Troubling Development Re: Immigration from Mexico

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Anything from Fox news and entertainment I would take with a big grain of salt.

I feel pretty much the same about CNN and other networks. I've come to trust Tucker Carlson

Do you have anything to refute that the candidate favors amnesty for drug cartels?

Edited to add:

Here's something on it from the Guardian (British newspaper) if you don't believe Fox or Carlson:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/04/mexican-presidential-candidate-pitches-amnesty-deal-for-drug-cartel-kingpins

Edited June 23, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

This I believe is the relevant Spanish text (I can read a bit):

Y ya pronto, muy pronto, al triunfo de nuestro movimiento vamos a defender a los migrantes de todo el continente Americano y todos los migrantes del mundo que, por necesidad, tienen que abandonar sus pueblos para buscar la vida en Estados Unidos, es un derecho human que vamos, a defender, expreso'

Google translator:

And soon, very soon, to the triumph of our movement we will defend migrants from all over the American continent and all the migrants of the world who, by necessity, have to leave their villages to seek life in the United States, it is a right human that we go, to defend, I express'

So it appears to be a definite misrepresentation as he is not saying they should leave their towns, but is talking about those who have to leave their towns due to necessity.

http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/22/mexican-candidate-immigration-speech/

---

So I wonder if he sees it as a human right to immigrate to Mexico and intends to change the law?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala–Mexico_border#Immigration_issues

 

7 hours ago, Calm said:

If google translate can get it right, I don't see it likely that someone else would blow it.  Heck, my high school Spanish let me recognize "for necessity" from "por necesidad" and "have to abandon" from "tienen qui abandoner".

 

4 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Your translation is close enough.  Definitely a misrepresentation. 

 

I'm still not clear on what he means. Is he talking about invading another country and forcibly interfering with its enforcement of its immigration laws? Good luck with that.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Do you have a reference for this?  I thought JS said zion was Jackson County, Missouri.

The word can have any of various meanings, depending on context, as explained here:

https://www.lds.org/topics/zion?lang=eng

[Avatar4321]

15 hours ago, Duncan said:

Um, I live here, Hellooooo!

Then it will be easy for you to invade 

[Avatar4321]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

This I believe is the relevant Spanish text (I can read a bit):

Y ya pronto, muy pronto, al triunfo de nuestro movimiento vamos a defender a los migrantes de todo el continente Americano y todos los migrantes del mundo que, por necesidad, tienen que abandonar sus pueblos para buscar la vida en Estados Unidos, es un derecho human que vamos, a defender, expreso'

Google translator:

And soon, very soon, to the triumph of our movement we will defend migrants from all over the American continent and all the migrants of the world who, by necessity, have to leave their villages to seek life in the United States, it is a right human that we go, to defend, I express'

So it appears to be a definite misrepresentation as he is not saying they should leave their towns, but is talking about those who have to leave their towns due to necessity.

http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/22/mexican-candidate-immigration-speech/

---

So I wonder if he sees it as a human right to immigrate to Mexico and intends to change the law?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala–Mexico_border#Immigration_issues

Looks like he is arguing that immigration throughout the American continent is a human right. Not that they must immigrate, though I could see how a poor translation could make someone think that

which leads to a question: is he planning to eliminate Mexican immigration laws if he wins?

[Storm Rider]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

And soon, very soon, to the triumph of our movement we will defend migrants from all over the American continent and all the migrants of the world who, by necessity, have to leave their villages to seek life in the United States, it is a right human that we go, to defend, I express'

 

Could someone please explain to me who or what is forcing people to "leave their villages to seek life in the United States"? Why are they not forced to go to Mexico City or any other big city in Mexico where they can legally journey to and reside? This is where the stupidity of the comment resides for me - it is a lie. There is no force that is making people move to the USA. There is a choice and that is all.  That choice must be discouraged by aggressively enforcing the sanctity of all national borders.  

This politician just enjoys the fact that they encourage their poor to go to another nation - it reduces the cost of their social programs, their costs of education, their costs of infrastructure, etc.  I don't see Mexico encouraging or tolerating the citizens of other countries to come in, allowed to own land, enjoy a free education system for children, etc.  

[Avatar4321]

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Seeing as how we took 1/3 of Mexico by force in 1847, and then dictated the Guadalupe-Hidalgo Treaty with what remained of Mexico, maybe the chickens have come home to roost.  The shame of it is that we did not even abide by our treaty obligations to Mexico.  Of course, we have made a regular practice as a nation of violating all of our treaties with other nations -- including the American Indians.

I would like to see the sovereignty and cohesion of the USA be based on righteousness and truth, but I doubt that will happen any time soon.  I am glad that the LDS Church has a policy which ignores the phony "criminal" status of those who are here "illegally" -- even sending young men on missions who do not have legal immigration status.  When you go in for a temple recommend interview, how strange that you are never asked about your immigration status.  The Lord looks on the heart, not on outward appearance.

We paid them quite a lot of money for the territory. 

[CA Steve]

Quote

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

 Emma Lazarus

 

[USU78]

6 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

 

😂

Well there you are then. Win a prize, your pretty poem gets to determine national security policy.

[USU78]

1 hour ago, Avatar4321 said:

We paid them quite a lot of money for the territory. 

Yup. The net result of the war was the prior purchase offer was accepted by internationally recognized and enforcible treaty.

--von Clausewitz

Edited June 23, 2018 by USU78

[CA Steve]

10 minutes ago, USU78 said:

😂

Well there you are then. Win a prize, your pretty poem gets to determine national security policy.

Well then I suppose it is time to remove the plague, swap out the torch for a stop sign and and tell the rest of the world they are paying to build a fence around the perimeter of Ellis island.

[USU78]

42 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Well then I suppose it is time to remove the plague, swap out the torch for a stop sign and and tell the rest of the world they are paying to build a fence around the perimeter of Ellis island.

Question: were any border jumpers coming through Ellis Island?

Nudder question: were any border jumpers getting med checks and vaccinations like they received on Ellis Island?

Nudder nudder question: were any Ellis Islanders  bringing in kidnapped or purchased children?

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

That choice must be discouraged by aggressively enforcing the sanctity of all national borders. This politician just enjoys the fact that they encourage their poor to go to another nation - it reduces the cost of their social programs, their costs of education, their costs of infrastructure, etc. 

Might as well add Chinese, Indians and Mormons to the list, while we're at it.

[Rajah Manchou]

22 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Question: were any border jumpers coming through Ellis Island?

Nudder question: were any border jumpers getting med checks and vaccinations like they received on Ellis Island?

Nudder nudder question: were any Ellis Islanders  bringing in kidnapped or purchased children?

Mexico and all of Central and South America were exempted from the 1924 immigration quotas. There was no need for Mexicans and South Americans to pass through immigration like those who entered through Ellis Island.

So no, they were not border jumpers. 

[CA Steve]

33 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Question: were any border jumpers coming through Ellis Island?

Nudder question: were any border jumpers getting med checks and vaccinations like they received on Ellis Island?

Nudder nudder question: were any Ellis Islanders  bringing in kidnapped or purchased children?

I totally see your point. It is so much easier to dismiss them if I think of all of them in terms of "boarder jumpers", kidnappers and such. 

 

[Storm Rider]

3 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Well then I suppose it is time to remove the plague, swap out the torch for a stop sign and and tell the rest of the world they are paying to build a fence around the perimeter of Ellis island.

This is an inane argument. It has as its logical foundation that a nation is stagnant without any opportunity for growth and that supply is endless. The reality is that nations are not stagnant indefinitely and supply is constricted. 

This is not an argument about immigration; I support a controlled immigration for first world nations. The topic is illegal immigration; those who blatantly ignore a nation's laws, laws of which they are fully cognizant because their own nations are often very restrictive on immigration policy.

Edited June 23, 2018 by Storm Rider

[Storm Rider]

24 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Might as well add Chinese, Indians and Mormons to the list, while we're at it.
 

1

Another inane response/comment that has nothing to do with the topic. The topic is illegal immigration. It may fit a political agenda or the agenda of the ignorant, but it has nothing to do with those individuals that seek to enter any country illegally. 

 

[Rajah Manchou]

4 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Another inane response/comment that has nothing to do with the topic. The topic is illegal immigration. It may fit a political agenda or the agenda of the ignorant, but it has nothing to do with those individuals that seek to enter any country illegally. 

My point is that a lot of ignorant agendas can also hide behind the words "Immigration Law".

[RevTestament]

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

This:

I have been trying to sort out how I feel about illegal immigration.  I have respected the LDS Church's statements and guidance about this.  We need to remember these are our brothers and sisters.  They are human beings.

But we also need to preserve our sovereignty and cohesion as a nation.  

And we also need to be concerned about the safety of unregulated cross-border migration, both because of sovereignty issues and also given the horrific accounts we keep hearing about it.

Now we have the likely next president of Mexico openly encouraging his own citizens to leave their country and "find a life in the United States."

This will not end well.

Any thoughts from a moral/religious perspective on how to respond to things like the news item above?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

18 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I just read the article in El Universal. Talk about misrepresentation. Lopez did not say that. He said that he would defend immigrants against racism and injustice. And he never said immigrants must leave their towns. He said he would defend the rights of people who are forced (por necesidad) to leave their towns and find a life in the US. 

I’m not familiar with the Daily Caller, but I am not impressed with this blatantly dishonest reporting. 

This may present some posturing against perceptions that Trump will raise tariffs against Mexico. If so, Lopez is saying, hey just immigrate to the United States.

Mexico has had a long standing idea that they would just take back their territory from the United States. The massive amount of immigration to the SW United States, especially California, could be viewed as a first step in bringing about that idea into reality. To some extent Mexicans view it as rightfully their land, and the idea of reinhabiting it is kept alive in the culture by things like the festival of Cinco de Mayo, although that is not particularly having to do with anything about the US

I realize this post is speculative, and probably will engender some feelings. Please realize I am not being anti-Mexican here, and am not making any personal comments about immigration. I have stated my beliefs about that elsewhere. It does not seem to me like Mexicans are under any particular persecution or need for asylum, so they should not receive top priority for immigration. However, it does seem to me that immigration may be used as a "bargaining chip" in response to comments and policies by the current US President.

[USU78]

8 hours ago, CA Steve said:

I totally see your point. It is so much easier to dismiss them if I think of all of them in terms of "boarder jumpers", kidnappers and such. 

 

Well ... I suppose you're right. They're just little brown people incapable of ethical or moral judgment. We need to excuse their scofflaw ways.

 

Crossed the line.  ~Mods

[bsjkki]

The nation is incapable right now of having a rational conversation about immigration policy.  The media stirs up peoples emotions so that there is no way to compromise. I would like strong border and immigration reform but it isn't going to get through congress.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/23/us/politics/republican-voters-trump.html

Even if Mr. Trump wasn’t at the center of the national conversation, Ms. Anders, the Loudoun County business executive, said she thinks that the country would still be polarized. But as long as he is, she said, people on the right and the left will probably continue to dig in based on what Mr. Trump does and how his opponents respond.

“It all coalesces around Trump,” she said. “It’s either, ‘Trump wants to put people in cages, in concentration camps.’ Or, on the other side, ‘Oh the left just wants everybody to come into the country illegally so they can get voters.’”

 

[jkwilliams]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

 

I'm still not clear on what he means. Is he talking about invading another country and forcibly interfering with its enforcement of its immigration laws? Good luck with that.

That’s impossible to say from a single quote from a campaign speech without context. Didn’t stop the Daily Caller. 

I’m not defending Lopez. I tend not to support leftist populists, but that doesn’t excuse misrepresentation. 

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Could someone please explain to me who or what is forcing people to "leave their villages to seek life in the United States"? Why are they not forced to go to Mexico City or any other big city in Mexico where they can legally journey to and reside? This is where the stupidity of the comment resides for me - it is a lie. There is no force that is making people move to the USA. There is a choice and that is all.  That choice must be discouraged by aggressively enforcing the sanctity of all national borders.  

This politician just enjoys the fact that they encourage their poor to go to another nation - it reduces the cost of their social programs, their costs of education, their costs of infrastructure, etc.  I don't see Mexico encouraging or tolerating the citizens of other countries to come in, allowed to own land, enjoy a free education system for children, etc.  

67 And the glory of the Lord shall be there, and the terror of the Lord also shall be there, insomuch that the wicked will not come unto it, and it shall be called Zion.

68 And it shall come to pass among the wicked, that every man that will not take his sword against his neighbor must needs flee unto Zion for safety.

69 And there shall be gathered unto it out of every nation under heaven; and it shall be the only people that shall not be at war one with another.

70 And it shall be said among the wicked: Let us not go up to battle against Zion, for the inhabitants of Zion are terrible; wherefore we cannot stand.

71 And it shall come to pass that the righteous shall be gathered out from among all nations, and shall come to Zion, singing with songs of everlasting joy.

And then shall Zion turn them away saying that they do not have a visa and that they must enter Zion legally. When it is pointed out that there are few options to legally enter Zion the Saints shall bow their heads in sorrow and say they are working on it and then do nothing. Then the Lord shall throw up his hands in disgust and smite Zion for being filled with utter prats.

[bsjkki]

8 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

67 And the glory of the Lord shall be there, and the terror of the Lord also shall be there, insomuch that the wicked will not come unto it, and it shall be called Zion.

68 And it shall come to pass among the wicked, that every man that will not take his sword against his neighbor must needs flee unto Zion for safety.

69 And there shall be gathered unto it out of every nation under heaven; and it shall be the only people that shall not be at war one with another.

70 And it shall be said among the wicked: Let us not go up to battle against Zion, for the inhabitants of Zion are terrible; wherefore we cannot stand.

71 And it shall come to pass that the righteous shall be gathered out from among all nations, and shall come to Zion, singing with songs of everlasting joy.

And then shall Zion turn them away saying that they do not have a visa and that they must enter Zion legally. When it is pointed out that there are few options to legally enter Zion the Saints shall bow their heads in sorrow and say they are working on it and then do nothing. Then the Lord shall throw up his hands in disgust and smite Zion for being filled with utter prats.

This is where the hyperbolic discourse gets us. 

[rpn]

Maybe someone should ask the candidate if he is suggesting that the United States simply annex his country entirely.