Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Bill "Papa" Lee

A faith divided: (From Deseret News

Recommended Posts

Muslims are being brought here to punish us...

Don't do that...Please.

Share this post


Link to post

Your interpretation is not accepted by the prophet and apostles nor myself.

:P

Share this post


Link to post

In my experience the LDS are a moderating force. We really don't go to extremes in either direction. I believe it is a mistake to so focus in on one Scripture that we forget all the others.

Share this post


Link to post

Does anyone know what Bishops are to do when they know someone is here illegally? Does anyone know?

I don't think there's a blanket rule. I do know that our local hispanic branch was shut down a couple of years ago when the branch president was deported. :P

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think there's a blanket rule. I do know that our local hispanic branch was shut down a couple of years ago when the branch president was deported. :P

Woops...

Share this post


Link to post

which means then, the 9/11 terrorists were brought by the hand of the Lord to commit their act.

which also means then, Angel Maturino Res

Share this post


Link to post

BookofMormonLuvr:

The Muslims are no more wicked than the Christians.

Not to take sides but I didn't notice that he said they were.

Share this post


Link to post

eraye,

if someone claims that none come the US lest the hand of Lord has guided them, then that person MUST admit that the hand of Lord guided the 9/11 terrorist. One can not us that verse in the Book and then selectively apply it.

Share this post


Link to post

Or when they illegally entered Mexico to settle Utah. :P

Saints entered Utah valley in 1847

The treaty of Guadeupe Hidalgo was signed in 1848

That is indeed true. Many of my ancestors immigrated to the Salt Lake Valley illegally. The Mexican authorities tried, even by force (just study John C. Fremont a little), to keep the Americans out who lacked visas (the equivalent of such; a governor's pass) but did not have any presence in the Great Basin.

Mexicans have just as much a right to this land, at least from a historical basis, as do Europeans. And, I think the Book of Mormon supports the notion that the descendants of the Lamanites will be favored by God in this land. As was evident from the flap caused by George P. Lee, the Church treats considers Latin Americans as those who will benefit from the covenants given to the Lamanites.

The Church remains silent and neutral on immigration issues. It calls bishops and branch presidents in the U.S. who are not here legally. And, in my stake, knowingly so. I tend to tilt in favor of a libertarian approach to immigration. Although the Articles of Faith require us to uphold the law, there certainly is support in the D&C to argue against, and possibly civilly disobey, unjust laws.

Share this post


Link to post
That is indeed true. Many of my ancestors immigrated to the Salt Lake Valley illegally. The Mexican authorities tried, even by force (just study John C. Fremont a little), to keep the Americans out who lacked visas (the equivalent of such; a governor's pass) but did not have any presence in the Great Basin.

Mexicans have just as much a right to this land, at least from a historical basis, as do Europeans. And, I think the Book of Mormon supports the notion that the descendants of the Lamanites will be favored by God in this land. As was evident from the flap caused by George P. Lee, the Church treats considers Latin Americans as those who will benefit from the covenants given to the Lamanites.

The Church remains silent and neutral on immigration issues. It calls bishops and branch presidents in the U.S. who are not here legally. And, in my stake, knowingly so. I tend to tilt in favor of a libertarian approach to immigration. Although the Articles of Faith require us to uphold the law, there certainly is support in the D&C to argue against, and possibly civilly disobey, unjust laws.

As a non-American, I think the US has every right to define and enforce its own immigration laws.

But I believe it should first put some resources into plugging the gaping holes in that sieve it laughingly calls a border.

And I adamantly oppose the notion that churches should become the cats' paws of any government, and I am horrified by the suggestion that citizens should be required to inform on their undocumented neighbours.

I see a lot of very disturbing zealotry in this discussion.

Regards,

Pahoran

Share this post


Link to post

I think the immigration law is inadequate. I also believe our border controls remain inadequate. And I believe mercy should be applied in all cases when possible. If our borders were more thoroughly monitored and maintained with an adequate force, then many of the issues would cease and Mexico would be forced to improve itself rather than use the US as a last refuge for citizens of a poorly run country.

One might suppose I am in the middle on this issue.

Share this post


Link to post

But I believe it should first put some resources into plugging the gaping holes in that sieve it laughingly calls a border.

I think that is impossible. If the U.S. prison system can't stop the smuggling of drugs into the prison system, then how can the U.S. keep out a determined smuggler across the border? When I was camping on the U.S. side of the Canadian border, I saw about two dozen people hauling muslin-wrapped bales of marijuana across the border in trucks and sorting them out into smaller trucks on the U.S. side in a makeshift campground. I went down the canyon and flagged down a Sheriff's deputy in Montana who laughed at me.

Think of the millions upon millions of illegal aliens already here. Elderly people, infants, disabled people -- all able to find a way over.

Share this post


Link to post

I do not believe we need to "hermetically" seal the border. But we can reduce illegal immigration to the point that it is not the problem it is today. There is a substantial difference between a hundred to tens of thousands impacting a nations economy and services.

Share this post


Link to post

I think that is impossible. If the U.S. prison system can't stop the smuggling of drugs into the prison system, then how can the U.S. keep out a determined smuggler across the border?

So, because it can't be made 100% impenetrable we shouldn't even try? Are any of our laws 100% enforceable?

Share this post


Link to post

Interestingly, that article was originally printed on the front page of the Los Angeles Times (in their "Column One" series). I was pretty surprised to see it Saturday morning.

Share this post


Link to post

I do not believe we need to "hermetically" seal the border. But we can reduce illegal immigration to the point that it is not the problem it is today. There is a substantial difference between a hundred to tens of thousands impacting a nations economy and services.

Well, if you must insist upon imposing some sort of immigration policy (which I think hypocritical in light of how most of our ancestors got here), then you must

1. Eliminate the welfare state, especially those for non-citizens.

2. Have a national identification program, as do the European states, and expel those without proper papers who are not citizens -- those pulled over for traffic offenses, seeking access to government buildings and the like.

3. Require checkpoints looking for proper papers.

That'll do it to a very large degree. And what a police state that would be. You'd be free of most aliens. It would be just like Czarist Russia. That country didn't need a fence.

Share this post


Link to post

eraye,

if someone claims that none come the US lest the hand of Lord has guided them, then that person MUST admit that the hand of Lord guided the 9/11 terrorist. One can not us that verse in the Book and then selectively apply it.

Anyone with that attitude obviously isn't a practicing or educated member of the LDS faith,

Anyone with that attitude either doesn't understand or believe in the LDS teachings on Agency.

Share this post


Link to post

ErayR:

Technically true. However IF we are to start excluding someone because of the real or implied wickedness of their religion. We should exclude all religious and non-religious because none is without real or implied problems with wickedness.

Share this post


Link to post
Well, if you must insist upon imposing some sort of immigration policy (which I think hypocritical in light of how most of our ancestors got here), then you must

I don't think it's hypocritical for governments, in the interest of their citizens and for the security of the nation, to enact policies that might have disadvantaged those who migrated to the country a century or two ago; I think it's just pragmatic. A nation's laws may reflect its principles, its needs, or a combination of the two.

1. Eliminate the welfare state, especially those for non-citizens.

That makes sense. Other countries have enacted such provisions.

2. Have a national identification program, as do the European states, and expel those without proper papers who are not citizens -- those pulled over for traffic offenses, seeking access to government buildings and the like.

I don't see that that's necessary.

3. Require checkpoints looking for proper papers.

Exactly: at the border. And have the border properly maintained and guarded so that people can only enter legally.

That'll do it to a very large degree. And what a police state that would be. You'd be free of most aliens. It would be just like Czarist Russia. That country didn't need a fence.

I don't see that it's either-or, Rob. You can have a secure border without requiring your citizens to have RFID implants.

Secure the border, and the influx of illegals will dry up.

Dry up the influx, and then you can turn your attention to those who are already there.

Anyway, that's my opinion.

Regards,

Pahoran

Share this post


Link to post
Doctrine and Covenants 42

84 And if a man or woman shall rob, he or she shall be delivered up unto the law of the land.

85 And if he or she shall steal, he or she shall be delivered up unto the law of the land.

86 And if he or she shall lie, he or she shall be delivered up unto the law of the land.

87 If a man or a woman shall rob (take pay or benefits to which he or she is not legally entitled),

or steal (identity, salary, Social Security numbers or benefits for which they have not made

contributions), or lie (false papers, false identification, false affidavits and affirmations),

he or she shall get a free pass if he or she is from Mexico or Central America.

I don't understand how anyone could be called as a bishop or receive a temple recommend

if he or she is involved in robbery, theft, or lying.

I'm all for legal immigration. My grandparents immigrated from Poland, but they did so

legally with the objective to become law-abiding American citizens. They did not insist

that legal documents, road signs, voter pamphlets, and restaurant menus be written

in Polish. Illegal immigration is a serious problem.

Bernard

Share this post


Link to post

Well, if you must insist upon imposing some sort of immigration policy (which I think hypocritical in light of how most of our ancestors got here), then you must

1. Eliminate the welfare state, especially those for non-citizens.

2. Have a national identification program, as do the European states, and expel those without proper papers who are not citizens -- those pulled over for traffic offenses, seeking access to government buildings and the like.

3. Require checkpoints looking for proper papers.

That'll do it to a very large degree. And what a police state that would be. You'd be free of most aliens. It would be just like Czarist Russia. That country didn't need a fence.

The academy award for drama goes to......

Please lets not go over the top in describing options. In fact the question of immmigration and control of the borders is one of the best ways to ensure a measured growth versus a chaos. All nations strive correctly for the same thing.

Your reference to Czarist Russia is laughable since it also applies to Switzerland, Mexico, Brazil. Italy... and so on. They also control their nations with ID cards and checkpoints at the border, and almost impossible work conditions for those who did not enter their nations properly. I would not want to be a Moroccan in France.

Share this post


Link to post

Your reference to Czarist Russia is laughable since it also applies to Switzerland, Mexico, Brazil. Italy... and so on. They also control their nations with ID cards and checkpoints at the border, and almost impossible work conditions for those who did not enter their nations properly. I would not want to be a Moroccan in France.

When I served a mission in Central America, the countries there strictly enforced legal entry into their countries. Woe unto the elder who

over-stayed his visa in Nicaragua or Honduras. The woe came from both the government and the mission president (Church). I believe Mexico's immigration laws are a tad more strict than ours.

Bernard

Share this post


Link to post

I lived in Mexico for five years, they are significantly stricter and include a national ID card that I had to carry around so I could show I was there legally working.

Share this post


Link to post

I lived in Mexico for five years, they are significantly stricter and include a national ID card that I had to carry around so I could show I was there legally working.

Double standard, anyone?

Bernard

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...