Help Me Come To Agree With The Church On Immigration

[Danzo]

Yes it is. Lip service is saying "You should obey the law, but if you break it, there are no consequences. In fact, we instruct members not to not report violation of law."

That is exactly what the current immigration law says; there are little or no consequences for breaking the law. It is not treated as a crime, enforcement is entirely within the discretion of ICE.

[Danzo]

That seems to be your problem, not mine. The law of the land is not required to be scripture to be the law of the land. Or are we lying when we say that we should obey the law?

Are you saying that all US code supersedes scripture?

[Danzo]

Yet you and your ilk seem to think that actually enforcing law is evil.

Sometimes it is.

[emarkp]

This is exactly what you are doing: making mans law more important than gods law. THe 12th article of faith was never intended to give congress a veto over god.

Are you asserting that immigration law is not something that civil/criminal law should be allowed to address?

[Danzo]

It's pretty clear to me that there indeed is no justification for abrogating immigration law, not one

Have you actually read the law? do you have much experience dealing with it? Are you aware of contradictory law in other US titles

You might want to educate yourself before making such a rash judgement.

[Mark Beesley]

It's pretty clear to me that there indeed is no justification for abrogating immigration law, not one.

Really? So the argument that current immigration law creates an unnecessary hardship on families who wish to immigrate to the U.S. is not a valid justification for abrogation of the law? Do you know what abrogate means?

[Danzo]

This is an example of putting up shrines to dead prophets but persecuting living ones.

[emarkp]

Danzo: Are you asserting that immigration law is not something that civil/criminal law should be allowed to address?

[Mark Beesley]

Danzo: Are you asserting that immigration law is not something that civil/criminal law should be allowed to address?

emarkp: Are you asserting that unjust immigration law is not something that the Church should be allowed to address?

[thesometimesaint]

Are you saying that all US code supersedes scripture?

US law does supersede scripture. Ask Warren Jeffs sometime if you don't believe it.

[emarkp]

So the argument that current immigration law creates an unnecessary hardship on families who wish to immigrate to the U.S. is not a valid justification for abrogation of the law?

Correct. Is there room for adjustment? Certainly. Room for ignoring or eliminating all immigration laws? No.

Do you know what abrogate means?

Last I checked it meant to repeal or eliminate (or more colloquially, de facto elimination by non-enforcement).

[Mark Beesley]

Correct. Is there room for adjustment? Certainly. Room for ignoring or eliminating all immigration laws? No.

So, some room for "adjustment" of some immigration laws, which may mean repealing certain unjust laws, right? Nobody has ever advocated eliminating "all" immigration laws, so that is a straw man argument.

In any event, it appears that you now agree that there is some justification for abrogation, modification, adjustment (or whatever you want to call it) of some immigration laws. That is all the Church is advocating. So, now maybe you can feel good about the Church again.

[Danzo]

Danzo: Are you asserting that immigration law is not something that civil/criminal law should be allowed to address?

Most immigration is civil, not criminal. Most of the people whom you consider "illegal" are only addressed by civil law (bad civil law I may add).

The law should address it, but it should be good law and not bad law. Even the Internal Revenue code treats Immigration law as BS (just for fun look at the different definition of "resident" for tax vs immigration). Bad law should not be equated with scripture. Our current church leaders are aware of just how bad the law is. I was discussing this with an acquaintance who is a high official in the immigration system and he even agrees that the law is stupid.

Just one example of how the current law conflicts with Gods law is how getting married destroys the application for residency in many cases (thus forcing couples to cohabitate to gain residency). Yet you would claim that such a law is sacred and supersedes all counsel from living prophets.

[ERayR]

Danzo: Are you asserting that immigration law is not something that civil/criminal law should be allowed to address?

Civil/criminal law should definitely address immigration law. In the meantime the churches should continue to do what churches do, minister to people, and not be expected to be enforcers.

[ERayR]

US law does supersede scripture. Ask Warren Jeffs sometime if you don't believe it.

Nope it only supercedes some interpretations of scripture.

[Danzo]

US law does supersede scripture. Ask Warren Jeffs sometime if you don't believe it.

So you think that a legislative change would be all that would be needed to absolve Warren Jeffs?

[emarkp]

Most immigration is civil, not criminal.

Yah, but not all. My point in naming "civil/criminal" was to separate man's law from God's law.

Yet you would claim that such a law is sacred and supersedes all counsel from living prophets.

This is a lie. Please stop telling lies about me or what I've said.

[emarkp]

So, some room for "adjustment" of some immigration laws, which may mean repealing certain unjust laws, right? Nobody has ever advocated eliminating "all" immigration laws, so that is a straw man argument.

In any event, it appears that you now agree that there is some justification for abrogation, modification, adjustment (or whatever you want to call it) of some immigration laws. That is all the Church is advocating.

Non-enforcement and non-reporting are in fact what the church is advocating.

So, now maybe you can feel good about the Church again.

Drop the patronizing tone, please.

[Danzo]

Yah, but not all. My point in naming "civil/criminal" was to separate man's law from God's law.

This is a lie. Please stop telling lies about me or what I've said.

So when given a choice on which law to obey, stay single and in compliance, or get married, and live the law of chastity and destroy your application (applications take up to 20 years to complete processing)? what would you advise?

I am proud that I have advised the law of chastity even when it conflicts with the law of the land.

Edited March 21, 2013 by Danzo

[Danzo]

Non-enforcement and non-reporting are in fact what the church is advocating.

Non (or sporadic) enforcement has been the history of the law, nothing changing here.

Reporting is not required by the law (its not even a crime). Do you spend your time measuring peoples speed and reporting them?

Do you spend your time auditing peoples taxes to report them?, Do you even audit your own taxes?

You seem to think that non reporting of infractions is a sin.

[thesometimesaint]

So you think that a legislative change would be all that would be needed to absolve Warren Jeffs?

In US courts? Yes it would. What God thinks about it is irrelevant by US law.

[Danzo]

In US courts? Yes it would. What God thinks about it is irrelevant by US law.

Of course US courts respect US law.

What about Gods law? Which is more important?

[emarkp]

So when given a choice on which law to obey, stay single and in compliance, or get married, and live the law of chastity and destroy your application (applications take up to 20 years to complete processing)? what would you advise?

I'd definitely advise against false dichotomies. Seriously, you've neatly excluded the option of obeying both. We can disagree without your being dishonest.

[Mark Beesley]

Non-enforcement and non-reporting are in fact what the church is advocating.

That is not true. You will not find either of those terms in any official statement by the Church. You are imposing an interpretation that is not supported by the actual statements of the Church. At most, the Church position might be characterized as encouraging selective enforcement based on a careful review of the impacts enforcement will have.

Drop the patronizing tone, please.

You're the one who came here looking to be stroked . . . "Help Me Come To Agree With The Church On Immigration"

[ERayR]

"Help Me Come To Agree With The Church On Immigration"

A man convinced against his will

is unconvinced still