The Church and Immigration Policy

[Bob Crockett]

Unfortunately your facts are incorrect. No ethnic minority is being marginalized. Indeed Latinos who are legally in the US have all the rights and privledges that come with citizenship. Those illegally in the country, just as in any other country would do, are being prosecuted for what was done illegally. To presume otherwise and to conflate legal and illegal immigration is, on the face of it, a dishonest tactic.

Yet another example of the argument that they are wrong because they are illegal..

Nobody disputes the fact that millions of Latinos are here illegal and undocumented. The more serious policy question is whether such an immigration policy is acceptable -- to pour immense resources into chasing the undocumented, rousting them from their low paying jobs (leading to higher prices), and building a billion dollar plus fence.

Professor Nunez speaks to some of this argument. She gets beyond the simplistic argument -- well, you're wrong because you're illegal -- and gets into whether the undocumented should be denied basic rights in the employment sphere.

I also raise the question in the opening post about the Church's practice of calling as bishops and bishopric members those who are illegal (I know for certain; in my own stake I see this and my son served a mission along the Mexican border, where he baptized an illegal who was a college professor who quickly went on to serve in bishoprics). Doesn't this seem to indicate that in terms of basic Christianity, what passes in the secular sphere as illegal here doesn't matter to the priesthood? And if it doesn't matter to them, are we on the right side of the question by demanding that undocumented aliens' heads be paraded around on a pike?

[ERayR]

Yet another example of the argument that they are wrong because they are illegal..

Nobody disputes the fact that millions of Latinos are here illegal and undocumented. The more serious policy question is whether such an immigration policy is acceptable -- to pour immense resources into chasing the undocumented, rousting them from their low paying jobs (leading to higher prices), and building a billion dollar plus fence.

Professor Nunez speaks to some of this argument. She gets beyond the simplistic argument -- well, you're wrong because you're illegal -- and gets into whether the undocumented should be denied basic rights in the employment sphere.

I also raise the question in the opening post about the Church's practice of calling as bishops and bishopric members those who are illegal (I know for certain; in my own stake I see this and my son served a mission along the Mexican border, where he baptized an illegal who was a college professor who quickly went on to serve in bishoprics). Doesn't this seem to indicate that in terms of basic Christianity, what passes in the secular sphere as illegal here doesn't matter to the priesthood? And if it doesn't matter to them, are we on the right side of the question by demanding that undocumented aliens' heads be paraded around on a pike?

For those of you who are insulted that illegal imigrants are not denied church blessings as long as they are in this country are you also insulted that the Catholic Church extends it's sacraments to illegal imigrants? Are you insulted the our Protestant brothers and sisters extend their sacraments and fellowship to illegal imigrants?

Just wondering.

[LT123]

A core concern with this whole issue is the rancor surrounding it.

What's happening in Arizona's epicenter is very reminiscent of what happened in Europe several generations back - where lawmakers decided to legally marginalize a minority linguistic group.

The result was escalating rancor between two parties (who had been peaceful, cordial neighbors for generations.)

That rancor quickly devolved into war.

It would be nice to learn a thing or two from the past...rather than increase the risk of repeating it.

What historical example are you thinking of specifically? IMO, what has happened here is both ruling elites have decided that a fundamental re-making of the social order and community ties that regulate day to day life would benefit their political fortunes, thus they have favored a massive migration of a distinct cultural and people. Truth is, americans have been uniquely accomodating, and have reacted either by appealing to their rulers to address the problems, which neither side has done in the past, or voting with their feet. There is an, understandably, frustrated citizenry, and reminders of civility are important. I would suggest, though, that the historical record supports the claim that americans are a kind group. In the past, such a massive shift in demographics would have been met with violence from the inception.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I my experience, most definitely yes.

Yeah..... and just what is your experiance? It cannot be reasonably called racism. Sorry.

[staccato]

Yet another example of the argument that they are wrong because they are illegal..

Nobody disputes the fact that millions of Latinos are here illegal and undocumented. The more serious policy question is whether such an immigration policy is acceptable -- to pour immense resources into chasing the undocumented, rousting them from their low paying jobs (leading to higher prices), and building a billion dollar plus fence.

Professor Nunez speaks to some of this argument. She gets beyond the simplistic argument -- well, you're wrong because you're illegal -- and gets into whether the undocumented should be denied basic rights in the employment sphere.

I also raise the question in the opening post about the Church's practice of calling as bishops and bishopric members those who are illegal (I know for certain; in my own stake I see this and my son served a mission along the Mexican border, where he baptized an illegal who was a college professor who quickly went on to serve in bishoprics). Doesn't this seem to indicate that in terms of basic Christianity, what passes in the secular sphere as illegal here doesn't matter to the priesthood? And if it doesn't matter to them, are we on the right side of the question by demanding that undocumented aliens' heads be paraded around on a pike?

Regarding illegal immigration and employment:

The illegal immigrant population of the United States in 2008 was estimated by the Center for Immigration Studies to be about 11 million people, down from 12.5 million people in 2007.[2] According to a Pew Hispanic Center report, in 2005, 57% of illegal immigrants were from Mexico; 24% were from other Latin American countries, primarily from Central America;[3] 9% were from Asia; 6% were from Europe; and 4% were from the rest of the world.[3] (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States)

In April, the number of unemployed persons was 15.3 million, and the unemployment rate edged up to 9.9 percent. The rate had been 9.7 percent for the first 3 months of this year.

The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over) continued to trend up over the month, reaching 6.7 million. In April, 45.9 percent of unemployed persons had been jobless for 27 weeks or more. (See table A-12.) (Source: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf )

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 12 May 2010 - 09:42 PM, said:

Unfortunately your facts are incorrect. No ethnic minority is being marginalized. Indeed Latinos who are legally in the US have all the rights and privledges that come with citizenship. Those illegally in the country, just as in any other country would do, are being prosecuted for what was done illegally. To presume otherwise and to conflate legal and illegal immigration is, on the face of it, a dishonest tactic.

Yet another example of the argument that they are wrong because they are illegal..

Nobody disputes the fact that millions of Latinos are here illegal and undocumented. The more serious policy question is whether such an immigration policy is acceptable -- to pour immense resources into chasing the undocumented, rousting them from their low paying jobs (leading to higher prices), and building a billion dollar plus fence.

Professor Nunez speaks to some of this argument. She gets beyond the simplistic argument -- well, you're wrong because you're illegal -- and gets into whether the undocumented should be denied basic rights in the employment sphere.

I also raise the question in the opening post about the Church's practice of calling as bishops and bishopric members those who are illegal (I know for certain; in my own stake I see this and my son served a mission along the Mexican border, where he baptized an illegal who was a college professor who quickly went on to serve in bishoprics). Doesn't this seem to indicate that in terms of basic Christianity, what passes in the secular sphere as illegal here doesn't matter to the priesthood? And if it doesn't matter to them, are we on the right side of the question by demanding that undocumented aliens' heads be paraded around on a pike?

Is there a country in the world that allows people to enter illegally? No, not one. It is illegal everywhere for anyone to enter illegally, thus you are wrong to enter a country illegally. Her argument is actually the simplistic one, wish away a law voted on in a democracy regarding the immigration of foriegners and then you can make anything happen. Very simplistic and it does not even approach the issue. One does not "wish away" laws that one disagrees with. In fact, immense resources have not been poured into the question of finding undocumented workers, indeed the opposite is true, we are paying for years of neglect not years of pouring in immense resources. That characterization is also false.

These are false arguments that compound the problem by ignoring what exists legally and otherwise instead of understanding the problem.

My original post was in regard to the camoflaged references made to 1930's Germany.

core concern with this whole issue is the rancor surrounding it.

What's happening in Arizona's epicenter is very reminiscent of what happened in Europe several generations back - where lawmakers decided to legally marginalize a minority linguistic group.

The result was escalating rancor between two parties (who had been peaceful, cordial neighbors for generations.)

That rancor quickly devolved into war.

It would be nice to learn a thing or two from the past...rather than increase the risk of repeating it.

You forget that they were citizens with full rights as citizens. And it crossed racial lines as well, because it included anyone who was a political enemy. Completely and utterly different.

I am for finding a way to keep those who are not legally here, the opportunity to remain. But you cannot fix a problem with such specious arguments that do nothing to solve the problem. Indeed those arguments themselves become part of the problem.

The church's stance is one of mercy that exists regardless of what Ceaser seeks to render. And I agree with this.

[USU78]

In fact, immense resources have not been poured into the question of finding undocumented workers, indeed the opposite is true, we are paying for years of neglect not years of pouring in immense resources. That characterization is also false.

A whole lot of money and manpower has been spent . . . but not by government. That burden falls on landlords and employers who are not scofflaws.

The church's stance is one of mercy that exists regardless of what Ceaser* seeks to render. And I agree with this.

On this I also agree.

*Hated the guy: loved his salads.

[frankenstein]

I attended a Fair Housing seminar the other day and the Instructor from Southwest Fair Housing Council stated that it is not a violation of FHA for landlords to discriminate based on legal status, so long as the landlord checks the legal status of everyone who seeks to rent.

[WalkerW]

WalkerW:

I and my darker friend are walking down the street in Sheriff Arpaio's district. Who do you think is going to be stopped and questioned?

Neither, unless one of you is doing something wrong.

[USU78]

I attended a Fair Housing seminar the other day and the Instructor from Southwest Fair Housing Council stated that it is not a violation of FHA for landlords to discriminate based on legal status, so long as the landlord checks the legal status of everyone who seeks to rent.

Makes sense, if you have the wherewithal to pay for the access.

Still doesn't solve the Ma & Pa landlord's problem.

[LeSellers]

Makes sense, if you have the wherewithal to pay for the access.

Still doesn't solve the Ma & Pa landlord's problem.

If one charges an application fee (because it does cost to determine the applicant's status), then one can make the determination. Since it is in the applicant's interest to prove his status, and since he will have to bear the cost of the search, then this is just another instance of the law's unintended consequences: it will cost the tenant to get something that had been free (or at least did not cost him anything, directly).

Were it the case that a landlord could exercise his right to associate freely with those he chooses, i.e., he can rent to whomsoever he chooses, based on any criteria he chooses, this would not become an additional cost for the prospective tenant.

Lehi

[hagoth7]

What historical example are you thinking of specifically?

I'm thinking of Denmark's 19th-century attempt to force German-speaking subjects in its southern border states to embrace Danish culture.

In that growing uber-nationalism, the Danish gov't fired German pastors/teachers and replaced them with those fluent in Danish, etc.

Similar legislation followed. Rancor grew.

And it escalated somewhat rapidly from there.

I would suggest, though, that the historical record supports the claim that americans are a kind group.

The truth or error of such a generalization hinges a great deal upon the context.

In many contexts, what you say is quite true.

In others, it is not.

In the past, such a massive shift in demographics would have been met with violence from the inception.

? Such shifts take generations. And have happened time and time again. Also, historically, the violence you allude to usually came/escalated at the end of the influx...not at the inception. The first generation or two was generally peaceful - because it was a gradual influx.

To add to the Danish example, what we're seeing in America bears considerable parallels to the Roman Empire's struggle to deal with Germanic immigration. The way Rome callously treated that immigrant wave played a pivotal role in the Empire's final decades.

Even England had a similar influx centuries ago - where the natives dealt with the newcomers unkindly/unjustly. And that outcome mirrored what happened in Rome.

If people don't think Danish, Roman, and English parallels merit consideration in this context...if they think America is immune to the lessons of history...I don't know what else to say.

Other than...**please** be kind.

[Jeff K.]

? Such shifts take generations. And have happened time and time again. Also, historically, the violence you allude to usually came/escalated at the end of the influx...not at the inception. The first generation or two was generally peaceful - because it was a gradual influx.

To add to the Danish example, what we're seeing in America bears considerable parallels to the Roman Empire's struggle to deal with Germanic immigration. The way Rome callously treated that immigrant wave played a pivotal role in the Empire's final decades.

Even England had a similar influx centuries ago - where the natives dealt with the newcomers unkindly/unjustly. And that outcome mirrored what happened in Rome.

If people don't think Danish, Roman, and English parallels merit consideration in this context...if they think America is immune to the lessons of history...I don't know what else to say.

Other than...**please** be kind.

The parralells are ephemeral at best. Consider the Romans did not offer citizenship to those they allowed within their borders as the US does. Consider also that the those who enter the US legally are not treated shabbily but are guarranteed all the rights that those who have been in the US for generations have. Indeed many come here and start businesses, one of the most interesting aspects is the number of Mexican immigrants who came legally that have started businesses and developed considerable influence in both the US and Mexico.

With this we see little to no resemblence with Rome.

The straw man here is of course the claim that if one disagrees then obviously the person believes America is "immune" to the lessons of history. Not only is the man "staw" but it is arrogant straw. The fact is that the US has indeed learned from history, its constitution is not a reflection of Rome's "12 tablets". Its constitution is something considerably more open to immigrant asperations. No ethnic group is favored by the constitution, and the rule of law allows for democratic changes in immigration law. America has learned and in effect is much more open than Europe is with the immigration issue, and also, deals with a great deal more because unlike Europe, the US shares an extensive border with a third world country.

[hagoth7]

The parralells are ephemeral at best....

Interpret it as you deem appropriate.

Either way, it can't be said I didn't try to explain.

The straw man here is of course the claim that if one disagrees then obviously the person believes America is "immune" to the lessons of history. Not only is the man "staw" but it is arrogant straw.

Is there some reason for the preference to publicly assume I'm being dishonest, unfair, and/or arrogant?

Our views don't match often enough. So be it.

But please be kind enough to move beyond ad hominems.

Either current issues will have lasting consequences, considerable ripple effects, or they won't.

Either way, I suggest it's wiser to err on the side of kindness - as a matter of principle.

[Jeff K.]

if they think America is immune to the lessons of history...I don't know what else to say.

Arrogant? Yep. To presume that if one does not agree with you there is only one alternative.... Oh yes, very arrogant.

But please be kind enough to move beyond ad hominems.

I did not move beyond ad homeniems?

The parralells are ephemeral at best. Consider the Romans did not offer citizenship to those they allowed within their borders as the US does. Consider also that the those who enter the US legally are not treated shabbily but are guarranteed all the rights that those who have been in the US for generations have. Indeed many come here and start businesses, one of the most interesting aspects is the number of Mexican immigrants who came legally that have started businesses and developed considerable influence in both the US and Mexico.

You shouldn't skip large sections of the post.

In fact I pretty much blew your straw man assumption towards a difference of opinion into the wind while simultaneously showing how shallow the comparison to Rome is. Parlence in the Preakness would call that a daily double.

Interpret it as you deem appropriate.

Either way, it can't be said I didn't try to explain.

Mine was a historical and factual rebuttal showing exactly why they were different. Yours was an interpretation of a rather shallow historical point of view with a glance at German immigration into the Roman empire and comparing to Mexican immigration into the United States. While the movement of people was something they had in common, almost nothing else is. You can bake clay, and you can bake bread, but I challenge you to say they are the same.

In case you missed the specifics I raised (versus your one liner).

The fact is that the US has indeed learned from history, its constitution is not a reflection of Rome's "12 tablets". Its constitution is something considerably more open to immigrant asperations. No ethnic group is favored by the constitution, and the rule of law allows for democratic changes in immigration law. America has learned and in effect is much more open than Europe is with the immigration issue, and also, deals with a great deal more because unlike Europe, the US shares an extensive border with a third world country.

Now here is an interesting question. How does the church in Mexico deal with the issues? For instance, those who have the most ambition, the greatest desire to "move" forward and improve their situation, such people are needed in wards, but how does the organization deal with it in Mexico. Any indications?

[LT123]

...

? Such shifts take generations. And have happened time and time again. Also, historically, the violence you allude to usually came/escalated at the end of the influx...not at the inception. The first generation or two was generally peaceful - because it was a gradual influx.

To add to the Danish example, what we're seeing in America bears considerable parallels to the Roman Empire's struggle to deal with Germanic immigration. The way Rome callously treated that immigrant wave played a pivotal role in the Empire's final decades.

Even England had a similar influx centuries ago - where the natives dealt with the newcomers unkindly/unjustly. And that outcome mirrored what happened in Rome.

If people don't think Danish, Roman, and English parallels merit consideration in this context...if they think America is immune to the lessons of history...I don't know what else to say.

Other than...**please** be kind.

Excellent examples (Thanks for the historical correction!). So, we see a pattern, a foreign culture and people immigrate, build up in size till they become a large minority, then they are demonized and mistreated. I'd say this is a definite possibility. Hopefully not, and people need to be reminded. My guess is people will do what they have been doing, move to different locations.

Maybe we are missing the most important lesson from the referenced history, and what we are currently witnessing. People need a common cultural inheritance to order their lives. A massive influx of a different culture eventually alters it, people feel dislocated, they demonize the other and treat them inhumanely. That's why I find myself leaning against any immigration. It's unwise to blithely change the culture of the citzenry, and in the long run it is uncompassionate to the immigrants if the pattern holds true. The whole approach was crazy from the beginning.

[Droopy]

That's a terrible response.

And the Nunez essay is a terrible essay, and wholly logically irrelevant to the question of the rule of law and whether we as a people are going to respect our own. The morally and legally neutral pc weasel word "undocumented" to mean "illegal" is indicative of just how intellectually shoddy the open borders argument really is.

Nor is the essay relevant to the larger and more salient questions posed by the unsustainable levels of immigration, both legal and illegal, our political class has dedicated itself to. As I've already pointed out in another thread, the entire open borders mentality has a political and ideological foundation that has nothing to do with compassion and everything to do with the cynical seeking of power through the dilution of the American electorate by masses of unassimilated and balkenized aliens with dual loyalties, little or no grasp of the language, low skills and low educational levels, and a sense of permanent and irreconcilable ethnic grievance against the mainstream common culture.

Nunez' claim that illegals are key to the American economy is a shibboleth that has been long exploded by empirical facts. Illegal aliens, on average, use three times the social services (including the public schools and medical services that are never compensated) than they pay in taxes (if they emerge from the shadows to pay them). This is an intellectual dog and pony show who's only intention is to keep what certain interests see as the vast swelling of the ranks of a certain political party to such a degree that never again, at least in our lifetimes, will anything resembling a constitutionalist governing coalition in the national government (called "conservative" or "libertarian") have any change of winning elections or returning the country to a constitutional, classical liberal basis.

The real agenda of the open borders movement (so beloved by people like George Soros) is not hard to discern and extract from the sickly sweet rhetoric of multiculturalist "compassion" and "fairness".

[Droopy]

But I observe another prevailing element in LDS attitudes- the xenophobia that mistrusts people with different ethnic, linguistic, or cultural heritages. This attitude tends to long for a preservation of and/or return to a homogeneous population comprised of conservative, native-English-speaking caucasians who are firm in the faith and hold "true" American values.

I think this is, respectfully, patent nonsense, without any empirical or documentary support, and that no such attitudes actually exist, except perhaps among a vanishing tiny subgroup of Americans, LDS or not (indeed, the vast majority of ethnic chauvinism (as well as interesting political attitudes) appears to exist primarily among many of the illegal Mexican's themselves, as the recent demonstrations, riots and signage on display in Los Angles make clear):

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1625225/posts

The immigration problem is about respect for the rule of law, the control of our borders (without which no nation in history has been able to remain viable), and the dilution of the common American political culture and "civil religion" (hat tip to Jefferson) with indigestible alien cultural, political and attitudinal features that have no place here and will, if allowed to grow to large enough proportions, alter the American cultural and political landscape in unpleasant ways (but ways highly desirable to powerful political interests who see this as a means to an end).

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

But I observe another prevailing element in LDS attitudes- the xenophobia that mistrusts people with different ethnic, linguistic, or cultural heritages. This attitude tends to long for a preservation of and/or return to a homogeneous population comprised of conservative, native-English-speaking caucasians who are firm in the faith and hold "true" American values.

I think this is, respectfully, patent nonsense, without any empirical or documentary support, and that no such attitudes actually exist, except perhaps among a vanishing tiny subgroup of Americans, LDS or not (indeed, the vast majority of ethnic chauvinism (as well as interesting political attitudes) appears to exist primarily among many of the illegal Mexican's themselves, as the recent demonstrations, riots and signage on display in Los Angles make clear):

I agree. I want to comment on the person that you quoted. It is total nonsense. It is a laughable assertion that "But I observe another prevailing element in LDS attitudes- the xenophobia that mistrusts people with different ethnic". I call BS as many many missionaries serve in "ethnic" places. It is just pure BS of a commnet. Now ofcourse there are always exceptions and bad apples in every group but as a whole, I have not seen this supposed mis-trust of ethnic people.

[Droopy]

But, more importantly, what do we do with the people that are already here? Deny them from our wards and branches? Deny them priesthood leadership? Grant them amnesty like Reagan did; like Bush and Clinton proposed? Should we deny them essential civil rights? Deny them essential economic opportunity? Access to medical care? Jobs?

This appears to be nothing more than the standard leftist wailing for the unrestrained plundering by the mailed fist of the state of the fruits of the labor of productive citizens to be distributed to yet another politically reliable identity group, with the one difference that this identity group pandering and moral brow beating has now been extended to foreign nationals who are not even legitimate members of the body politic of the nation in question and have no legal right, ether to be here at all, or to access the social services and legal/political rights available to legitimate citizens.

The overwhelming number of illegal and legal immigrants we have been taking in for years are unskilled, uneducated third world peoples (or, in other words, perfect Democratic party stalwarts for life) who's major effect is to lower wages in entry level and unskilled work for legal immigrants and their children (as well as indigenous Americans), burden hospital systems, school systems and social services to the point of collapse, encourage the further growth and expansion of the welfare state, and increase crime dramatically in acutely affected areas (six out of ten drunk driving deaths in North Carolina are now illegal immigrant related, as is a substantial increase in gang and drug activity).

America is a melting pot, and can only continue to function as a civil, ordered society on that basis. It is not a tossed salad, and no society that has ever found itself dealing with a truly multi-cultural model has ever ended in anything but disaster.

Multiethnic societies have never been a problem. All societies that have ever attempted to blend various cultures within a hodgepodge of barrios, quarters, and enclaves, or who have ever indulged in any version of what we call "affirmative action", have come to serious grief, in every respect.

[Droopy]

I agree. I want to comment on the person that you quoted. It is total nonsense. It is a laughable assertion that "But I observe another prevailing element in LDS attitudes- the xenophobia that mistrusts people with different ethnic". I call BS as many many missionaries serve in "ethnic" places. It is just pure BS of a commnet. Now ofcourse there are always exceptions and bad apples in every group but as a whole, I have not seen this supposed mis-trust of ethnic people.

Mola, this claim is a standard, formatted assertion that has emanated from the American cultural Left regarding civil rights issues and related concerns such as immigration for decades. Its an axiomatic shibboleth, not a claim grounded in any factual or evidential reality.

The idea that, just below the surface within any American who has had his fill of the violent crime, drug running, coyotes, trespassing, home invasions, wage deflation, critical overloading of taxpayer funded social services, and cultural balkanizaion among large numbers of immigrants who will not learn English, hold dual loyalties or have a primary loyalty to their mother country, express racist or chauvinistic attitudes (such as the large, colorful flag in the window of a Mexican restaurant just a ways from me in Pageland, SC emblazoned with "Viva La Raza"), or the arguments I've been in with immigrants in California who claim that California is really Mexican territory to which modern Mexicans still have some kind of claim, and remove lower unskilled Americans for consideration from many unskilled occupations (just try to find an indigenous Caucasian, black or Asian teenager cutting grass or swinging a weedeater here in SC) lies a jingoistic, incipient Klansman is a cynical and intellectually shoddy diversion from the substance of the real issues.

Dog, meet pony.

[LT123]

All excellent points, Droopy.

[Droopy]

All excellent points, Droopy.

Thank you, and you may notice that I've changed my description from "Threadlocker X" back to "Hello all you happy people" as per my icon's distinguished defining greeting.

I'm trying to be as diplomatic as possible within the boundaries of a position upon the issue of immigration that, not to put too fine a point on it, grates (as do most issues and sub-issues moving within the orbit of "civil rights", as the catchphrase has it).

[Jeff K.]

Maybe we are missing the most important lesson from the referenced history, and what we are currently witnessing. People need a common cultural inheritance to order their lives. A massive influx of a different culture eventually alters it, people feel dislocated, they demonize the other and treat them inhumanely. That's why I find myself leaning against any immigration. It's unwise to blithely change the culture of the citzenry, and in the long run it is uncompassionate to the immigrants if the pattern holds true. The whole approach was crazy from the beginning.

Babble. If you wish to seek the Balkanization of an area, have everyone claim their common cultural inheritance is of primary importance. So you end up with a Balkan type system of small nation states and ethnic cleansing.

Otherwise you cannot help but have a struggle between distinct ethnic groups who attempt to hold on to their comfortable traditions rather than adjust. In effect calling all those outside your own ethnic group, "unkindly" for not accepting your peculiar background as the paramount culture to be emulated.

Cultures constantly interact and seek dominance, it is the nature of cultures to do so. Mexican culture over Yaqui culture, Spanish culture over Aztec culture. European over African. In the interaction and struggle the dominant group changes and adjusts to those precedents that work best with their cultures. Other traditions are tossed on the wayside.

Excellent examples (Thanks for the historical correction!). So, we see a pattern, a foreign culture and people immigrate, build up in size till they become a large minority, then they are demonized and mistreated. I'd say this is a definite possibility. Hopefully not, and people need to be reminded. My guess is people will do what they have been doing, move to different locations.

To take the European model and claim to see a pattern is "cough cough" akin to thinking Asterix and Oblix are an accurate representation of the Gaul. But then, that is merely a quibble regarding the size of the sampling, but as such it leads to all kinds of erroneous interpretations.

What I find interesting is the presumption of demonization is that of the culture living in the country to where the people immigrate. Considering the experience of Europe and Africa, is there justification for calling Europeans "white devils", or for Europeans taking on the "white man's burden" aka Rudyard Kiplings view. The demonization exists substantially on both sides and in many cases demonization of the otherside is stronger in the less or non dominant culture coming into a less familiar land. Oh but lets not look at those "patterns".

What we see in essence is the one sided contemplation of the navel seeking to "demonize" one side of the argument in hopes of making their side of the argument look stronger. Or do some of not recognize the beam, er pattern in our own eyes?

In fact it makes it more difficult to resolve immigration issues when people claim the demonization exists on one side while ignoring it occuring within thier own camp. If you knew much about history, you would tend to see that. But if you don't, well demonize away.

The question, or pattern to be studied, if you will, that should be answered is really tied to the church and after giving it some thought, there are two points that really should be addressed.

1-What is the church doing world wide in regard to the movement or immigration of talents from one nation to another. Is it encouraging or discouraging, or is it taking a distinct path (I have my views I may share later).

2-How does a trans national church handle the interaction between cultures under its own umbrella without alienating a people? What could governments learn from church leadership? What could Caeser learn from Christ when seeking to have obeisance rendered unto him?

[Droopy]

Babble. If you wish to seek the Balkanization of an area, have everyone claim their common cultural inheritance is of primary importance. So you end up with a Balkan type system of small nation states and ethnic cleansing.

I'm not sure you understood the argument you are tearing apart here. There is a common culture in the United States that revolves around the values, political structure, economic system, language and general socio-cultural attributes of the concept "America" that will be diluted and corrupted by too great and to fast an influx of immigrants who do not have time to assimilate into the America common cultural milieu (including the transfer of their primary loyalty from their mother country, in time of peace or war, to their adopted country, and some degree of expertise in the language, history and intellectual patrimony of the American nation).

Even worse are those illegals who have no desire or intent of assimilation but who yet wish to remain here indefinitely at the expense of both legal immigrants and indigenous Americans.

I've been in a number of debates in this forum before on this issue, and in every single case, the Church's clear teachings on obeying and sustaining the law are, at the end of the day, by those who support ulimited immigration, waved and thrown under the bus in the case of illegals, while much more general concepts of Christian charity, compassion and love are played off against the rule of law as if an ordered, lawful social structure were a mere societal decoration that can be discarded in the name of abstract general principles at any time one wishes to beat his breast publicly over an issue for which he feels he is on the right side.