notHagoth7 Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Ahab said: God's law is that we be subject to laws of the land we live in. Only where man's laws don't conflict with His. In the latter case, His will trumps man's. Every time. 20 minutes ago, Ahab said: Try to square all of that in your mind before you carry this any further. Better yet, I'll take that square and raise it to shatter any man-made tradition that tramples on those less fortunate. Square that to your heart. Plumb the line. Edited February 23, 2017 by notHagoth7
provoman Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 56 minutes ago, Danzo said: I think what we have here is a classic example of conflicting rules and laws. we have "Honor, obey and sustaining the law" and we have "Love thy neighbor (even those from south of the border) as thyself" and "when I was a stranger" This kind of conflict between two different commandments is part of the gospel of plan (see story of Adam and Eve especially as told in the temple). Most of the time we can obey both "honor and sustain the law" and "love thy neighbor" at the same time. But sometimes we can't. Then we have to chose. I think the new testament is clear about the higher laws of the gospel. Also "If you have not charity, you are nothing" comes to mind. Another aspect is that we all have a duty to seek to change the law of the land when it conflicts with the higher laws. I hope that everyone here who thinks that current immigration law conflicts with the Lords law has communicated with their legislators about changing it. Can you please explain the conflict? I do not see a conflict exist. Federal laws do not inhibit to any degree me showing love and charity to anyone.
thesometimesaint Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 16 minutes ago, Ahab said: Yeah its been bad for us before, way back in Roman days too, and fortunately we are now free to legally live in any state or country on this Earth. So because it happened in the past it is fine to do it now? No not in every country.
Danzo Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 39 minutes ago, Ahab said: I'm not sure how I would suggest changing the current immigration laws of the USA. Illegal aliens should be deported simply because they are illegal. They should be legal instead. I suppose I could suggest that we make it super super easy for anyone to become a citizen of the USA, but even if it was super duper easy to be legal the people who wanted to become citizens should have to follow the legal process, however long that took, and whatever it takes. As Sheriff Bufford T. Justice said about Smokey and the Bandit, I think what we have here is a disrespect for the law. To be legal all it takes is to obey the law. I don't know if you have ever studied the law, but the law usually as several parts. One part is the proscribed behavior and another part are the legal consequences of the proscribed behavior. Hence, while murder and speeding are both against the law, they have very different consequences. You seem to believe being deported is (or should be) the only consequence for "unlawful presence". Currently, deportation is not always the consequence mandated by the law. There are other possible results, both historically and under current law. These consequences include doing nothing, a fine and detention. There are even ways for someone with "unlawful pretense" can have their status adjusted so they can be legal and even obtain citizenship. All of these are part of the current law. Do you agree with all of it? 1
notHagoth7 Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 (edited) 12 minutes ago, provoman said: Can you please explain the conflict? I do not see a conflict exist. Federal laws do not inhibit to any degree me showing love and charity to anyone. They do inhibit you...completely...if they're held in a for-profit prison ad nauseum with your acquiescence. Or sent to a distant country. Speaking of prisons/jails, in Utah County, for example, as in many places, Gadianton doesn't even allow you to visit a prisoner. You "get" to *pay* a third party to teleconference with them instead. So much for the importance of human touch. (Humans are social beings. And touch is a healing act.) Cruel and unusual punishment. Violation of constitutional/civil rights. Abomination of justice. And we wonder why we have repeat offenders. Edited February 23, 2017 by notHagoth7 1
Danzo Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 4 minutes ago, provoman said: Can you please explain the conflict? I do not see a conflict exist. Federal laws do not inhibit to any degree me showing love and charity to anyone. Kicking someone out of the country who has 1. No memory of their former country, 2. cannot speak the language 3. with no ties to that country 4. Who had no choice on coming to america 5. Who is married and has children and a family here. Is this a charitable act? Does this show kindness? Before you say this is an extreme hypothetical, This describes several clients of mine, one of which I saw yesterday. 1
Ahab Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 3 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said: Only where man's laws don't conflict with His. In the latter case, His will trumps man's. Every time. Better yet, I'll take that square and raise it to shatter any man-made tradition that tramples on those less fortunate. Square that to your heart. Plumb the line. You haven't thought about this enough yet, I think. We are subject to legal authorities of the country/countries we live in...subject meaning we are under their rule whether we are law abiding citizens or law breakers. And if you don't believe that you can test it out by breaking laws until you are arrested/detained/deported/put in prison or whatever. You are a subject and they are your rulers, willingly or not. And it is God's will that you accept that and try to live peacefully and do what you can to get along with everyone rather than being an anarchist or trouble maker in the land(s) you live in. Even Daniel realized that and went along peacefully into the lion's den. He was still subject to his king while he prayed to God. Being subject to people doesn't necessarily mean being obedient to them. It just means you are subject to them and their rule over you by virtue of their legal authority. Like how President Trump is your President if you are a citizen of the USA, and by virtue of his legal position in our country he is your leader, whether or not you areally obedient to him. And yeah, sure, you can totally disregard President Trump's position of authority over you, as well as any USA law, but the law enforcement officials will still get you or at least come after you if you start causing trouble by breaking their laws.
Calm Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 Ahah, it is not a choice between being illegal and being citizens. Allowing more temporary residents through work visas does not require anything to do with citizenship. Even long term residencies visas can be given to allow for enough time for the individual to demonstrate a commitment to becoming a citizen. We were in Canada for 13 years, first on a work visa and then landed immigrants. We couldn't vote and a few other things, but paid full taxes on earnings (and some to the US as well when it was relevant). The pathway to citizenship does not have to be changed (not familiar enough with it to have an opinion on that). I don't know of anyone asking for that.
Danzo Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 40 minutes ago, Ahab said: God's law is that we be subject to laws of the land we live in. Gods law is also to love our neighbor as our self The Celestial Law requres charity, without charity we are nothing. Which of those two laws is more important? Do they ever conflict? 1
Danzo Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 5 minutes ago, Ahab said: You haven't thought about this enough yet, I think. We are subject to legal authorities of the country/countries we live in...subject meaning we are under their rule whether we are law abiding citizens or law breakers. And if you don't believe that you can test it out by breaking laws until you are arrested/detained/deported/put in prison or whatever. You are a subject and they are your rulers, willingly or not. And it is God's will that you accept that and try to live peacefully and do what you can to get along with everyone rather than being an anarchist or trouble maker in the land(s) you live in. Even Daniel realized that and went along peacefully into the lion's den. He was still subject to his king while he prayed to God. Being subject to people doesn't necessarily mean being obedient to them. It just means you are subject to them and their rule over you by virtue of their legal authority. Like how President Trump is your President if you are a citizen of the USA, and by virtue of his legal position in our country he is your leader, whether or not you areally obedient to him. And yeah, sure, you can totally disregard President Trump's position of authority over you, as well as any USA law, but the law enforcement officials will still get you or at least come after you if you start causing trouble by breaking their laws. In the United States, The Citizens, not the president is sovereign. There are many mechanisms in US law that are there to check the power of the Federal Government. 1
notHagoth7 Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Ahab said: ...if you start causing trouble by breaking their laws. Um...the kind of trouble I cause...is quite legal. Question for you. If your grandson had an accident and was bleeding out in the backseat of your car faster than your relative could staunch the flow, on your way to rush him to the hospital... ...would you obey the speed limit? And wait patiently at every red light? If you didn't, would you be "causing trouble"? Or would you give the two great laws, the foundation upon which all laws rest, greater precedence? Edited February 23, 2017 by notHagoth7 2
notHagoth7 Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 (edited) 45 minutes ago, provoman said: In the context of unregulated borders the has published "Unchecked and unregulated, such a flow *may* destabilize society and ultimately become unsustainable." May. Prophetic keys. Is his "may destabliize society" actually meant to be heard as a "will destabilize society"? Or a "will not"? If it is a "will", would the eventual outcome be a bad thing, or something else? Pregnant pause. It is noteworthy that on that note, he referred to the need for compassion. The need for compassion. And in case I forgot...the need for compassion. Edited February 23, 2017 by notHagoth7
Ahab Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 10 minutes ago, Calm said: Ahah, it is not a choice between being illegal and being citizens. Allowing more temporary residents through work visas does not require anything to do with citizenship. Even long term residencies visas can be given to allow for enough time for the individual to demonstrate a commitment to becoming a citizen. We were in Canada for 13 years, first on a work visa and then landed immigrants. We couldn't vote and a few other things, but paid full taxes on earnings (and some to the US as well when it was relevant). The pathway to citizenship does not have to be changed (not familiar enough with it to have an opinion on that). I don't know of anyone asking for that. I agree that it's not just about being a legal or illegal citizen. It's also about being a legal or illegal visitor. That's why I tend to use the term illegal alien to refer to anyone from another country who is here illegally, whether citizen or visitor. My main point is that people should come into our country legally, rather than illegally, because our laws should be observed.
Ahab Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 11 minutes ago, Danzo said: In the United States, The Citizens, not the president is sovereign. There are many mechanisms in US law that are there to check the power of the Federal Government. Not quite. Your use of the word "not" is wrong. We the people elect the president and other government officials and we then endow them with our authority. They are us, collectively, whether a local, state. or federal body. And by virtue of that fact our President is the collective voice for all of us, whether or not some individuals in the collective agree with him. Works the same way in our Lord's Church, too, by the common consent of the members, with the bonus that the president of our Lord's Church is also authorized and empowered by our Lord.
Storm Rider Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 1 hour ago, Danzo said: Why do you equate entering a country without a visa or staying after a visa has expired with stealing a house. Is the only reason you don't steal houses because there is a law against it? Would you start stealing houses if the law were changed to allow it? Do you think that being brought to america as a child is the same as stealing a house? Danzo, you missed the point completely. I provided an analogy that demonstrated the lunacy of ignoring the illegality of an action. Regardless, let's play your game....if the law were changed and allowed people to enter another person's home they are currently using and throw them out simply because they wanted it, would I do it? No, but do I think we have people in our society that would? ABSOLUTELY! Why don't they do it now? Because of the law and that the fact they could be thrown into jail for committing a crime. Gads, read what I wrote and use a modicum of common sense and stop jumping to ridiculous extremes.
Ahab Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 21 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said: Um...the kind of trouble I cause...is quite legal. Question for you. If your grandson had an accident and was bleeding out in the backseat of your car... ...would you obey the speed limit? And wait obediently for every red light? Or would you give the two great laws, the foundation upon which all laws rest, greater precedence? What of Jeremiah 31? I have been known to break some laws on some occasions, but I still realize I am subject to legal authorities whether in heaven or on this planet. I might even cheerfully pay the traffic tickets as long as my grandson turned out okay.
Storm Rider Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 1 hour ago, Calm said: Not really. Immigrants don't kick citizens out of the country. Even illegals generally contribute to the country more than they take out of it. Calm, I am not arguing nor have I ever stated that a human being cannot provide good wherever they live. The fact that humans can provide a viable service regardless of which country in which they live is beside the point. The point is that if you have broken the law of the land - in this instance you have entered and continue to reside in a country illegally - then that individual does not belong. Illegals take working positions that could have been taken citizens. This applies for highly trained individuals as well as blue collar jobs. Additionally, if there were no jobs in this country they would not come. If that is true, then heavily penalize all employers that hire illegal aliens i.e. make the penalty so severe that no employer would choose to hire illegal aliens knowingly. If there were an abundance of jobs only available to citizens or those persons with Green Cards then we have done many things - employed anyone who wants to work, improved the value of citizenship, and facilitated legal workers of a path of advancement. What I have stated is that for productive individuals living in the USA now, then a process whereby they allowed to stay until a "modified" system is instituted to provide Green Cards or a path to citizenship is implemented. In other words, I don't support a blind policy of ejecting every illegal alien in the country. Having lived abroad in many different countries I understand what an alien is required to do every time they travel out of some countries, returning to a host nation, obtaining visas, renewing visas, etc. I never once thought of living illegally in a foreign nation nor did I ever join a protest demanding that I, as an alien, demanded rights.
bsjkki Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 (edited) http://www.krgv.com/story/34504733/cbp-suspends-operations-at-the-detention-facility-in-donna I agree with the statement put out by the church in 2011. It encourages people to not break the law. That is a prudent policy. The United States government is sending a clear signal that illegal immigration is not okay. This is wise public policy. Within the United States, the administration has clearly outlined that criminal aliens are the priority for deportation. Here is a link to the EO addressing the priorities. Sec. 5 https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/25/presidential-executive-order-enhancing-public-safety-interior-united In Denver their are two recent cases of criminal aliens being released from jail and then murdering people. My question, do you want the President to enforce current laws? Do you want the President to be able to ignore laws he doesn't like? Answer these question in the broad sense of public policy. Do you want the President to ignore the courts and not deport an illegal immigrant who has a deportation order against them? As individuals, we are treat people in a Christ like way. We help those we can. I help those I know regardless of legal status. I have taken in children of illegal immigrants, bought them food, helped with legal fees after their mom and sister were picked up by ICE under the Obama administration. I have sent care packages to a local jail while they were waiting for a hearing. I watched an honor student and laurel president get sent to jail (for months) because her parents brought her into the country illegally. I will gladly advocate for changes in the laws to make legal immigration easier. I would like congress to pass a law that makes DACA permanent. I would advocate to pass a law that allows a path to legal status for those who have entered our country illegally who have obeyed the law and are good, upstanding residents of our country. John Kelly is sending a strong message telling Guatemalans of the dangers of illegally immigrating to the United States. (The questions are in Spanish--answers in English. Watch at the 2 minute mark.) That is wise public policy. Detention centers are closing because of a public policy that sends the message that the border will be patrolled and current laws bill be enforced. Watch the clip--it is a powerful statement but not an inhumane statement. Illegal immigrants face many hardships in the United States that I have witnessed first hand numerous times under the past administration. The church's 2011 statement is spot on. Edited February 23, 2017 by bsjkki video tip
Danzo Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 42 minutes ago, Storm Rider said: Danzo, you missed the point completely. I provided an analogy that demonstrated the lunacy of ignoring the illegality of an action. Regardless, let's play your game....if the law were changed and allowed people to enter another person's home they are currently using and throw them out simply because they wanted it, would I do it? No, but do I think we have people in our society that would? ABSOLUTELY! Why don't they do it now? Because of the law and that the fact they could be thrown into jail for committing a crime. Gads, read what I wrote and use a modicum of common sense and stop jumping to ridiculous extremes. I was trying to point out that your analogy was trying to give a false equivalency of "unlawful presence" and Stealing a house. We need to look beyond the text of the law and ask ourselves if what we are doing is right. Doing what is right and doing what is legal is not the same thing. Sometimes what is right is not legal and sometimes what is legal is not right. I feel there are aspects of current immigration law that are not right. I also strongly disagree with condemning someone for violating one law when we are all lawbreakers to one degree or another.
Danzo Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 51 minutes ago, Ahab said: Not quite. Your use of the word "not" is wrong. We the people elect the president and other government officials and we then endow them with our authority. They are us, collectively, whether a local, state. or federal body. And by virtue of that fact our President is the collective voice for all of us, whether or not some individuals in the collective agree with him. Works the same way in our Lord's Church, too, by the common consent of the members, with the bonus that the president of our Lord's Church is also authorized and empowered by our Lord. I think we will have to agree to disagree. We have systems of checks and balances in this country to combat your way of thinking. I feel the president should not be granted unlimited power do do whatever he wants to.
Rajah Manchou Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 4 hours ago, Storm Rider said: 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. You must have missed the part when I said the lady was married to an American man. So what you are saying is something like...if its too hard to get a visa to go live with your family in America DON'T GO! To use your house analogy, its rather like you aren't allowed to walk in the front door of your own home because you might be selling drugs, so better just go live somewhere else and stop complaining. But we'll be happy to take that $100 non-refundable visa application fee before you go.
bsjkki Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 (edited) On 2/21/2017 at 9:10 PM, smac97 said: This sounds like a paradigm shift in how illegal/undocumented immigrants are going to be treated. For pretty much my entire adult life, it seems as if I've observed, more or less, a feeling of détente. Yes, there are hundreds, even thousands of illegal/undocumented immigrants all around my neighborhood, my community. The LDS Church has, for some years now, exhibited - as Ronald Mortensen put it - "{a} reluctance to clearly articulate its policy on illegal immigration." And to the extent it has signaled a position, it has been to endorse the Utah Compact, which, Mortensen correctly notes, "fails to distinguish between legal and illegal immigration." It's not a paradigm shift. The only real difference is how the media is reporting on it. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-deportation-policy-numbers/story?id=41715661 Don't let media bias get in the way of the facts. Based on statements so far, Trump's plan to remove the undocumented immigrants who have committed crimes is similar to what President Obama declared in 2014. Here's a look at some of the numbers:How many people have been deported under Obama? President Barack Obama has often been referred to by immigration groups as the "Deporter in Chief." Between 2009 and 2015 his administration has removed more than 2.5 million people through immigration orders, which doesn’t include the number of people who "self-deported" or were turned away and/or returned to their home country at the border by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).How does he compare to other presidents?According to governmental data, the Obama administration has deported more people than any other president's administration in history. In fact, they have deported more than the sum of all the presidents of the 20th century.President George W. Bush's administration deported just over two million during his time in office; and Obama’s numbers don’t reflect his last year in office, for which data is not yet available. Edited February 23, 2017 by bsjkki
Danzo Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 16 minutes ago, bsjkki said: My question, do you want the President to enforce current laws? Do you want the President to be able to ignore laws he doesn't like? Answer these question in the broad sense of public policy. Do you want the President to ignore the courts and not deport an illegal immigrant who has a deportation order against them? I don't think the current laws were ever designed to be broadly enforced. I think the president has the discretion on which laws to enforce and which laws not to enforce. I think strict enforcement of immigration laws would turn this country into a place that neither you nor I would want to live in. Enforcement will always, by necessity, be selective. The president already has the authority to not deport someone who has a deportation order against them.
The Nehor Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 4 hours 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? There were a mish mash of laws including the General Colonozation Act and the ironically named (for LDS) Law of April 6, 1830. The land was Mexican territory and the Saints did not petition the Mexican government for the right to settle, make legal land claims, or in any way request the right to enter. Then, after entering, they sent the Mormon Battalion to help secure California. So, if you want to be literal, they not only illegally immigrated they then immediately took up arms and committed treason against their host government. So yes, our ancestors were criminals treasonous illegal immigrants. Once the war was over this was forgotten but if you want to play a distraught "violating the laws of the land is a horrible sin" you really need to find a more law-abiding church. 1
Ahab Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 5 minutes ago, Danzo said: I think we will have to agree to disagree. We have systems of checks and balances in this country to combat your way of thinking. I feel the president should not be granted unlimited power do do whatever he wants to. Combat. Yes. That is what we often see between all of our representatives when they discuss issues. Although usually just with their words as their weapons. I was simply talking about how their power comes from the people they are representing, or at least those who voted them into their offices, and how collectively they come up with laws and/or legislation that we are supposedly supposed to follow because, after all, we were the ones who voted them into their offices so that they could tell us what we are supposedly supposed to follow.
Recommended Posts