, the US recognized Mexico and its soveriegn territory. For Americans there was no dispute in the land, it did belong to Mexico unitl the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. So your point is as barren as our knowledge of the US history.

What about the Shoshone claim?

It was up in the air as another sovereign nation had just invaded and captured the territory. Pretty much though, as soon as congress declared war that land was already gone. Ulysses S. Grant fought later said that he hated that war because it was unjust and was a much more powerful nation picking on a weaker one. You know nothing of my knowledge of US history so don't pretend so you can make condescending comments.

Legally the Shoshone had no claim under Spanish or Mexican law and did not come into US purview until after the Treaty of Hidalgo.

Pretty much though, as soon as congress declared war that land was already gone.

No, the outcome of the war was not known, your argument is fallacious on the face of it. On a per capita basis the US had more casualties in that war than any other war. I suppose you would have thought that the Vietnam War was pretty much a foregone conclusion too? Please don't insult our intelligence with such blather, it simply isn't true.

You know nothing of my knowledge of US history so don't pretend so you can make condescending comments

True, I do not know the full scope of your knowledge of history, maybe you an expert at industrialization of the US, or Tamany Hall? But some basic facts you have brought up to bolster your position have been false and inaccurate. This leads me to believe you haven't really delved into the history, or rather your teacher did not teach you properly.

Jeff K., on 06 January 2011 - 06:36 PM, said:

The fact is there is no justification no matter how hard you try to make the inconsistencies consistent. It was Mexican Territory when Brigham Young went into Utah. I am sure if the US had lost then Brigham Young would have negotiated with Mexico (which by the way was much friendlier to Mormons than the US was) for the land. In either case, it was an illegal incursion.

No inconsistencies. It was a captured territory when Brigham entered. As I pointed out already the mere presence of people was not breaking any law that might have existed before, since they had to show up in Mexico to "negotiate" with Mexico and follow the process of Mexico. If the mormons had been kicked out and then returned it would have been different and they would have been breaking the law.

No, it was not legally a part of the US, and conquered territory is not legally a part of the US until the Senate and House approve it to be. Which did not happen until the Senate ratified the Treaty of Guadelupe Hidalgo which made the territories, US territories. The US has often withdrawn from several lands it has subdued, Cuba for instance, Phillipines, China, and so on. Read your Constitution and know your history on the matter.

[Mansquatch]

The cesession was not signed until February 2, 1848 at which time the land was ceded to the United States. Under General Winfield Scott Mexican laws were upheld, there were no soldiers in the Utah territory, but the legal laws of that land were Mexico's. Even Fremont knew he had to declare a republic of California in order to institute a change in laws.

Your history teacher should be flogged.

Your history teacher should be flogged. Scott imposed martial law. Also we still have the fact that simply to be in Mexico was not illegal since you had to be there to be an empresario or become a citizen.

[Jeff K.]

You should get your history straight. Check out when Moses Austin and the Old 300 made a deal with Spain not Mexico. The deal was re-done with Mexico after they officially became independent.

And I also stated before that "Immigration laws in Mexico came and went frequently" that sort of established that Mexico did have an immigration policy or two or three.

Sigh, get it right. The immigration laws did not "came and went". Policies change just like they do in the US, but you won't hear Mexicans say the US immigration policy "came and went" even as it changes. You will note that immigration policy existed both under Moses and Stephen. Moses discussed the immigration policy with Antonio Maria Martinez representing the country of Spain, but it was his son who colonized under MEXICAN immigration policy.

Austin's plan for a colony was thrown into turmoil by the independence of Mexico from Spain in 1821. Governor Mart

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 06 January 2011 - 07:08 PM, said:

The Gadianton could not have said it better. We have stolen your land and now we will mercifully pay you what we think its worth. Not America's finest hour and no patriot true to American ideals would suggest it was "merciful".

How is it not merciful to not take over the entire country? Seriously. Of course yes they were taking land but there was a little mercy involved in not taking the whole thing. Hence my use of the word "somewhat".

No, it wasn't about mercy, the US got what it wanted and didn't care about the rest. I think your definition of mercy needs some Christ in it.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 06 January 2011 - 07:16 PM, said:

The cesession was not signed until February 2, 1848 at which time the land was ceded to the United States. Under General Winfield Scott Mexican laws were upheld, there were no soldiers in the Utah territory, but the legal laws of that land were Mexico's. Even Fremont knew he had to declare a republic of California in order to institute a change in laws.

Your history teacher should be flogged.

Your history teacher should be flogged. Scott imposed martial law. Also we still have the fact that simply to be in Mexico was not illegal since you had to be there to be an empresario or become a citizen.

Allow me to educate you. With Spain, the empresario was declared with the land grant, like a visa, this was designated by the territorial governor of New Spain. When Mexico won its independence, such land grants and visa requirements had to be approved by Congress which also granted limited immigration rights (until fully complied with).

[Mansquatch]

I respect the principle you want to put forward, but I think you are misquided in making the laws of the land an overriding principle.

Honesty is not misguided.

This is what disturbs me (by the way it isn't 30+ but 30K+), to minimize what is a very bad situation. It isn't "oh its bad everywhere", that is a poor excuse akin to stating "I am not my brothers keeper". When you say "I still have hope for America" in the same tone that you have hope for Mexico you do indeed imply an equivalency. You may be doing it for rhetorical purposes, but it is a shameful thing.

So you propose that we remove all good people who could do some good from Mexico and keep them here?

I said I still have hope for America because I believe that it too is in bad way right now. Not in all the same ways or to extents as in Mexico. I also said that to demonstrate that such a phrase has nothing to do with how bad a situation is. So my statement of "I do not believe the USA to be beyond all hope either" really emphasized that there was a difference between the US and Mexico even though the same phrase could be applied to both.

All laws? Not just driving (those infractions being the least)? I seriously doubt it.

Why do you doubt it? I follow all the laws that I know about. It is pretty easy.

No, the outcome of the war was not known, your argument is fallacious on the face of it. On a per capita basis the US had more casualties in that war than any other war. I suppose you would have thought that the Vietnam War was pretty much a foregone conclusion too? Please don't insult our intelligence with such blather, it simply isn't true.

"For myself, I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day regard the war, which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. " - Ulysses S. Grant

Sounds like a stronger nation beating up on a weaker one. Or maybe Grant was wrong and is insulting our intelligence with such blather.

True, I do not know the full scope of your knowledge of history, maybe you an expert at industrialization of the US, or Tamany Hall? But some basic facts you have brought up to bolster your position have been false and inaccurate. This leads me to believe you haven't really delved into the history, or rather your teacher did not teach you properly.

False, innaccurate? CFR.

No, it was not legally a part of the US, and conquered territory is not legally a part of the US until the Senate and House approve it to be. Which did not happen until the Senate ratified the Treaty of Guadelupe Hidalgo which made the territories, US territories. The US has often withdrawn from several lands it has subdued, Cuba for instance, Phillipines, China, and so on. Read your Constitution and know your history on the matter.

You still haven't addressed that you could be in Mexico and not be breaking the law because you needed to be there to start the process of following Mexican immigration policies. Also considering that Scott imposed martial law in Mexico I would say that Mexican law did not apply to the territory.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Your history teacher should be flogged. Scott imposed martial law. Also we still have the fact that simply to be in Mexico was not illegal since you had to be there to be an empresario or become a citizen.

Great history lesson

[Mansquatch]

No, it wasn't about mercy, the US got what it wanted and didn't care about the rest.

The democrats in congress wanted to keep all of Mexico but "somewhat" mercifully the US let Mexico still exist.

I think your definition of mercy needs some Christ in it.

I didn't say that the US was atoning for the sins of Mexico to satisfy the justice of God. I said they let them exist as a nation even though it was with only half the land. My definition of the mercy of God has plenty of Christ in it.

As for what the church's position should be, it should be exactly what it is. Remind people to love one another and obey the law of the land. Common sense also applies, like if a law is passed telling you to slaughter your neighbors you might think about not doing that one. I don't believe mass deportation would be good or possible and I see that as a position the church supports. I think some sort of fine imposed on non-violent criminals found to be in the country coupled with an easier system of becoming a citizen or guest worker would work fine and I think the church would support such as well. It takes too much money, red tape and lawyering to get into the country legally now and I am sure that the church supports better laws and practices than currently exist.