The Nehor Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Much of what passes for news these days <is> fake, ginned up to push a political ideology or cause without even making a pretense of fairness and balance. It’s not surprising that some of those who complain the loudest about the term are the most frequent practitioners of it. I am not denying there is lots of bad news but the term itself annoys me on a visceral level. Not sure why.
The Nehor Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 57 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said: Especially in Zion, we've worked so long and hard to make it a liveable and safe place for us holy and chosen people. I'm ok with Lamanites moving here, but only those who can score a minimum of 99 out of 100 points on the I'm Not From One of Those ____hole Countries Test. The scriptures say in Zion “there shall be no poor among them” which is clearly divine approval for shutting out the unwashed masses. 1
Darren10 Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, The Nehor said: We can fix it as soon as we secure the border. Translation: We can endlessly claim it is not secure enough even if we do build Trump's gold-plated wall and thus will never do anything. Trump wants a very small portion on the border walled in. Far smaller than his original campaign promise. The wall is only one small step in securing the borders. Chain migration needs to end and. enforcement of employment needs to be in full force. The largest segment of recent illegals have been Asians overstaying their visas than with Latinos crossing the borders. Nothing will be perfect but at least a full fledged effort should be underway. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2018/01/26/flashback-bill-clinton-gets-standing-ovation-for-sotu-pledge-to-crack-down-on-illegal-immigration-n2440255 Edited January 27, 2018 by Darren10 1
Glenn101 Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 5 hours ago, The Nehor said: If they were committing crimes they probably would have already been deported. They have to be caught first. They are much harder to keep track of and deport than those that are working hard and trying to better themselves.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 (edited) 10 hours ago, The Nehor said: I am not denying there is lots of bad news but the term itself annoys me on a visceral level. Not sure why. I can relate. The term “faith journey” has a similar effect on me. Maybe because it is so often used in the context of recounting one’s personal apostasy. Edited January 27, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 5 minutes ago, Glenn101 said: They have to be caught first. They are much harder to keep track of and deport than those that are working hard and trying to better themselves. Especially if they’re in so-called “sanctuary cities.” 3
Danzo Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 2 hours ago, Darren10 said: Trump wants a very small portion on the border walled in. Far smaller than his original campaign promise. The wall is only one small step in securing the borders. Chain migration needs to end and. enforcement of employment needs to be in full force. The largest segment of recent illegals have been Asians overstaying their visas than with Latinos crossing the borders. Nothing will be perfect but at least a full fledged effort should be underway. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2018/01/26/flashback-bill-clinton-gets-standing-ovation-for-sotu-pledge-to-crack-down-on-illegal-immigration-n2440255 I am glad conservatives are in favour of big government constantly checking everyone's employment records, constantly checking everyones ID. Can't risk the chance of someone doing something without big brothers approval. Not to mention all the new taxes to pay for having an enforcement officer at every street corner. Must be the party of big government. 1
Rivers Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 It's important to note that the church is acknowledging that immigration is a complex issue. They aren't calling for complete amnesty for everyone. The church is simply calling for a reasonable and compassionate approach to immigration without offering any specific solutions. Its a lot like the Church's statements concerning the balancing of LGBT rights with religious freedom. 3
Rivers Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 3 hours ago, Danzo said: I am glad conservatives are in favour of big government constantly checking everyone's employment records, constantly checking everyones ID. Can't risk the chance of someone doing something without big brothers approval. Not to mention all the new taxes to pay for having an enforcement officer at every street corner. Must be the party of big government. Those enforcement officers are there to protect our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Popular Post Kevin Christensen Posted January 27, 2018 Popular Post Posted January 27, 2018 (edited) 18 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: The statement, though, does acknowledge the right of a nation to enforce its own laws and secure its own borders. While striving to be humane and inclusive, a nation has as its first priority to see to the well-being of its own citizenry. America first? Over humanity and inclusiveness? What did Jesus say our first and great commandment should be? Patriotism? Is that the object lesson of the parable of the Good Samaritan? To make an effort to be a bit more humane and inclusive, where the interests of nationalism permits? I think we ought to be careful in designating our first and great priority in a different way than Jesus does. Whatever is first and great is the value that does not give way in the case of a conflict. It seems to me that Patriotism is a significant concern, but not the first concern. I'd rather compromise patriotism and secure borders than Christian morality. FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA Edited January 27, 2018 by Kevin Christensen typo 8
Darren10 Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 6 hours ago, Danzo said: I am glad conservatives are in favour of big government constantly checking everyone's employment records, constantly checking everyones ID. Can't risk the chance of someone doing something without big brothers approval. Not to mention all the new taxes to pay for having an enforcement officer at every street corner. Must be the party of big government. Conservatives believe in upholding the law and veryfying legal status to work is part of the law. If you are libertarian and do not believe so feel free to change that law. Chaos is California which is now fundamentally a sanctuary state defying federal law which constitutionally it has.
Darren10 Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 Just now, Kevin Christensen said: America first? Over humanity and inclusiveness? What did Jesus say our first and great commandment should be? Patriotism? Is that the object lesson of the parable of the Good Samaritan? To make an effort to be a bit more humane and inclusive, where the interests of nationalism permits? I think we ought to be careful in designating our first and great priority in a different way than Jesus does. Whatever is first and great is the value that does not give way in the case of a conflict. It seems to be that Patriotism is a significant concern, but not the first concern. I'd rather compromise patriotism and secure borders than Christian morality. FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA What did Jesus say about God and Ceasar?
Gray Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 10 hours ago, The Nehor said: I am not denying there is lots of bad news but the term itself annoys me on a visceral level. Not sure why. Probably because the 229 pound 6' 3" svelte commander in chief keeps using it to refer to real news that he doesn't like.
Gray Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 15 minutes ago, Darren10 said: What did Jesus say about God and Ceasar? He said to pay your taxes, but conservatives don't seem to agree with that either. 2
smac97 Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 (edited) From the Deseret News Editorial Board: Quote In our opinion: Compassion must be a driving force in any immigration deal In political terms, finding a way to help the children of undocumented immigrants, who came here through no fault of their own, is the low-hanging fruit of immigration reform. I think this is an important point. While I recognize that reasonable minds can and do disagree about immigration policy, if there is any group of illegal immigrants who should be given some realy consideration for lenience and compassion as to their status, it is these children. Quote Many politicians on both sides of the aisle, including President Donald Trump, seem to agree that these people, American in every way except through official citizenship, should not be deported. Yes. Although I have some real reservations about characterizing citizenship as just a trivial detail, as this sentence seems to do. Citizenship matters. The law matters. A lot. Quote They should be given a quick path to citizenship and a full opportunity to succeed and contribute to society. I am really torn about this. I see the compassion in it, and I love that. But I also see the ramifications of it, including the incentives it creates for breaking the law. I can imagine some real and justified resentments from people who have followed the law, who have spent years seeking a lawful path to citizenship for themselves and their children, only to find out that had they broken the law, their children would have been given "a quick path" to it. Quote On Friday, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (which owns this newspaper) issued a statement calling on national leaders to “create policies that provide hope and opportunities” for these children, also known as “Dreamers.” The statement was careful not to endorse “any specific legislative or executive solution.” I appreciate the Church's stance. It is measured. It recognizes that both sides have reasoned, good faith bases for their positions. But at the end of the day, these kids were brought here. They generally had no say in the matter. And we have spent years dithering about enforcement of our laws, which has ended up as a de facto "open door" policy. I'll also note that I don't like the term "Dreamers." It's manipulative. Quote “They have built lives, pursued educational opportunities and been employed for years based on the policies that were in place,” the church statement said of the Dreamers. “These individuals have demonstrated a capacity to serve and contribute positively in our society, and we believe they should be granted the opportunity to continue to do so.” What are your thoughts about this reasoning? Quote A new plan similar to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program currently is a bargaining chip in the struggle to keep the federal government funded, pitted against a border wall and other immigration issues. That’s an uneven equation. The need to treat the Dreamers with compassion is far more important than the other issues at stake. The president is offering a plan that would provide a path toward citizenship for 1.8 million Dreamers. That compares to the Obama-era DACA program, which covers less than 700,000. Officials have said Trump’s plan would contain some sort of requirements for moral character. He also has proposed new restrictions on family-based immigration. We do not support restrictions on family-based immigration, and increased border security must be approached realistically. A lengthened border wall would not bring an end to illegal migration. Huh. No explanation here. Just a "Nope, we don't like 'new restrictions on family-based immigration' or 'a lengthened border wall.'" Sorry, D News Board, you'll have to do better than that. Quote After many years of wrangling, Congress now seems close to an actual solution to one of the most substantive parts of immigration reform. If a divided Washington can solve the needs of Dreamers, perhaps that momentum could lead to solutions to other immigration problems, as well. As long as compassion is a driving force behind those efforts, the American people, and those who want to come here to contribute, will be well served. I'm okay with this. Compassion as "a driving force." It cannot, however, be the only "driving force." Thanks, -Smac Edited January 27, 2018 by smac97 1
Kevin Christensen Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 23 minutes ago, Darren10 said: What did Jesus say about God and Ceasar? Give money rather than my soul. My Dad went through WWII in the 813th TD battalion from North Africa to Austria. One day after the Nordwind offensive had fizzeled, and a Captain in headquarters company asked him to put in a recommendation for the Captain for the Silver Star, Dad went back and said, "I can't think of anything you have done to deserve it." And he was transferred to Recon company for the rest of the war. Dad gave service, paid taxes, but did not offer up his soul. FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA 3
The Nehor Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 10 hours ago, Darren10 said: Trump wants a very small portion on the border walled in. Far smaller than his original campaign promise. Depends on which synapses are firing on the day he speaks.
Hestia Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 This topic can easily become too political. Fair warning that posters will be banned if they don't reign themselves in.
rongo Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 1 hour ago, smac97 said: What are your thoughts about this reasoning? Huh. No explanation here. Just a "Nope, we don't like 'new restrictions on family-based immigration' or 'a lengthened border wall.'" Sorry, D News Board, you'll have to do better than that. I'm disappointed that the Church doesn't take a concrete stance in either direction (and I would be fine with either direction). It says that a) families should stay together, but b) laws are important and should be obeyed, and c) doesn't weigh in at all on how you can reconcile a) with b). It's trying to be non-committal while sounding good, like it's open-minded and temperate but also for justice and rule of law. And it doesn't address at all how grandfathering people in adheres to b) while not encouraging future violations. Again, it all sounds good, as far as it goes, but it doesn't go anywhere at all. Do you think if they prayed for God's mind and will on it, what they get is the "measured," neutral, fence-straddling statement? Or is that PR and studiously avoiding stepping on any mines?
smac97 Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 (edited) 21 minutes ago, rongo said: I'm disappointed that the Church doesn't take a concrete stance in either direction (and I would be fine with either direction). Why? What's wrong with the Church offering its views as to guiding principles, but then leaving the particulars to legislators? Social/moral issues that overlap with political issues are difficult for the Church to address. It tries to do so with prudence and wisdom and caution. Quote It says that a) families should stay together, but b) laws are important and should be obeyed, and c) doesn't weigh in at all on how you can reconcile a) with b). Isn't the "how" the responsibility of legislators? Quote It's trying to be non-committal while sounding good, like it's open-minded and temperate but also for justice and rule of law. I think the leaders of the Church are acknowledging the legitimate, and competing, points raised by both sides of this issue. Quote And it doesn't address at all how grandfathering people in adheres to b) while not encouraging future violations. Perhaps that's a point better left to legislators. Quote Again, it all sounds good, as far as it goes, but it doesn't go anywhere at all. Oh, I think it does. The Church is encouraging something other than a hardline stance on immigration either way. Neither a "Kick 'em all out" or a "Let's tear down our borders and let 'em all in" approach. Quote Do you think if they prayed for God's mind and will on it, what they get is the "measured," neutral, fence-straddling statement? Or is that PR and studiously avoiding stepping on any mines? You speak as if the Church has never spoken out on a controversial topic before. Doesn't Prop 8 ring a bell? And isn't it possible that God may want us to be both law-abiding and compassionate toward, say, children who were brought to the U.S. and raised here for years under a de facto "open borders" policy? Thanks, -Smac Edited January 27, 2018 by smac97
Anijen Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 (edited) 15 hours ago, Bobbieaware said: No luck yet but I did find this related article. It seems that the oft-touted low statistics on illegal immagrant crimes were deliberately skewed because illegal immagrants and legal immagrants were lumped into the same group. So those who have illegally entered the United States have been lumped in with those who went way out of their way to enter this country legally have been combined to present a distorted view of reality. Fake news, anyone? I stand on the side of the church here. I am all for immigration. I have a tendency that I sometimes butt my head in where I think clarification is needed. This is one of those times. If a noncitizen enters the country legally one way that legal immigration can becomes illegal is by over staying the visa. There are other ways too (but not as common). If the entire country accepted all incoming people it would take away any "stigma" that being illegal is attached with that term. Imagine sitting in church a non-member stands up and starts cussing, badmouthing the prophet, what should we do? Do we build a wall around the ward building? Do we ask for papers, a temple recommend before allowing him into sacrament meeting? No of course not we would continue to allow members in and we tolerate the bad mouthing, prophet slandering person until he is through and then we continue on with church. Will have a little more to talk about on the ride home, but we love everyone. Visitors Welcome Edited January 27, 2018 by Anijen
rongo Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 19 minutes ago, smac97 said: Why? What's wrong with the Church offering its views as to guiding principles, but then leaving the particulars to legislators? Social/moral issues that overlap with political issues are difficult for the Church to address. It tries to do so with prudence and wisdom and caution. Isn't the "how" the responsibility of legislators? I think the leaders of the Church are acknowledging the legitimate, and competing, points raised by both sides of this issue. Perhaps that's a point better left to legislators. Oh, I think it does. The Church is encouraging something other than a hardline stance on immigration either way. Neither a "Kick 'em all out" or a "Let's tear down our borders and let 'em all in" approach. What's the point of the statement, then? Why even make it? The "guiding principles" of a) and b) are of no help to legislators in making the ultimate decisions (which will probably be a form of kick the can that resolves or pleases no one). It sounds like the judge on "Miracle on 34th Street" (the good one, the old one. I've never seen any remakes) trying to be perfectly neutral on whether there's a Santa Claus in Santa's trial. "Many reasonable people believe in him, and many reasonable ones do not. There is evidence on both sides." It was frustrating to everyone involved, and part of the dramatic irony and comic value is the spot he's in. You speak as if the Church has never spoken out on a controversial topic before. Doesn't Prop 8 ring a bell? Sure. That was ten years ago, and other than the ERA, it's pretty much the only foray into that by the modern Church. Can you name another? That was ten years ago. The Church has all appearances to me of licking its wounds after its Prop 8 experience. And isn't it possible that God may want us to be both law-abiding and compassionate toward, say, children who were brought to the U.S. and raised here for years under a de facto "open borders" policy? Yes, but the Church's PR statements on this are completely unhelpful in helping members hungry for guidance on how to resolve this, since by definition the people in question (or at least, their parents, who are grandfathered in under the principle of "don't break up the families") are not law abiding. It's admittedly a difficult conundrum, but there are many upset members for whom this is disturbing. I've had this question from otherwise solidly people in stakes, and the Church's guidance and stance isn't helpful.
Jeanne Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 This is wonderful...to include dreamers...but why...when gay members exclusive in church and children cannot be baptized...wow...I know there is a difference but the principal speaks volumes.
Avatar4321 Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 14 hours ago, The Nehor said: Agreed, letting the filthy poor people in will lower my property values. It can get lower?
Avatar4321 Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 The children of Lehi are supposedly to help us build Zion. Understanding those prophecies makes the Churches position very understandable. a few comments: I don’t see any point of passing DACA absent border security measures being put in place. Otherwise we will be in the same situation in 20 years. Getting rid of the water is pointless if you don’t patch the hole in the boat. we need to remember that obedience to the law regardless how it is changed should be an overarching goal. We should also remember than many of these dreamer are not children having grown up long ago. if illegal immigrants get any legal status it should preclude them from obtaining citizenship and the right to vote until such time as they leave and enter the country legally. Their offspring, as Americans, will of course have no such prohibition. This will give time for assimilation without creating cosmic political shifts
Recommended Posts