what is our position on the Caravan

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

This is okay...but as a non member..I didn't feel like I could partcicipate. 

Why?

[Vance]

Just now, Robert F. Smith said:

Every statement false.

Everyone of my statements are true.

It is a mob and an army

 

https://moonbattery.com/migrant-caravan-is-invasion-force-and-behaves-like-it/

 

[Vance]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

John McCain, one of the few honest men left in D.C., voted no because there was no "replace" in "repeal and replace."

It was SHAMEFUL for him to vote the way he did.  Replace could easily come later.   Failure to repeal is far less "repeal and replace" than not.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Let’s go back to my home-invasion analogy (and “invasion” is not strictly a military term). 

Suppose, in my resistance to your intrusion, I decline to use lethal weapons or aggressive bodily force to keep you out because I don’t want to risk killing or injuring you. That does not negate the fact that I have resisted your intrusion nor the fact that you have used force to get in. 

I spent considerable time in both the military and in law enforcement.  So I don't understand your misuse of terms like "force." I also don't understand why you think that the U.S. military or Border Patrol are virtually powerless.  We have long had many effective means of preventing border crossing without injuring anyone.  Crowd control is just not that difficult in border areas.

Trump has everyone frothing at the mouth over this issue, even though it is not an imminent or credible threat.  This is really just another big lie used as a distraction from legitimate issues.

[Robert F. Smith]

12 minutes ago, Vance said:

It was SHAMEFUL for him to vote the way he did.  Replace could easily come later.   Failure to repeal is far less "repeal and replace" than not.

I guess he believed that a bird in hand is worth two in the bush.  A great American hero

Edited October 29, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[BlueDreams]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In the assertion that this political discussion “has a direct connection to the gospel of Christ” and the insinuation that those who oppose an open or pourous national border do not thereby behave in a manner consistent with said gospel. 

Wanting a secure or orderly border does not mean that the view is antithetical from the gospel, speaking as one who wants a better and more open legal immigration and refugee process. What can tie to the gospel is the underlying reasoning and beliefs about our fellow people on earth used to bolster or support closing down the borders. What i have seen in many recent avenues talking about “securing” borders or “walls” or other common trope tied to immigration restrictions is fear-based beliefs that dehumanizes the people and makes loose with facts to paint the worst picture of vulnerable and generally voiceless populations. 

Even when these arguments are more even-keel, it does not remove the expectation to see if the policies we recommend represent our values. And for those who profess belief in Christ, does it fit our ethos about the Savior? As LDS in particular, does it fit our own refugee and immigration heritage...and even the recent push to help those displaced as much as possible? 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited October 29, 2018 by BlueDreams

[Robert F. Smith]

7 minutes ago, Vance said:

Everyone of my statements are true.

It is a mob and an army......................................................

https://moonbattery.com/migrant-caravan-is-invasion-force-and-behaves-like-it/

I guess so, if you take your lessons on "fact" from the agitprop dept of the Comintern.

[Glenn101]

5 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Wanting a secure or orderly border does not mean that the view is antithetical from the gospel, speaking as one who wants a better and more open legal immigration and refugee process. What can tie to the gospel is the underlying reasoning and beliefs about our fellow people on earth used to bolster or support closing down the borders. What i have seen in many recent avenues talking about “securing” borders or “walls” or other common trope tied to immigration restrictions is fear-based beliefs that dehumanizes the people and makes loose with facts to paint the worst picture of vulnerable and generally voiceless populations. 

Even when these arguments are more even-keel, it does not remove the expectation to see if the policies we recommend represent our values. And for those who profane belief in Christ, does it fit our ethos about the Savior? As LDS in particular, does it fit our own refugee and immigration heritage...and even the recent push to help those displaced as much as possible? 

 

With luv,

BD

BD, Agree completely with your sentiments here. But as a retired grammar policeperson, did you mean "profess" rather than "profane" belief in Christ? 😕

Glenn

[Vance]

5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I guess he believe that a bird in hand is worth two in the bush.  A great American hero

???

A repeal in hand IS worth MORE that a "repeal and replace" in the bush.

[Vance]

5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I guess so, if you take your lessons on "fact" from the agitprop dept of the Comintern.

So, rather that engage or refute, you go for the ad hominem attack.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Wanting a secure or orderly border does not mean that the view is antithetical from the gospel, speaking as one who wants a better and more open legal immigration and refugee process. What can tie to the gospel is the underlying reasoning and beliefs about our fellow people on earth used to bolster or support closing down the borders. What i have seen in many recent avenues talking about “securing” borders or “walls” or other common trope tied to immigration restrictions is fear-based beliefs that dehumanizes the people and makes loose with facts to paint the worst picture of vulnerable and generally voiceless populations. 

Even when these arguments are more even-keel, it does not remove the expectation to see if the policies we recommend represent our values. And for those who profane belief in Christ, does it fit our ethos about the Savior? As LDS in particular, does it fit our own refugee and immigration heritage...and even the recent push to help those displaced as much as possible? 

 

With luv,

BD

If we truly want to help, then we should be adamant about not allowing this kind of trek, especially across Mexico. If we really want to help, we should open migrant centers in poor countries where anyone who wants to come to the US shows up at the center and is given free passage in safe transports to well-equipped and supervised US locations where they are processed properly, taught English, given medical and educational services and do everything necessary to be fully integrated into American society. All partisanship and politicization should be eliminated. Any fraud or exploitation should receive serious jail time and fines. The current method of thousands of people rushing the border in large and small groups is the bunk. It’s shameful how these people are being used by people on all sides. 

It’s interesting that some here berate Brigham Young and the handcart debacle but don’t see the problems with this stuff. 

Edited October 29, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Scott Lloyd]

49 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Where exactly in what I said to you did I insinuate the bolder part?

Well, that’s the thing about insinuation. It’s not overtly stated so it’s hard to identify precise wording. 

Are you saying it’s not your intent to imply that disapproval of the caravan is contrary to Christ’s gospel? If not, why couch this political discussion in terms of it being directly related to the gospel of Christ? If I’m wrong in my perception, you need only say so. 

[Scott Lloyd]

56 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Why?

Not to speak for Jeanne, but if the question was “What is <our> position?” and the  antecedent of “our” is members of the Church, then it’s logical for a non-member not to feel included. 

[Scott Lloyd]

23 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

If we truly want to help, then we should be adamant about not allowing this kind of trek, especially across Mexico. If we really want to help, we should open migrant centers in poor countries where anyone who wants to come to the US shows up at the center and is given free passage in safe transports to well-equipped and supervised US locations where they are processed properly, taught English, given medical and educational services and do everything necessary to be fully integrated into American society. All partisanship and politicization should be eliminated. Any fraud or exploitation should receive serious jail time and fines. The current method of thousands of people rushing the border in large and small groups is the bunk. It’s shameful how these people are being used be people on all sides. 

It’s interesting that some here berate Brigham Young and the handcart debacle but don’t see the problems with this stuff. 

This makes eminent sense! 

To me, it seems consistent with what King Benjamin said in his address about succoring the needy and that “all these things” should be done in wisdom and order, for it is not wise to run faster than one has strength. 

Edited October 30, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well, that’s the thing about insinuation. It’s not overtly stated so it’s hard to identify precise wording. 

Are you saying it’s not your intent to imply that disapproval of the caravan is contrary to Christ’s gospel? If not, why couch this political discussion in terms of it being directly related to the gospel of Christ? If I’m wrong in my perception, you need only say so. 

My intent was to explain why I believe the topic is not solely political but is relevant to Christianity and Christians. 

It can be a political discussion, but this thread has largely focused on the morality of immigration policies and, more specifically, what our Christian responsibility is towards immigrants seeking refuge and a better life. 

And that is very relevant to this discussion board. 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

Wanting a secure or orderly border does not mean that the view is antithetical from the gospel, speaking as one who wants a better and more open legal immigration and refugee process. What can tie to the gospel is the underlying reasoning and beliefs about our fellow people on earth used to bolster or support closing down the borders. What i have seen in many recent avenues talking about “securing” borders or “walls” or other common trope tied to immigration restrictions is fear-based beliefs that dehumanizes the people and makes loose with facts to paint the worst picture of vulnerable and generally voiceless populations. 

Even when these arguments are more even-keel, it does not remove the expectation to see if the policies we recommend represent our values. And for those who profane belief in Christ, does it fit our ethos about the Savior? As LDS in particular, does it fit our own refugee and immigration heritage...and even the recent push to help those displaced as much as possible? 

 

With luv,

BD

Oh my, big upvote BlueDreams!! 

Edited October 29, 2018 by Tacenda

[longview]

1 hour ago, Vance said:

Both Socialism and National Socialism feature the State control of goods, production, and services.  There isn't enough of a difference between them to place them at opposite ends of the political spectrum.

Actually there is another perspective.  Cleon Skousen has proposed a spectrum in which there is total government control on one end and absence of laws on the opposite end.   One is tyranny, the other is anarchy.  Communism, Nazism, Socialism, monarchies occupy the same end in different gradations only a few steps apart.

Middle of the spectrum are varying degrees of government power and individual liberty and independence.  The sweet spot (the exact middle) is a limited government operating with the consent of the governed.  God in His Wisdom provided America with a Constitutional Republic which has turned out to be a tremendous prosperity engine and a great blessing to the world.

Micah 4:2 And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion (prophetic destiny of America), and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.

[Duncan]

59 minutes ago, longview said:

Actually there is another perspective.  Cleon Skousen has proposed a spectrum in which there is total government control on one end and absence of laws on the opposite end.   One is tyranny, the other is anarchy.  Communism, Nazism, Socialism, monarchies occupy the same end in different gradations only a few steps apart.

Middle of the spectrum are varying degrees of government power and individual liberty and independence.  The sweet spot (the exact middle) is a limited government operating with the consent of the governed.  God in His Wisdom provided America with a Constitutional Republic which has turned out to be a tremendous prosperity engine and a great blessing to the world.

Micah 4:2 And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion (prophetic destiny of America), and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.

isn't Zion everywhere? and aren't we are supposed to be establishing a Zion people wherever we live? 

Edited October 29, 2018 by Duncan

[bluebell]

31 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Oh my, big upvote bluebell!! 

BlueDreams. 😊

[Glenn101]

29 minutes ago, longview said:

 

Micah 4:2 And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion (prophetic destiny of America), and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.

That is one of the reasons I feel we should take as many of those people as we can. The other and just as important reason is humanitarian one, i.e. providing a safe destination for people seeking better lives for themselves. In spite of all that has been going on, the United States still is a beacon of hope for a lot of people. There is a lot of room in the United States for a lot more people. People that will work hard and become productive members of our society if given the chance. There are a lot of Hispanic families here in my area, and I love to see them mingling among us. I love to see the families. They are so friendly. The other day I was sitting on a pallet at our local Family Dollar store waiting on a couple of granddaughters to make up their minds what they wanted to blow their money on when a family walked in. A youngster about four years old stuck out his hand an shook to shake mine, an old, ornery redneck from North Carolina.

Glenn

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

BD, Agree completely with your sentiments here. But as a retired grammar policeperson, did you mean "profess" rather than "profane" belief in Christ? 😕

Glenn

Lol, yes definitely. I was writing on the phone, so i’m blaming autocorrect. 

[Glenn101]

6 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Lol, yes definitely. I was writing on the phone, so i’m blaming autocorrect. 

That was a problem with one of my phones. I have a brother name Virgil and autocorrect tried to make his name Virgin. He has four children......😄

 

[longview]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

isn't Zion everywhere? and aren't we are supposed to be establishing a Zion people wherever we live? 

Yes, that is why the "Law Shall Go Forth" to all nations.  Teach them correct principles and they shall govern themselves more wisely (paraphrasing).  It is NOT just in ecclesiastical areas but also in self government and garnering greater self reliance.  America is a wondrous experiment but we simply cannot allow the whole world to stampede our borders and expect to be fed with "free" welfare.  The BEST option is to teach Constitutional Principles in all the nations of the world and they each can become marvelous economic dynamos (like Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, etc).

Many times Americans had to shed their blood in order to water the "Tree of Liberty".  Sometimes our soldiers go overseas to free the oppressed from despots.  Those refugees who want to come to America should seriously consider going back to their lands to try to instil reforms and implement principles of liberty.  It is not an easy thing to do.  A lot of blood may have to be spilled to overcome cronyism and corruption.

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

There is a lot of room in the United States for a lot more people. People that will work hard and become productive members of our society if given the chance.

Yes, through legal immigration.  They should be willing to learn the official language and assimilate into our society.  I have seen too many pictures of illegal aliens in America flaunting flags of their countries of origin and burning the Stars and Stripes.  A lot of them know how to get on welfare and act like they are entitled to benefits but still show no gratitude.

I believe there are over 30 millions illegal aliens (probably more) that have come into this country since the sixties.  Ted Kennedy was a big mover and shaker for greatly increasing immigration and foisting amnesty for many illegal aliens:   https://www.numbersusa.com/content/nusablog/beckr/september-2-2009/ted-kennedys-immigration-legacy-and-why-did-he-do-it.html

"Ted Kennedy surely was one of the most influential Senators in our history.

His influence on immigration alone brought more change to America than the work of any other Senator during my lifetime.

Just as a reminder, let's make a short list of the immigration policies that Kennedy and his extremely talented staff put into effect:

• The 1965 revamp of the entire immigration system.  It ended 40 years of low immigration, got rid of solid numerical caps and opened up chain migration into every overpopulated country in the world, exploding annual immigration numbers. 
• Massive expansion of the refugee programs in the late 1970s, opening up massive loopholes and encouraging a domestic resettlement industry that became a major lobby for more and more overall immigration.
• The 1986 blanket amnesty. Kennedy's skills may have been best seen here where he got legislators on our side to agree to the amnesty in exchange for enforcement rules that he made sure were written in a way that would not work.  Within a decade, he would be using the inability to enforce the 1986 rules as an excuse for why we needed more green cards and more amnesties. An example of Kennedy's great skill was that he persuaded Ronald Reagan to enthusiastically support this bill.
• The 1990 immigration act, which increased overall immigration by another 35%.  The first Pres. Bush was Kennedy's co-partner, just as the second Pres. Bush was Kennedy's eager co-partner in trying to force through another blanket amnesty 2001-2008.
• The 1990 act also established the lottery whereby we randomly give away 50,000 green cards a year to people in countries picked because they have the least ties and cultural association with the United States, and which disproportionately are terrorist-sponsoring countries. This was something of a compromise for Kennedy who was able to ensure that during the first few years, much of the lottery winners would be illegal aliens from Ireland -- his own ethnic group."

Edited October 29, 2018 by longview

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

what our Christian responsibility is towards immigrants seeking refuge and a better life. 

What do you think the Christian response should be to thousands of people making a trek across difficult terrain paying thousands of dollars to human traffickers with the chances of finding a better life pretty slim?

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

If we truly want to help, then we should be adamant about not allowing this kind of trek, especially across Mexico. If we really want to help, we should open migrant centers in poor countries where anyone who wants to come to the US shows up at the center and is given free passage in safe transports to well-equipped and supervised US locations where they are processed properly, taught English, given medical and educational services and do everything necessary to be fully integrated into American society. All partisanship and politicization should be eliminated. Any fraud or exploitation should receive serious jail time and fines. The current method of thousands of people rushing the border in large and small groups is the bunk. It’s shameful how these people are being used be people on all sides. 

It’s interesting that some here berate Brigham Young and the handcart debacle but don’t see the problems with this stuff. 

There’s several ideas that i would agree with here...though a number that logistically and respecting the boundaries of other sovereign nations would likely not work (the migrant centers in por countries)...which would also mean some of the earlier half would still be a problem realistically. I also dont think being wholly against the caravan is necessary in wanting to help. Because, ideally, there would be safe means of transport when you’re likely a refugee. But due to the fundamental nature of refugees or compromised populations, that’s difficult to implement. 

I cannot emphasize how much i would like and want safe passage for people seeking refuge....It’s just more whether its right or fair to expect idealistic methods to relief and helping our fellow man in extremely difficult, unjust, and chaotic situations. From what i’ve seen, that’s not often the best mix.

 

With luv,

BD