The Church Has Spoken on Immigration Policy

[Stargazer]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

No, it doesn't work that way. The CFR would have to go to the opposite claim - that there is a law on the books mandating separation of children from parents at border crossings. Can you cite one?

 

Heck no.  I think there must be something that allows for it, though.  They can't just do something because they feel like it.  Not even the President can just command stuff, like he were the Almighty or something.  He's there to enforce the law, not make it up as he goes along.  Although, then we have the Executive Order, which does seem to give the President the authority to do anything at all -- but in practice, both Congress and the Supreme Court can override these.  EOs are supposed to pertain to the law as passed by Congress -- as glorified federal regulations -- and not be King Canute at work, commanding the tides to recede.  The President could order the Army to arrest all left-handed redheads, but I don't think it would be legal. Although considering President Roosevelt's command to the Army to put all Japanese-Americans into internment camps, apparently they can be.

Typically, depending upon the subject matter, statutes (e.g. the United States Code or USC) don't get into nitty gritty details, but the appropriate federal agency develop regulations to administer the statutes. For example, you will find the Internal Revenue Code giving broad directions for tax matters and then declaring in the statute "See the regulation...." that pertains to the issue in question.  And the Code of Federal Regulations (which, ironically, is abbreviated CFR) then contains the "How To Do It" stuff.

I'm curious to see what the law says about the matter, and what the regulations say about implementing it.  But I've been sitting at the computer for 9 hours so far today, mostly making remarks here if truth be told, and I have to do something else for awhile.  It used to be a hobby of mine, this thing about USC and CFR and so on.  So I know to look stuff up.  

[Danzo]

1 minute ago, USU78 said:

The "Kill Laban" mandate is a rare thing, and I fully believe it applies here, to her.

I don't really think it is.  Although it rarely comes to actually killing people, it is quite common for laws (Man's,  or God's) to be in conflict with each other.

I believe it is one of the tests of mortality to be able to discern the higher law.

Think of the story of Adam and Even in the Garden. (Especially as told in the temple). 

[Danzo]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

Trump is the one who created the immigration policy. It has nothing to do with the law. This is a specific policy his administration created. It's fair to give them credit for what they created.

Immigration reform is another issue. Yes, it also needs work. But Trump's policy is actively and deliberately evil.

I am sorry, I have been involved in immigration issues since before trump was a republican. These things have been going on for quite some time. The laws were Evil before trump as well.

They are a little more public now then they were (and for that I am grateful) but this isn't anything new.

[mnn727]

18 hours ago, cinepro said:

Well, I owe someone an apology, because I doubted that Trump would bring everyone together and judging from my Facebook feed, everyone hates him on this.

 

Not everyone. Not even close. If they want to immigrate let them do it legally and their kids will not be taken.

[USU78]

32 minutes ago, Danzo said:

It wasn't a Class "B" misdemeanor that those people were accused of.

DUI is a Class "B" misdemeanor.

Illegal possession of a firearm is a Class "B" misdemeanor.

Assault without serious injury is [mostly] a Class "B" misdemeanor.

Child neglect/abuse is [mostly] a Class "B" misdemeanor.

The minimizing argument is unpersuasive.

[Danzo]

Just now, USU78 said:

DUI is a Class "B" misdemeanor.

Illegal possession of a firearm is a Class "B" misdemeanor.

Assault without serious injury is [mostly] a Class "B" misdemeanor.

Child neglect/abuse is [mostly] a Class "B" misdemeanor.

The minimizing argument is unpersuasive.

Do parents routinely get separated from children do to an accusation of a DUI?

Illegal possession of a firearm?

 

[Danzo]

2 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

Not everyone. Not even close. If they want to immigrate let them do it legally and their kids will not be taken.

Do you know how someone from these countries can immigrate legally?

Are you aware of the process?

[mnn727]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

Some of them are fleeing from the worst danger, seeking asylum. I don't know that they're aware of the new inhuman policies the current administration has enacted, until it's too late.

If they were seeking asylum, they would present themselves at an official entry point or at an embassy. The people you're all talking about snuck across the border. They are criminals.

[mnn727]

Just now, Danzo said:

Do you know how someone from these countries can immigrate legally?

Are you aware of the process?

Yes, I do.

[USU78]

Just now, Danzo said:

Do parents routinely get separated from children do to an accusation of a DUI?

Illegal possession of a firearm?

Upon arrest, absolutely, if a minor child is present at the time of arrest. 

For a DUI, the car gets towed, the child placed with relatives or in protective custody until DFS can be notified, and the driver gets processed at the jail.  If no judge is available at the time of processing, the driver stays at least overnight.  It can be a real mess if no suitable relative is reasonably available.

[Danzo]

2 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

Yes, I do.

Can you explain it to us?

You are aware that the Government does not grant Visas to people from mexico who have relatives here?

You are aware that the only way for someone in Mexico to legally visit people in the united states is to become a permanent resident

You are aware that Many people become permanent residents here so they can move back to Mexico?

You are aware that the current waiting period for coming here legally is greater than 20 years?

You are aware that the currently law destroys your application when you get married (Which is why a competent Immigration Attorney will recommend against people becoming legally married)?

 

You are in favor of such a system?

 

Edited June 19, 2018 by Danzo

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Here's what they said...
 

I agree with your position on loyalty. I asked because I'm continually being called disloyal when I disagree with the church's political statements about same sex marriage. Pres. Oaks famously gave a talk in which he stated there was no such thing as loyal opposition in the church which I found to be an extremely unbending as if clearly defining the demarcation line.

I know you are, and I understand your predicament on that.

The operative word, I think, is "opposition".  Just disagreeing with a church policy or position is not "opposition", in my opinion.  I think that disloyalty refers to active public opposition.  Before the 1978 revelation I considered the "explanations" that had been offered for the ban by various authorities, and found them not convincing, either logically or spiritually.  I did feel, however, that the ban was probably the Lord's will at the time, and that eventually it would be changed.  I did not publicly oppose it; I just waited, and eventually my patience was rewarded.  Now, I don't think any patience on your part in re: SSM is going to be rewarded, because I am certain you are dead wrong about the Lord's feeling on the matter.  If I were you, I wouldn't hold my breath on that.

To answer your question, I can't disagree with the statement.  I, too, am concerned that families are separated.  But I am also very much afraid that there's the general case, and then there are the specifics.  You know very well that the hijackers who drove those planes into the twin towers were legal immigrants who overstayed their visas.  If I remember correctly.  They were allowed into the country and did not break any law until they failed to go home.  Their intent in coming here was supposedly known.  But they intended to do wrong, and entered the country to do the country harm.  Probably most of the illegals entering this country through the southern border are doing so with honest intent. They want to live here, at least for a time, and build some kind of new life for themselves and their families.  I don't fault them for wanting this.  I'd love for them to come here legally.  We have plenty for them to do, and having known some of these folks, every single one of them worked hard and were honest dealers.  The Church has good, humanitarian reasons for its view on the matter, but neither they nor ICE know what is on the minds of ALL of these people trying to come here illegally.  Some of them are coming with malice aforethought, and some of those with that malice are bringing children with them as temporary human shields.  Or so I have read.  Trying to effectively distinguish one from another is a task to stump Solomon.

And all the freaking out and histrionics about the matter don't actually help, and smacks of partisan bickering more than genuine concern for anyone's welfare. And could in fact cause those who make policy dig in their heels, and actually slow progress towards a better policy.  That's my worry, anyway.

Edited June 19, 2018 by Stargazer

[Walden]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

I gather than you think anyone who argues well and with whom you disagree is a propagandist?

Do you listen to Michael Medved at all?

On the odd occasion I have read it, I have enjoyed it, too.  I think I may actually buy a subscription now that I am retired and have some time on my hands.

And having said this, I just realized that I have spent waaaaay too many hours on this board today, and have gotten absolutely nothing useful done.  Except for annoying people who disagree with me!  I'll probably wake up tomorrow morning with twenty notifications on my little bell up there.  

Sigh.  I'm my own worst enemy sometimes...

I don't consider Ben Shapiro a propagandist because he argues well, I admire his skills in that arena. Nor do I consider him a propagandist based solely on his political views, as there are many on the left whom I also consider propagandists. IMO, I consider Shapiro a propagandist because he creates a false narrative of the left being built on a hierarchy of "victimhood" and then goes on to rant loudly, and profitably, against this false narrative that he has constructed. It is not unlike the leftists propagandists who falsely construct a viewpoint of the extreme right as a hierarchy of the privileged, another false narrative.

And yes, I regularly listen to Michael Medved, whom I can respect, as well as Mark Levin, whom I consider a bombastic flamethrower, as well as Larry Elder, who often seems in over his head and has neither the gift of argument possessed by Shapiro or the sensibility of Medved.

Just don't report me to the ACLU, they may revoke my membership for listening to these conservative conspirators.

[Danzo]

 

5 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Upon arrest, absolutely, if a minor child is present at the time of arrest. 

For a DUI, the car gets towed, the child placed with relatives or in protective custody until DFS can be notified, and the driver gets processed at the jail.  If no judge is available at the time of processing, the driver stays at least overnight.  It can be a real mess if no suitable relative is reasonably available.

How long does this separation normally last?

[USU78]

17 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I don't really think it is.  Although it rarely comes to actually killing people, it is quite common for laws (Man's,  or God's) to be in conflict with each other.

I believe it is one of the tests of mortality to be able to discern the higher law.

Think of the story of Adam and Even in the Garden. (Especially as told in the temple). 

I'm afraid we'll have to disagree here, my friend:  ignoring another nation's/people's sovereignty ain't right.  And this is not a people-defining Abrahamic test of that people's representative.

At best it's a "I'm sorry my boat smashed your private dock during the storm" situation, "please don't make me pay for its replacement."

[Stargazer]

4 minutes ago, Walden said:

I don't consider Ben Shapiro a propagandist because he argues well, I admire his skills in that arena. Nor do I consider him a propagandist based solely on his political views, as there are many on the left whom I also consider propagandists. IMO, I consider Shapiro a propagandist because he creates a false narrative of the left being built on a hierarchy of "victimhood" and then goes on to rant loudly, and profitably, against this false narrative that he has constructed. It is not unlike the leftists propagandists who falsely construct a viewpoint of the extreme right as a hierarchy of the privileged, another false narrative.

And yes, I regularly listen to Michael Medved, whom I can respect, as well as Mark Levin, whom I consider a bombastic flamethrower, as well as Larry Elder, who often seems in over his head and has neither the gift of argument possessed by Shapiro or the sensibility of Medved.

Just don't report me to the ACLU, they may revoke my membership for listening to these conservative conspirators.

Don't worry, your secret is safe with me!! 

 

[USU78]

Just now, Danzo said:

How long does this separation normally last?

Depends:  for domestic, not international law and policy, situations, misdemeanor courts usually will get somebody processed through in no less than a week if the misdemeanant cannot post bail.

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

Not everyone. Not even close. If they want to immigrate let them do it legally and their kids will not be taken.

This seems like an approach that lacks mercy.  That is the one reason that I can't get behind it.

[Danzo]

2 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I'm afraid we'll have to disagree here, my friend:  ignoring another nation's/people's sovereignty ain't right.  And this is not a people-defining Abrahamic test of that people's representative.

At best it's a "I'm sorry my boat smashed your private dock during the storm" situation, "please don't make me pay for its replacement."

You are unaware of laws that are in conflict with each other?

What field of law do you practice in?

Where I practice you have to daily look at the decisions to see the conflicts in the laws being resolved.

[Danzo]

2 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Depends:  for domestic, not international law and policy, situations, misdemeanor courts usually will get somebody processed through in no less than a week if the misdemeanant cannot post bail.

So you think it would be reasonable to reunite the children within a week on a charge (Not a conviction) of a class B misdemeanor that doesn't involve endangerment of a child?

[Gray]

23 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I am sorry, I have been involved in immigration issues since before trump was a republican. These things have been going on for quite some time. The laws were Evil before trump as well.

They are a little more public now then they were (and for that I am grateful) but this isn't anything new. 

It is new. What you're saying is that things were bad before. Granted. Now they're worse.

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Can you explain it to us?

You are aware that the Government does not grant Visas to people from mexico who have relatives here?

You are aware that the only way for someone in Mexico to legally visit people in the united states is to become a permanent resident

You are aware that Many people become permanent residents here so they can move back to Mexico?

You are aware that the current waiting period for coming here legally is greater than 20 years?

You are aware that the currently law destroys your application when you get married (Which is why a competent Immigration Attorney will recommend against people becoming legally married)?

 

You are in favor of such a system?

 

The whole system seems to be broken.

[Gray]

16 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

If they were seeking asylum, they would present themselves at an official entry point or at an embassy. The people you're all talking about snuck across the border. They are criminals.

Some are doing it the right way, and still being separated from the their children.

Illegal immigration is a misdemeanor. That crime does not justify the Trump administration traumatizing children for life. It's inhuman and immoral.

 

Edited June 19, 2018 by Gray

[Danzo]

Just now, Gray said:

It is new. What you're saying is that things were bad before. Granted. Now they're worse.

It's not really new. It's probably new to you, since you just found out about it, but it is not new to us who work with immigrants.

Whether its worse or not, is probably a judgement call. 

[Gray]

Just now, Danzo said:

It's not really new. It's probably new to you, since you just found out about it, but it is not new to us who work with immigrants.

Whether its worse or not, is probably a judgement call. 

If it was already going on there would have been no need for the Trump administration to formulate its new policy mandating it.