A Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief

[MiserereNobis]

I realize that this post may border on the political but I'm hoping we can keep it away from partisanship and focus on the underlying Christian ideals.

Recently Steve Bannon had an interview with Charlie Rose on 60 Minutes. He was asked about President Trump's decision to end DACA and the Catholic Church's denunciation of that. Bannon (a Catholic) responded:

Quote

"I totally respect the Pope and I totally respect the Catholic bishops and cardinals on doctrine. This is not about doctrine. This is about the sovereignty of a nation. And in that regard, they're just another guy with an opinion.

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops responded. Cardinal Timothy Dolan (who is a VERY strong conservative and traditional Catholic) said:

Quote

 

And the Bible is so clear, so clear, that to treat the immigrant with dignity and respect, to make sure that society is just in its treatment of the immigrant is Biblical mandate," Dolan said.

It's clear in the Old Testament -- my Jewish neighbors remind me of that all the time -- and it's clear from the lips of Jesus when he said, 'Whatever you do to the least of my brothers you do to me. When I was a stranger -- meaning an immigrant or a refugee -- you welcomed me.'

 

Poking around on the internet surprisingly brought me to the song "A Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief." It seems to be famous for the last song that Joseph Smith had sung to him before he was killed. It appears to place a premium on loving and accepting those who are in difficult positions, whether through the actions of others or actions of their own -- the cause of their difficulty doesn't seem to matter. To me it seems an apt description of what Paul said in Hebrews 13:2 "Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares." It also fits in nicely with the Rule of St. Benedict, which governs so many monastics and which in chapter 53 says:

Quote

Let all guests who arrive be received like Christ, 
for He is going to say, 
"I came as a guest, and you received Me" (Matt. 25:35).
And to all let due honor be shown,
especially to the domestics of the faith and to pilgrims.

While like in all things Catholic there are going to be disagreements, it seems like the Catholic view is to accept the immigrant, legal or not, the stranger, the one in need, as if he or she were Christ Himself.

What say my LDS friends? Could Christ come as the stranger across the borders? Is there an LDS tradition that addresses this?

[Darren10]

9 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I realize that this post may border on the political but I'm hoping we can keep it away from partisanship and focus on the underlying Christian ideals.

Recently Steve Bannon had an interview with Charlie Rose on 60 Minutes. He was asked about President Trump's decision to end DACA and the Catholic Church's denunciation of that. Bannon (a Catholic) responded:

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops responded. Cardinal Timothy Dolan (who is a VERY strong conservative and traditional Catholic) said:

Poking around on the internet surprisingly brought me to the song "A Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief." It seems to be famous for the last song that Joseph Smith had sung to him before he was killed. It appears to place a premium on loving and accepting those who are in difficult positions, whether through the actions of others or actions of their own -- the cause of their difficulty doesn't seem to matter. To me it seems an apt description of what Paul said in Hebrews 13:2 "Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares." It also fits in nicely with the Rule of St. Benedict, which governs so many monastics and which in chapter 53 says:

While like in all things Catholic there are going to be disagreements, it seems like the Catholic view is to accept the immigrant, legal or not, the stranger, the one in need, as if he or she were Christ Himself.

What say my LDS friends? Could Christ come as the stranger across the borders? Is there an LDS tradition that addresses this?

I know very faithful Catholics who strongly believe in deporting illegal aliens. It does not seem to affect their standing in the Catholic Church at all. I forget the specific term (Catholics have tons of them it seems  ) but one Catholic I blog with said the Pope's declaration, I think this was on climate change, was termed (insert the name here) and therefore under no obligation for Catholics to believe as "doctrine", or as something from God. Likewise, the LDS Church a few years ago issued a statement on the treatment of illegal aliens:

Quote

The history of mass expulsion or mistreatment of individuals or families is cause for concern especially where race, culture, or religion are involved.  This should give pause to any policy that contemplates targeting any one group, particularly if that group comes mostly from one heritage. 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/immigration-church-issues-new-statement

What is "humane" is debatable but I think most agree that providing basic food and shelter, as well as other needs such as assisting in medical conditions, until deportation is worked out is pretty much universally agreed upon.

So, although there does not seem to be much controversy there, the LDS church officially endorsed the "Utah Compact". A good outline of this compact is as follows:

Quote

The Church’s position is based on three basic principles:

1. The commandment to “love thy neighbor.”
2. The importance of keeping families intact.
3. The federal government’s obligation to secure its borders.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/immigration-response

I personally have zero problems with #s 1 & 3. Number 2 to me can be sketchy. In what circumstances do we make sure families stay together when illegal crimes are being committed? If we are to deport one should we deport the entire family? What if the children are born in American soil? As per the 17th Amendment is enforced and interpreted by the US Supreme Court, they are full US citizens. As such, they should be safe from deportation, but what of the parents? What if one commits a grave crime as an illegal alien? As with the Catholic Church, things like this are not obligatory for LDS members to believe. not in any strict sense I think.

For disclosure I believe our country should 1) absolutely secure our borders; 2) provide a pathway to citizenship under strict requirements (this is in large part because I view the illegal immigration problem is in large part our own fault); and 3)prosecute and deport illegal aliens who have committed serious crimes.

As for DACA. That's really tricky. Since an official system was set up by our government and illegals were told by government officials what to do in order to remain here legally, you cannot suddenly turn around and tell those who followed those procedures that, "well, turns out you can't stay here".  (To be sure, mass deportations will not happen. All the talk to do so by Trump was Trump being his narcissistic blowheart self.). But, having said that, DACA is extremely dubious on legal grounds. The US Constitution says:

Quote

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Article I Section 8.

This is a power given exclusively to Congress. Not the President. President Obama was exactly correct when he said (numerous times) that he cannot circumvent Congress over immigration. Here's one time he said that very thing:

Yet he did precisely that be issuing DACA via executive order. The whole entire existence of DACA is unconstitutional, I do not see how it could be otherwise. Yet, regardless, you still cannot just suddenly deport people after the President set up a system which said "here's how you can stay". Call that the humane / moral / believing Mormon part of me. But I also believe in the rule of law. DACA absolutely has to end and ending it is not inherently inhumane, nor unchristlike. It's tricky to maneuver around this but doable.

Edited September 10, 2017 by Darren10

[MiserereNobis]

It's rather late so I'll leave a detailed response for another time. But I do want to address the idea of the "rule of law." The rule of law demands our respect only insofar as the rule of law is in accordance with God's laws. If the rule of the law demands us to do something that is against justice, against mercy, against God's law, then we must defy that law.

Good and holy people have always defied unjust laws.

When it comes to immigration, the question isn't about the law as enacted by humans. The question is about the laws of God and the principles laid down by Jesus Christ Himself. He seems quite clear when He speaks of how we should treat the other, the alien, the stranger.

The worship of the law is something we inherited from the Romans. It has brought us great good, no doubt, but it is not above the law of God, which demands of us mercy and sacrifice.

[california boy]

I once did a study of the very last words of as many prophets as I could find.  I felt like their last words was a culmination of a lifetime of  wisdom and knowledge and teachings of the Spirit.  So what was contained in those last writings would seem to be what they felt was the very most important knowledge that they had learned.  And if the prophet's last words were important, how about the last words of Christ.  

Christ's very last public sermon is recorded in Matthew 25.  I feel this sermon is so important and is the absolute core of the gospel.  If one looses site of the message in this sermon, then whether or not polygamy should or should not have been practiced, or if Adam/God is doctrine or quite frankly 90% of what we discuss on this board is really irrelevant.  

And just to emphasize this important message so that there can be no misunderstanding, Christ repeats the exact same concept twice.  He clearly states who will be a part of His kingdom and who will not.  Who are the wheat and who are the tares?  Who are the sheep and who are the goats.  No mention of church affiliation in this message.  Perhaps it is pretty irrelevant.    The sermon is worth rereading. often.

Quote

 

25 

³⁵ For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

³⁶ Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

³⁷ Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

³⁸ When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

³⁹ Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

⁴⁰ And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

⁴¹ Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

⁴² For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

⁴³ I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

⁴⁴ Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

⁴⁵ Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

⁴⁶ And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

 

I find it quite interesting that one of the last acts of Joseph  Smith when he clearly knew that there was a good chance he would not make it out alive, was to have John Taylor sing a song that is essential the last sermon of Christ put to music.

 

 

[rpn]

The rule of law in this case requires that we not allow presidents to make up their own laws, which is how the DACA program got started.   Being concerned about maintaining the constitutional separation of powers which is what preserves our nation has to take precedent.   If you are merely discussing the question of whether it is moral to send away children who had no part in the decision to bring themselves illegally here, and have no native land  other than this one, that is an easy question and the answer is clearly no.   So I'm all for Congress waiving all deportation for this group: and the challenge is if Congress can get by the all too common partisanship to accomplish that.

[boblloyd91]

The church has always been very vocal about helping the less fortunate, and the last couple of years has been vocal about immigrants (see recent conference talks by President Uchtdorf). Though Mormons are often about as conservative as they come, there seems to be more tolerance for immigrants then other conservative groups in my experience.

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, rpn said:

The rule of law in this case requires that we not allow presidents to make up their own laws, which is how the DACA program got started.   Being concerned about maintaining the constitutional separation of powers which is what preserves our nation has to take precedent.   If you are merely discussing the question of whether it is moral to send away children who had no part in the decision to bring themselves illegally here, and have no native land  other than this one, that is an easy question and the answer is clearly no.   So I'm all for Congress waiving all deportation for this group: and the challenge is if Congress can get by the all too common partisanship to accomplish that.

Presidents don't make up their own laws. What Presidents do is tell the Federal Government how it will enforce its own rules. DACA is perfectly legal.

[longview]

Porous borders is one thing, expectation of American citizens for proper allocation of their taxes to the needs of their communities is an important concern.  For border crossers to sneak in to get free hospitalization for their pregnancies or other medical conditions or to go on welfare is theft.  It is insanity to allow flooding by "third worlders" of North America and various countries in Europe.

I remember seeing pictures of "young" children piled on top of train boxcars at the border.  It seemed awfully dangerous and reckless.  This was extremely irregular.  I thought it looked "orchestrated".   Now I am wondering if their parents were actually inside of the boxcars?

On one hand, I feel deep sorrow and compassion for refugees fleeing violent insurgencies and criminal oppression and economic disruptions.  But we seriously need to secure the border and provide a more comprehensive administrative approach, both at the border and in all American embassies.  I am wondering we should establish refugee camps at various points along the border in order to provide:  1- immediate assistance where needed,  2- determine if the refugee is to be turned away or given residency in the camp for limited duration or given "green card" and allowed to proceed north (most likely on buses), 3- camp residents will be subjected to further background checks for the purpose of finalizing their "refugee" status or "migrant" petition or "temporary" work permit.

[Darren10]

6 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

It's rather late so I'll leave a detailed response for another time. But I do want to address the idea of the "rule of law." The rule of law demands our respect only insofar as the rule of law is in accordance with God's laws. If the rule of the law demands us to do something that is against justice, against mercy, against God's law, then we must defy that law.

Good and holy people have always defied unjust laws.

When it comes to immigration, the question isn't about the law as enacted by humans. The question is about the laws of God and the principles laid down by Jesus Christ Himself. He seems quite clear when He speaks of how we should treat the other, the alien, the stranger.

The worship of the law is something we inherited from the Romans. It has brought us great good, no doubt, but it is not above the law of God, which demands of us mercy and sacrifice.

Jesus also said:

Quote

And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Cæsarthe things which be Cæsar’s, and unto God the things which be God’s.

Luke 20

 

[Guest]

There are my issues that pull at out heartstrings. It is clear that children should never pay for the sins of their parents. Also, we are a Church where issues related to law, are clearly defined. No Latter-day Saint or Bishop is going to turn someone in, who is a member of their Wards. Since no one would turn in a Ward member or friend, the question is; what is the responsibility of the individuals who have broken the law? As the 12th Article of Faith states...

"We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

Again, it is a heart breaking situation, but how does one remain in good standing with the Church? Many use the SSN's of other people to find and keep work. One of my closest friends, did this very thing. His nephew whom I have worked with many times, has never even been to Mexico. I think that the reason the President issued this executive order, and then suspended it for six months is to force Congress to act. Also I don't think the courts will uphold this executive order, and Congress will finally settle this issue, and use this to give them citizenship. But, they will be forced to make those with criminal records. So here's hoping that the rule of law will prevail, and we get meaningful immigration reform. This way  our dear brothers and sisters in so many Wards, can rest easy, and not fear. 

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, rpn said:

The rule of law in this case requires that we not allow presidents to make up their own laws, which is how the DACA program got started.   Being concerned about maintaining the constitutional separation of powers which is what preserves our nation has to take precedent.

Presidents have power to issue executive orders, and the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld that right.  It is false that DACA is in any way unlawful.  Indeed, in 2005, President George W. Bush allowed foreign students affected by Hurricane Katrina to apply for deferred action as well

6 hours ago, rpn said:

  If you are merely discussing the question of whether it is moral to send away children who had no part in the decision to bring themselves illegally here, and have no native land  other than this one, that is an easy question and the answer is clearly no.   So I'm all for Congress waiving all deportation for this group: and the challenge is if Congress can get by the all too common partisanship to accomplish that.

I share that sentiment.

[RevTestament]

9 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

It's rather late so I'll leave a detailed response for another time. But I do want to address the idea of the "rule of law." The rule of law demands our respect only insofar as the rule of law is in accordance with God's laws. If the rule of the law demands us to do something that is against justice, against mercy, against God's law, then we must defy that law.

Good and holy people have always defied unjust laws.

When it comes to immigration, the question isn't about the law as enacted by humans. The question is about the laws of God and the principles laid down by Jesus Christ Himself. He seems quite clear when He speaks of how we should treat the other, the alien, the stranger.

The worship of the law is something we inherited from the Romans. It has brought us great good, no doubt, but it is not above the law of God, which demands of us mercy and sacrifice.

Perhaps the United States should welcome all that wish to come here to share in our way of life - our freedoms and pursuit of happiness. That is up to the country. However, I believe there is ample evidence that not all come here for those reasons. Many do not want to make this country greater. They are coming here because they wish to do the country harm. Others are murderers and thieves. Why should the country allow these people in? I am not for open borders. If someone has a criminal record in another country they should not be granted citizenship without thorough vetting. Further, I believe everyone who seeks citizenship in this country should vow to uphold the constitution. There is one religious sect which comes to mind which is so political so as to threaten the civil liberties of others. Members of this sect who will not vow to uphold the constitution should not be admitted IMHO.

It is not unjust to have rules for admittance. The alien stranger, who will respect our constitution, freedoms, and way of life, I believe should be welcome. Yeshua would definitely qualify. Not all do. Open borders are not a wise policy.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Perhaps the United States should welcome all that wish to come here to share in our way of life - our freedoms and pursuit of happiness. That is up to the country. However, I believe there is ample evidence that not all come here for those reasons. Many do not want to make this country greater. They are coming here because they wish to do the country harm. Others are murderers and thieves. Why should the country allow these people in? I am not for open borders. If someone has a criminal record in another country they should not be granted citizenship without thorough vetting. Further, I believe everyone who seeks citizenship in this country should vow to uphold the constitution...............................................

Those who are undocumented/illegal aliens in this country are far more likely to be law-abiding than those who are citizens.  Not only do they not cause trouble, but they pay taxes and provide needed labor to our economy.  My ancestors were the same, and they did not ask permission to come here.  They just came.  People often vote with their feet.  We need them.

[RevTestament]

5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Those who are undocumented/illegal aliens in this country are far more likely to be law-abiding than those who are citizens.  Not only do they not cause trouble, but they pay taxes and provide needed labor to our economy.  My ancestors were the same, and they did not ask permission to come here.  They just came.  People often vote with their feet.  We need them.

My great grandparents came to Florida by sailing into port and applying for citizenship. That was over a hundred years ago. It is much different now. Many come who have no way to support themselves. They apply for benefits and some even drive around in their Mercedes and pull out food stamps.  There are those here because they want to pull down this county. The cowards that flew into the twin towers are at the top of the list. And now many short flights are not worth the wait at the airport because of the precautions we feel we must take because of such people. The cost they have caused this country is tremendous. I did not say I am against immigration. I am against open borders. We definitely do not need everyone who votes with their feet. I strongly disagree. That is inviting in extremists and crazies we can live without. Not everyone in the world wants to live under a constitution. The countries of the Middle East are prime examples of that. The cultures don't mix. They are opposites. Those who wish to leave for a free life are welcome in my book. Others have ulterior motives.

[MiserereNobis]

35 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Many come who have no way to support themselves. They apply for benefits and some even drive around in their Mercedes and pull out food stamps.

CFR

35 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

There are those here because they want to pull down this county. The cowards that flew into the twin towers are at the top of the list.

True, but all of the 9/11 terrorists came to the country legally.

 

I am not saying that our borders should be open. The point of my OP was that the dreamers seem to fall quite easily into the group of those whom we should welcome. Syrian refugees, too. The words of Our Lord are pretty clear how we should treat them. I refer you to california boy's excellent post above.

 

[Darren10]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Presidents have power to issue executive orders, and the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld that right.  It is false that DACA is in any way unlawful.  Indeed, in 2005, President George W. Bush allowed foreign students affected by Hurricane Katrina to apply for deferred action as well

I share that sentiment.

I hardly doubt you think presidents have unlimited executive power. There's no way DACA would stand in the Supreme Court. 

On recess appointments:

Quote

The Constitution allows the President to make appointments during a Senate recess. President Obama’s appointments, which bypassed Senate approval, were made during a period when the Senate convened pro-forma sessions every three days. The Supreme Court held that recess appointments can only be made during breaks of “sufficient length.

https://www.myheritage.org/news/unanimous-supreme-court-rules-against-the-obama-administrations-unconstitutional-power-grab/

"which bypassed Senate approval" - Exactly what DACA did. As I ponted out earlier, immigration, the power to naturalize people, belongs exclusively to the US Senate. Obama's executive order took that power away from them. 

DAPA was already voted in a tie ( https://townhall.com/tipsheet/christinerousselle/2016/06/23/supreme-court-comes-to-a-44-tie-on-immigration-case-n2182659 ) which in affect halted DAPA and with Gorsuch now on the bench DACA would be completely toast. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 11, 2017 by Darren10

[Darren10]

5 hours ago, RevTestament said:

My great grandparents came to Florida by sailing into port and applying for citizenship. That was over a hundred years ago. It is much different now. Many come who have no way to support themselves. They apply for benefits and some even drive around in their Mercedes and pull out food stamps.  There are those here because they want to pull down this county. The cowards that flew into the twin towers are at the top of the list. And now many short flights are not worth the wait at the airport because of the precautions we feel we must take because of such people. The cost they have caused this country is tremendous. I did not say I am against immigration. I am against open borders. We definitely do not need everyone who votes with their feet. I strongly disagree. That is inviting in extremists and crazies we can live without. Not everyone in the world wants to live under a constitution. The countries of the Middle East are prime examples of that. The cultures don't mix. They are opposites. Those who wish to leave for a free life are welcome in my book. Others have ulterior motives.

 

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

CFR

True, but all of the 9/11 terrorists came to the country legally.

 

I am not saying that our borders should be open. The point of my OP was that the dreamers seem to fall quite easily into the group of those whom we should welcome. Syrian refugees, too. The words of Our Lord are pretty clear how we should treat them. I refer you to california boy's excellent post above.

 

For the CFR, just stand outside any public school which is high in free lunches and watch the kids get picked up in vehicles ranging from $30-40 grand. 

We do need to check those coming in and monitor and *act* on suspicion. The lack of the latter opened the door for the 9/11 hijackers to carry out their plot. 

Edited September 11, 2017 by Darren10

[Robert F. Smith]

42 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

I hardly doubt you think presidents have unlimited executive power. There's no way DACA would stand in the Supreme Court. 

.................................  

I did not say or imply that presidents have unlimited power to do anything, but the power to issue executive orders is well established in law.  The problem is that the totalitarian right loves to have presidents issue executive orders they like, and only cries foul when it is an order they don't like (from a president they don't like).

You may be under the false notion that American politics is based on high ethical and moral principles.  It is actually based on bare knuckle brawling.

As to the the six Roman Catholics and three Jews who sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, they sometimes make decisions based on their religious, social, and political biases, rather than on dispassionate consideration of the law.  That is what happened in Reynolds vs the United States, the landmark anti-polygamy ruling which allowed the Feds to seize all LDS assets and to jail anyone who practiced polygamy.  The decision was based on false sociological and religious assumptions, rather than on the Constitution.

Edited September 11, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[carbon dioxide]

The nation needs and welcomes immigrants but no nation can survive if it does not control who comes in and how many comes in.  I don't have a problem with the Catholic Church or any other organization advocating for the illegal aliens.  They have a right to voice their concern as anyone else.  It is the job of government to protect its citizens and control the borders.  I have no problem keeping the adult DACA kids here as long as the border situation is solved and we hold the parents of those DACA kids accountable.  We can't have an immigration system where people know that if they bring kids along with them to this country, that those kids anchor them to the US and they are allowed to stay as well. 

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I did not say or imply that presidents have unlimited power to do anything, but the power to issue executive orders is well established in law.  The problem is that the totalitarian right loves to have presidents issue executive orders they like, and only cries foul when it is an order they don't like (from a president they don't like).

You may be under the false notion that American politics is based on high ethical and moral principles.  It is actually based on bare knuckle brawling.

As to the the six Roman Catholics and three Jews who sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, they sometimes make decisions based on their religious, social, and political biases, rather than on dispassionate consideration of the law.  That is what happened in Reynolds vs the United States, the landmark anti-polygamy ruling which allowed the Feds to seize all LDS assets and to jail anyone who practiced polygamy.  The decision was based on false sociological and religious assumptions, rather than on the Constitution.

"I did not say or imply that presidents have unlimited power to do anything"

And I agreed with you...good.

"The problem is that the totalitarian right loves to have presidents issue executive orders they like, and only cries foul when it is an order they don't like (from a president they don't like)"

No, the problem is that the side you don't like you label with extremities such as "toltaltarian". The poitical "right" was very critical of Bush but the main difference between his use of executive orders is the case if emergencies, the Executive Branch may decide via executive orders to alter the execution of law. That's what Bush did regarding Katrina. Obama simply created a whole new law in and of itself. There was no natural disaster to deal with when he created DACA. And, as I pointed out, it twin law, DAPA was already affectively killed by the US Supreme Court. 

"You may be under the false notion that American politics is based on high ethical and moral principles.  It is actually based on bare knuckle brawling."

Huh?

"That is what happened in Reynolds vs the United States, the landmark anti-polygamy ruling which allowed the Feds to seize all LDS assets and to jail anyone who practiced polygamy.  The decision was based on false sociological and religious assumptions, rather than on the Constitution."

The accusations against Mormons and polygamy was based on signiifcant falsities. The US Supreme Court simply upheld the federal law at the time which would seize LDS properties. Utah was not a state at the time but a territory. As a territory, it was under the direct control of the federal government. The federal government, as bad as that law was, could make such a law. 

Edited September 11, 2017 by Darren10

[Darren10]

52 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

The nation needs and welcomes immigrants but no nation can survive if it does not control who comes in and how many comes in.  I don't have a problem with the Catholic Church or any other organization advocating for the illegal aliens.  They have a right to voice their concern as anyone else.  It is the job of government to protect its citizens and control the borders.  I have no problem keeping the adult DACA kids here as long as the border situation is solved and we hold the parents of those DACA kids accountable.  We can't have an immigration system where people know that if they bring kids along with them to this country, that those kids anchor them to the US and they are allowed to stay as well. 

I very much agree. Borders must be under control. It has become much more so under Trump than under Obama:

http://www.npr.org/2017/05/31/530843658/illegal-border-crossings-are-down-and-so-is-business-for-smugglers

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/9/illegal-immigration-southwest-border-down-70-pct/ (debatable stats but no doubt illegal border crossings is significantly lower than it was under Obama) 

It needs more control and once secure and maintianed secure I've no problem with placing DACA kids on a pathway to citizenship. 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

32 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

...........................................

"The problem is that the totalitarian right loves to have presidents issue executive orders they like, and only cries foul when it is an order they don't like (from a president they don't like)"

No, the problem is that the side you don't like you label with extremities such as "toltaltarian". The poitical "right" was very critical of Bush but the main difference between his use of executive orders is the case if emergencies, the Executive Branch may decide via executive orders to alter the execution of law. That's what Bush did regarding Katrina. Obama simply created a whole new law in and of itself. There was no natural disaster to deal with when he created DACA.

Executive orders are issued regularly by presidents, and no emergency is needed.  "Totalitarians" are people who believe in controlling other people and in denying them their constitutional rights.  A good example is the belief of many police officers that you must obey them, even when their orders are unlawful.  The false arrest of nurse Wubbles in SLC is a prime example.

32 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

................................................

"You may be under the false notion that American politics is based on high ethical and moral principles.  It is actually based on bare knuckle brawling."

Huh?

So you believe that American politics is all sweetness and light.

32 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

"That is what happened in Reynolds vs the United States, the landmark anti-polygamy ruling which allowed the Feds to seize all LDS assets and to jail anyone who practiced polygamy.  The decision was based on false sociological and religious assumptions, rather than on the Constitution."

The accusations against Mormons and polygamy was based on signiifcant falsities. The US Supreme Court simply upheld the federal law at the time which would seize LDS properties. Utah was not a state at the time but a territory. As a territory, it was under the direct control of the federal government. The federal government, as bad as that law was, could make such a law. 

Like most Americans, you don't understand Constitutional law.  The central issue decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in the cases brought to them on appeal is whether any law is in conformity with the Constitution -- which is the supreme law of the land.  Any legislation or action not  in conformity with the Constitution is unconstitutional.  It has nothing to do with whether there is a territory or state, or even D.C.

[Danzo]

Current immigration law is evil, and promotes immorality and sin.  

What is more important, the law of chastity or the law of the land?

What is more important, keeping the family together or obeying the law of the land?

What is more important, supporting your children or obeying the law of the land.

Serving a mission or obeying the law of the land?

Attending church or obeying the law of the land?

I personally know people who have had to make those choices due to the vile law that we call immigration law. In each case local, and general. Leaders of the church council breaking the law of the land.

There should be no respect for law that promote such wickedness.

I can imagine a just immigration law, unfortunately, it is not found in the united states.

[sunstoned]

21 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

What say my LDS friends? Could Christ come as the stranger across the borders? Is there an LDS tradition that addresses this?

I am no longer LDS, but I do try to adhere to the common decent principles that are taught in the New Testament.  When looking at this issue through the lens of the teachings of Christ, it is really a no brainer.  People are coming to this country "illegally" largely to escape something:  Poverty,  crime, drugs, gangs, corrupt governments, etc.  They brought their children.  Most were looking for a better life and a future for their families.  To turn these children away and send them back to a life they don't remember, a life their parents fled from, is wrong.  It is un-Christian and un-Christ like. To inject politics into this is a cop out and it is wrong.  We have a lot of smart people in this country.  Why can't we get together are figure something out that will benefit those who are in need, the children.   And giving them a meal, tee-shirt, a water bottle and then putting them on bus heading south is not a proper solution.

 

[MiserereNobis]

3 hours ago, Darren10 said:

For the CFR, just stand outside any public school which is high in free lunches and watch the kids get picked up in vehicles ranging from $30-40 grand. 

This does not answer a CFR, so my original CFR still stands. And I'll add a second one to it: CFR that kids getting free lunches are being picked up in vehicles ranging from $30-40 grand.