notHagoth7 Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Ahab said: Well, yeah, that is over the top. The feds should not be treating that woman so roughly and they should be waiting until after she gets the emergency medical attention she needs, unless maybe they can transfer her to a hospital in her own country for that surgery without causing more problems. She still does not have a legal right to be in our country illegally but they should not be exacerbatin her urgent medical problems in the process of her deportation. My point is simply that illegal immigrants have no legal right to be in our country illegally. Which means they have no legal right to build a life here as if they were already legal residents. They skipped a step on their efforts to come live in this country legally, thinking they should be entitled to live here as if they were already and automatically legal residents. They side-stepped the legal process. The acted as if our legal requirements were not necessary. As if they were above the law and we should also act as if our laws do not matter. As you stand on your soap box please show that the rule of law does matter to you and that it is important that people come into our country legally, rather than it being okay for people to act as the rule of law is not really important. It is not a soap box. It is a mercy seat. Or a final plea for one. Your personal faith/gospel departs dramatically from the gospel I love. I pray you have a change of heart, before it is too late. Few realize how strong a hold Gadianton has on their own perceptions/hearts/lands. As to the thread, my forefathers packed up and departed the U.S. three generations ago when national indifference/injustice reached a high-water mark. I packed up long ago. While holding out hope for change. Within 3 calendar days (by Sunday night), I will be making my decision as to where I next call home. Edited February 23, 2017 by notHagoth7
The Nehor Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 52 minutes ago, provoman said: CFR that Brigham Young "illegally" entered another nation. CFR that Brigham Young did not have permission to enter the lands along the Mormon Trail. Brigham Young entered Mexico without Mexico's permission. This is not a controversial statement. 1 hour ago, rodheadlee said: Presentism . If I go to Mexico in my sailboat and do not check in and follow the law regarding my entry they will take my boat and throw me in jail. Yeah, but has the morality of such an action changed? 55 minutes ago, rodheadlee said: How do we go about changing the entry system? To streamline it for those who are here so they can go out and come back legally? Guest worker programs with some federal oversight to prevent abuse of workers, expand number of work visas issued by about a factor of ten at least. Pretty surenthe solution does not involve building a boondoggle wall. 2
Storm Rider Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 9 hours ago, The Nehor said: So you think the Mexicans would have been justified in rounding up LDS pioneers and booting them back over the border? You hold President Young as an unsympathetic figure who illegally led a group of refugees across a border into another nation without permission? You believe Pioneer Day is a travesty celebrating a history of lawlessness? Are you consistent about this position? I don't have a problem with any nation, Mexico included, to maintain/protect their borders. I don't have a problem with any nation enforcing their laws. I am very consistent in my position. I don't live in Utah and I don't celebrate Pioneer Day; however, I personally have never viewed Pioneer Day as a celebration about Brigham Young sending Mormons to Mexico and telling them to flout Mexican laws. Do you have a reference for such statements from him - just curious?
notHagoth7 Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 27 minutes ago, Ahab said: ....please show that the rule of law does matter to you and that it is important that people come into our country legally, rather than it being okay for people to act as the rule of law is not really important. The rule of law matters to me. Passionately. We are just in disagreement over which law trumps which. Nephi and Lehi were stirred to act by Jeremiah's teachings. Consider carefully the verses immediately following the ones I linked to..and why Lehi left. And what happened after.
notHagoth7 Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 (edited) ... Edited February 23, 2017 by notHagoth7
Storm Rider Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 8 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said: The problem isn't that people don't want to enter America legally, it is that they cannot enter legally. You can be sure that if it was as easy as handing over your passport for a stamp that there would be ALOT less people doing it the illegal way. Have you ever crossed over into Mexico? Notice how you have to do absolutely nothing as an American to be legal there? Have you ever wondered why Mexicans don't just go to the embassy and get a visa? There's a reason for that. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/why-don’t-they-just-get-line I was in a US Embassy abroad a few years back to renew my passport. There was a queue of 100+ people waiting to be interview for a simple tourist visa. One woman, who was married to an American, was interviewed right there at the reception desk using a microphone system that reverberated through the waiting room. The immigration officer proceeded to ask her a whole number of very personal questions, including when and where she met her husband, when the last time she had sexual relations with him was, and exactly how much money he makes per month and sends to her. The agents do this on purpose, to intimidate and embarrass the people waiting in line, hoping they'll get scared and cut out. If a person cannot enter America legally without losing their dignity, there is a problem. And don't get me started about the Burmese refugees I see almost daily who have been waiting over 10 years to enter America legally. They've gone through a similar vetting process involving interviews and waiting, waiting waiting. These are decent people who have never committed a crime, most of whom go to Church every day. These are people fleeing war. These are hard-working, compassionate, harmless, human beings. For them, there only two options: (1) sit and wait in a refugee camp for America to allow them to enter legally, or (2) cross the border back into Burma, and hopefully not step on a landmine. Since the recent refugee ban they've been told the vetting process will now be MORE difficult because we want to be sure they aren't drug dealers, rapists or terrorists. It is terribly unjust, bordering on immoral. I appreciate the sob story about how difficult US laws are. I can even appreciate your moral indignation about how the US enforces their laws; however, that has nothing to do with individuals choosing to ignore a nation's laws and enter illegally. It is the equivalent of thinking that - "It is too hard to save money to buy a house; therefore, I deserve that house and I will bust in the front door and take over it because for you to have a house and me not is immoral!" I find such a position untenable and the epitome of being immoral. Nations around the world have different immigration laws. Some are much harder than others, but simply because one nation has difficult laws does not equate to an invitation to break those laws. Not a single immigrant is forced to enter any country. Losing your dignity because you want to immigrate? Nice value judgment and good propaganda, but if it is too difficult DON'T GO. Choose another country and be glad that you have a choice. I really dislike arguments built solely on emotional reasons. They are the kinds of thinking that are used to manipulate people rather than have a rational discussion.
provoman Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 13 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Brigham Young entered Mexico without Mexico's permission. This is not a controversial statement. Yeah, but has the morality of such an action changed? If you are going to accuse a Prophet of the Lord of illegal conduct, you need to back up your claims. You claim Brigham Young illegal entered another country; so PROVE your claim. What were the immigration laws of Mexico in 1847? Which laws did Brigham Young violate?
Ahab Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 20 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said: It is not a soap box. It is a mercy seat. Or a final plea for one. Your personal faith/gospel departs dramatically from the gospel I love. I pray you have a change of heart, before it is too late. Few realize how strong a hold Gadianton has on their own perceptions/hearts/lands. As to the thread, my forefathers packed up and departed the U.S. three generations ago when national indifference/injustice reached a high-water mark. I packed up long ago. While holding out hope for change. Within 3 calendar days (by Sunday night), I will be making my decision as to where I next call home. You do realize how much our Lord values the entrance requiremen's to become a citizen of his own kingdom, don't you? There is only one way to enter it and we honor his requirements by coming in through the door rather than try to get in some other way. No baptism, no entrance. And visitors are only visiting without any legal right or claim upon all the blessings that are available to citizens of the kingdom of God. I know some of man's laws on Earth need to be changed, and that some laws of man do not uphold righteousness, but the principle of honoring law and those in positions of authority in earthy governments is something our Lord wants his Church to observe. Otherwise we too could act as illegal aliens do when they try to ignore man's laws as if man's laws do not matter. When in Rome, we are subject to Roman law.
notHagoth7 Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 (edited) 9 minutes ago, provoman said: If you are going to accuse a Prophet of the Lord of illegal conduct, you need to back up your claims. You claim Brigham Young illegal entered another country; so PROVE your claim. What were the immigration laws of Mexico in 1847? Which laws did Brigham Young violate? Nehor isn't accusing a prophet... Meanwhile, this thread is suggesting a number of tragic things about some who profess to be His people. Edited February 23, 2017 by notHagoth7
notHagoth7 Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 1 minute ago, Ahab said: ...When in Rome, we are subject to Roman law. http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/a-walk-in-rome-in-the-days-of-trump
provoman Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 8 hours ago, Calm said: We cannot require people to use the legal route until we make that accessible to the numbers that we need to come in and the numbers we can take in without overloading the system. We cannot expect others to live by the law when we won't. Save money by putting it into streamlining the process and allowing realistic numbers so illegals dwindle to a trickle and are primarily criminal. We want the immigrants to come in to take low paying jobs that most Americans don't want. Legal immigrants at this point aren't going to be attracted by those very much given the investment they have put into getting in and the fact they are not the desparate poor, so that leaves the illegals. We don't want to pay higher prices, so companies go the illegal route to save and then pass the savings on to us, the consumers. You don't want illegals here...make it impossible for them to get jobs by being willing to pay for products and services at the higher costs that hiring legals requires. If we demand that others abide by the rule of law, then we need to as well, top to bottom and back up again. Even if we don't personally hire illegals, you want to treat them as criminal, then start researching how the companies that sell their products to you and put food on the table get their employees. Boycott those who use illegals, push for laws that fine them big time, don't buy their product/service. Rather than having Mexico pay for the wall or whatever ridiculous tactics Trump and his buddies think will work, get the American businesses and private citizens who hire illegals to clean their yards and homes and be nannys to their kids, work in the fields, factories, etc. to pay for a better system through fining them so it makes hiring illegals unprofitable. Start by going through all of Trump's businesses and all of his people's businesses and homes to make sure no one illegal works for him and if any found, fine them big time. And make it retroactive. And then take all that money and set up small temporary communities for illegals to go to for a week while they get amnesty if they can prove they have a job, housing, etc. and longer so they can get minimal training if they don't...one big job fair hooking up those wanting to live by the law with those who want to hire by the law even if it costs a bit more. Tax incentives for business willing to only hire and train legal criticized. Put the money into making a system where being legal works rather than wasting billions on deporting the same people over and over again and making it so much easier for the criminals to blend in and to make big bucks off the smuggling gig. Tighter, but sloopy laws with vague directions on how to implement it, without limits on what will be allowed by law enforcement is only going to make one group happy...the guys doing the smuggling as it will make their services more valuable, not less. Takes a number of years of messy work, but once people start seeing it work, that the process is intelligent, then support grows stronger and people stop trying to get around it unless they are truly criminal. So yes, if you feel you must, insist that only legal immigrants get to come to the country...then make going legal a more desirable and sensible route than going illegal and not by making people afraid of getting caught and causing massive suffering, tearing families apart, abusing children by dumping them back with their families in countries they are strangers in and likely without family resources to catch up...so destined for poverty. Remove the fear of our neighbors by letting them see that legal immigration is made safer, cheaper, and with short term waits. Amnesty is not an answer. How many times in the past 30 years has amnesty been granted. Legal immigration is safe, it is available to all. Legal immigration is a process.
provoman Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 12 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said: Nehor isn't accusing a prophet... Meanwhile, this thread is suggesting a number of tragic things about some who profess to be His people. Are you saying Brigham is not or was not a Prophet of the Lord?
Ahab Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 8 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said: http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/a-walk-in-rome-in-the-days-of-trump Well, yeah, we are headed for something like that, I think, but still we should honor laws of other countries while we are in them, and also honor the laws of the country we live in. We should not be law breakers. It really is just that simple.
notHagoth7 Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 13 minutes ago, provoman said: Are you saying Brigham is not or was not a Prophet of the Lord? ? Why twist my words? And Nehor's? Please stop circling the wagons. Please start opening your arms/mind/heart.
notHagoth7 Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 19 minutes ago, provoman said: ...How many times in the past 30 years has amnesty been granted.... Not quite 70 x 7?
Ahab Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 3 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said: ? Why twist my words? And Nehor's? Please stop circling the wagons. Please start opening your arms/mind/heart. Yeah, I'm half-way to your side of things, I think. I think your main point is that it should be a fairly simple process to enter a country legally. And even to become a legal citizen of that country. My main point is that however one enters it should be by obeying the entrance requirements, whatever those are, and that they should be fair to everyone.
notHagoth7 Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Ahab said: Well, yeah, we are headed for something like that, I think, but still we should honor laws of other countries while we are in them, and also honor the laws of the country we live in. We should not be law breakers. It really is just that simple. What may be a farewell salute: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javert A father was simply trying to feed his own wife and kids. It really is just that simple. Please...please...reconsider. If not, adieu. Edited February 23, 2017 by notHagoth7
provoman Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 16 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said: ? Why twist my words? And Nehor's? Please stop circling the wagons. Please start opening your arms/mind/heart. I am not twisting words.
notHagoth7 Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Ahab said: Yeah, I'm half-way to your side of things, I think. I think your main point is that it should be a fairly simple process to enter a country legally. And even to become a legal citizen of that country. My main point is that a surprising number of people are repeatedly putting a surprisingly greater emphasis upon man's laws engraved upon parchment than they are upon God's/Christ's...which are supposed to be engraved someone much more dear. Man's laws are not always just. It was legislated that Daniel not pray. He prayed anyways. His three companions faced legislation to bow down to an image of that nation. They declined and honored God's law instead. Apostles were commanded to stop preaching, were whipped and imprisoned. They preached anyway. Two kingdoms. One choice. When kingdoms collide, such things sometimes require a choice. And please opt for mercy... 13 minutes ago, Ahab said: My main point is that however one enters it should be by obeying the entrance requirements, whatever those are, and that they should be fair to everyone. Prodigal son. The one son deemed it all quite unfair. Man's sense of fairness does not always match God's. Edited February 23, 2017 by notHagoth7
Ahab Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 7 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said: What may be a farewell salute: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javert A father was simply trying to feed his own wife and kids. It really is just that simple. Please...please...reconsider. If not, adieu. If only we could make our own laws, eh? I'm sure each of us thinks we could enact the best laws, the most just and merciful laws that could be made, but the test is to be obedient to all of the laws of our Father, including his law that we be subject to earthly governments of men in the country/countries we live in. If we only had to satisfy our own desires, regardless of the laws of other men, life would be so much easier, wouldn't it? Or maybe not.
notHagoth7 Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Storm Rider said: I appreciate the sob story...I really dislike arguments built solely on emotional reasons. They are the kinds of thinking that are used to manipulate people rather than have a rational discussion. It's called an appeal to mercy. Emotion has its place in *any* such exchange between human beings. Such appeals *are* designed to influence you. For good. It's not manipulation. It's instead called persuasion. And reasoning. Last I checked...both are important parts of our calling. Edited February 23, 2017 by notHagoth7
provoman Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/selected-church-policies?lang=eng#21.1.16 Emigration of Members Generally, members are encouraged to remain in their native lands to build up and strengthen the Church. Opportunities for Church activity and for receiving and sharing the blessings of the gospel are increasing greatly throughout the world. As members remain in their homelands and work to build the Church there, great blessings will come to them personally and to the Church. Stakes and wards throughout the world will be strengthened, making it possible to share the blessings of the gospel with an even greater number of Heavenly Father’s children. Experience has shown that those who emigrate often encounter language, cultural, and economic challenges, resulting in disappointment and personal and family difficulties. Missionaries should not ask their parents, relatives, or others to sponsor members who wish to emigrate to other countries. Members who emigrate to any country should comply with applicable laws. When coming to the United States or other countries on student or tourist visas, members should not expect to find jobs or obtain permanent visas after entering that country. To be considered for Church employment in any country, a person must meet all conditions of immigration and naturalization laws. The Church does not sponsor immigration through Church employment.
notHagoth7 Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 (edited) 41 minutes ago, Ahab said: If only we could make our own laws, eh? ...our own desires, regardless of the laws of other men, life would be so much easier, wouldn't it? Or maybe not. Actually, I would prefer the laws of women over men any day. They tend to be more kind...and merciful. And therefore more reasonable. As an extension of that, I prefer God's law to man's...any day. Edited February 23, 2017 by notHagoth7
Ahab Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 5 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said: My main point is that a surprising number of people are repeatedly putting a surprisingly greater emphasis upon man's laws engraved upon parchment than they are upon God's/Christ's...which are supposed to be engraved someone much more dear. Man's laws are not always just. It was legislated that Daniel not pray. He prayed anyways. His three companions faced legislation to bow down to an image of that nation. They declined and honored God's law instead. Apostles were commanded to stop preaching, were whipped and imprisoned. They preached anyway. Two kingdoms. One choice. When kingdoms collide, such things sometimes require a choice. And please opt for mercy... Prodigal son. The one son deemed it all quite unfair. Man's sense of fairness does not always match God's. I'll tell you what I won't do. I won't take a job as a fed to enforce federal immigration laws. And I won't report any illegal aliens simply for being here illegally. I don't have to as an average Joe American citizen, and I don't really want to do it. But I still believe that anyone who is here illegally should not be here illegally and that they should follow the legal requirements if they want to stay here, otherwise the feds have a duty to deport illegal aliens. It's not that I don't think our laws are important. It's just that I don't have to enforce them.
mapman Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 I hate the way that immigrants are being treated now, but I actually don't think comparing the current situation to Brigham Young and the first pioneers is really accurate. What is now Utah "belonged" to Mexico, but not really. The area was controlled by the Indian nations there, which Mexico, Americans, and Mormons all understood perfectly well. Mexican control pretty much ended in what is now the northern border region of Mexico where they were still frequently raided and driven out by the Comanche. Americans had been travelling through "Mexican" territory long before the Mormons got there, and even if Mexico cared if they were trespassing there really wasn't anything they could have done anyways. The Mormons only dealt with the Indian nations when they got to Utah, because it was their land, and they were the nations that really controlled the area. If we are looking for a lesson for today, I think we can admire the Indians' willingness to allow the immigrant Mormons to settle among them, and the efforts both sides went to keep the peace between two vastly different peoples (which didn't always work, of course, but was better than pretty much anywhere else in the US).
Recommended Posts