Scott Lloyd Posted October 26, 2018 Posted October 26, 2018 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: The borders of the USA are very secure, and have been for many years. Propaganda that our borders leak like a sieve is a powerful ploy, but it is false just the same. What we do have are refugees coming from various nations to our legal points of entry and applying for asylum. These are legal, orderly processes and can take years to complete. Other people come from various countries on student and tourist visas and overstay. They become illegal aliens, not because they are raping and robbing (they do that less than native born Americans), but because they do not have current permission to be here. Totalitarian regimes seldom have a problem of that kind, both because they are tightly controlled and because people want to leave rather than come. A free and open society such as ours is particularly vulnerable to people finding a way into this country and then making a home here. It is illegal, but understandable. People love America and vote with their feet. They pay their own way, and are not actually a financial burden on our polity. They even buttress our failing and falling birthrates with needed workers to help support our aging population. All of us have ancestors who came here to make a better life. Unfortunately, U.S. immigration laws in the past have been very discriminatory -- anti-Asian, anti-Hispanic, etc. We need fair, reasonable immigration laws. I’m not sure they do pay their own way. I’ve heard that, even though they pay a modicum of taxes, illegal aliens are a net drain on social services, education, infrastructure, etc. I agree that we need fair, reasonable immigration laws. I would add “effective” to that list of adjectives.
The Nehor Posted October 26, 2018 Posted October 26, 2018 1 minute ago, CV75 said: I think the travelers have the moral right to try, which unfortunately allows for the immoral to try as well, but still worth the risk for all concerned. A number this large, and it will only grow, to me indicates a humanitarian crisis that political mechanisms are not inclined to address. I think the humanitarians need to get ahead of the curve of political upheaval (which in most of the countries of origin means war). That would be nice (imagine a caravan of humanitarians), and better if they do it without anger. The spoilers didn't show through... maybe try to re-post... But being a Gentile, I've always appreciated the Lord's promises and warnings to us (speaking of spoiler alert: Israel aren't the only ones; "the promises of the Lord are great unto the Gentiles."). I did not know we had spoiler tags. Nice. Thanks, I edited.
bluebell Posted October 26, 2018 Posted October 26, 2018 57 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: So, it is not so simple after all. We should hold Mexico’s feet to the fire. The cartels must be destroyed...I could even be convinced our military should be invited to help. Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador must reform. They were corrupt when I was there in 1966-68, and not much has changed. We largely have ourselves to thank for that. We supported them in their corruption because we were terrified they would becoming communist. We would support any dictator regardless of their actions as long as they professed to be anti-communist. The US and South America in the 1960s was a horrible combination. 2
ksfisher Posted October 26, 2018 Posted October 26, 2018 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: I am sure that those who are suffering appreciate being sacrificed so we can bask in our bank accounts and non-scriptural principles about what an abomination government assistance to the distressed is. I was wondering what I've been basking in.
CV75 Posted October 26, 2018 Posted October 26, 2018 23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: It is not irregular or immoral for a nation to secure its borders or to set orderly procedures in place for immigration. Most, if not all, nations do it. And it is not fair to storm the borders and enter a country illegally when others are waiting in line to follow the procedures that have been set in place. By the way, it wasn’t President Polk who rebuffed Joseph Smith. It was President Martin Van Buren. Not until later would Polk be elected, he who ordered the enlistment of the Mormon Battallion from the Latter-day Saints who were then in Iowa en route to the Great Basin under Brigham Young’s leadership. This is a matter of fairness: those in my family who “came in right” and “by the rules” feel the same way. While admirable, I don’t see fairness being an attribute of morality, but the other way around (the order of things after the Fall is to temper justice with mercy and grace so that none are robbed but instead reconciled). 14 minutes ago, The Nehor said: It is immoral though to have bad immigration policies and procedures that cause undue suffering. And in a democracy we all get to share that guilt.....at least if King Mosiah knew what he was talking about. Rather I would say it is immoral to perpetuate policies and procedures that cause suffering when you have the wherewithal to change them through the mechanisms of a democratic republic. In such a setting/system, which is neither a theocracy nor conducive to win-win, it is immoral not to compromise, but few things are more difficult to achieve. 1
The Nehor Posted October 26, 2018 Posted October 26, 2018 14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I’m not sure they do pay their own way. I’ve heard that, even though they pay a modicum of taxes, illegal aliens are a net drain on social services, education, infrastructure, etc. The facts are debatable on that. I have heard they are a net gain and that they are a net loss and the data is naturally sketchy and there are debates about what counts in both columns. I just believe the debate misses the point: Think of your brethren like unto yourselves, and be familiar with all and free with your substance, that they may be rich like unto you. For behold, ye do love money, and your substance, and your fine apparel, and the adorning of your churches, more than ye love the poor and the needy, the sick and the afflicted. I doubt God factors in the net economic gain and loss each of his children are to a nation as the primary method of determining their worth. I do not mean that God endorses sloth or the idler eating the bread of the laborer. He specifically does not. However his recommendations on how to treat refugees are plastered all over the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon and I feel we ignore that at our own peril.
halconero Posted October 26, 2018 Posted October 26, 2018 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I’m not sure they do pay their own way. Mostly their own funds, with occasional "cents-on-the dollar" donations from charities along the way. Quote I’ve heard that, even though they pay a modicum of taxes, illegal aliens are a net drain on social services, education, infrastructure, etc. Heard from whom? The data is hard to quantify, but legal immigrants are certainly a net benefit, and the variables added to an illegal immigrant's situation would tend towards increasing (or at least not harming) that economic benefit. That's not an argument for illegal immigrants, but against they idea that they represent a net drain. Quote I agree that we need fair, reasonable immigration laws. I would add “effective” to that list of adjectives. Agreed on this point. I think adopting a Canadian System, including an automated federal points system, state-sponsorship of immigrants, and lifting the country cap on visas would go a long way to improving the system. Edited October 26, 2018 by halconero 2
HappyJackWagon Posted October 26, 2018 Posted October 26, 2018 (edited) The Church's immigration response is very measured. Quote The bedrock moral issue for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is how we treat each other as children of God. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is concerned that any state legislation that only contains enforcement provisions is likely to fall short of the high moral standard of treating each other as children of God. https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/immigration-church-issues-new-statement If we remove nationalism and fear from the equation, what should the Christian response be to thousands of people fleeing the devastation and violence of their country? Edited October 26, 2018 by HappyJackWagon 2
The Nehor Posted October 26, 2018 Posted October 26, 2018 8 minutes ago, ksfisher said: I was wondering what I've been basking in. I recommend going to the beach and basking in the sun instead. Much more fun. I do advise sunscreen though.
The Nehor Posted October 26, 2018 Posted October 26, 2018 Just now, HappyJackWagon said: The Church's immigration response is very measured. Speaking as Men!!!!!!
ksfisher Posted October 26, 2018 Posted October 26, 2018 Just now, The Nehor said: I recommend going to the beach and basking in the sun instead. Much more fun. I do advise sunscreen though. I wouldn't advise it. Sunscreen, as I'm sure you know, damages coral reefs. https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/news/feb14/sunscreen.html (But maybe I should save this tidbit of knowledge for the environment thread)
HappyJackWagon Posted October 26, 2018 Posted October 26, 2018 4 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Speaking as Men!!!!!! Some might even suggest... Speaking as men, wary of the backlash of a very conservative general membership.
Steve J Posted October 26, 2018 Posted October 26, 2018 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: According to my British friends the American Revolution was fought because the British had just aided us in winning the French and Indian War and with no external threat left we turned on our benefactors and insisted that we did not want to pay our disproportionately small cost for the war (look at ratio of British vs American taxes paid before the Revolution and the colonies do look like whiners) that gave us security in the first place. Bunch of ingrate children. Yes, that was a reason... but that was not the "big issue"
The Nehor Posted October 26, 2018 Posted October 26, 2018 3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: The Church's immigration response is very measured. If we remove nationalism and fear from the equation, what should the Christian response be to thousands of people fleeing the devastation and violence of their country? And what if violence is possible if you are taking them in? Story Time! And it came to pass that after they had found out the minds of all the people, those who were in favor of the words which had been spoken by Alma and his brethren were cast out of the land; and they were many; and they came over also into the land of Jershon. And it came to pass that Alma and his brethren did minister unto them. Now the people of the Zoramites were angry with the people of Ammon who were in Jershon, and the chief ruler of the Zoramites, being a very wicked man, sent over unto the people of Ammon desiring them that they should cast out of their land all those who came over from them into their land. And he breathed out many threatenings against them. And now the people of Ammon did not fear their words; therefore they did not cast them out, but they did receive all the poor of the Zoramites that came over unto them; and they did nourish them, and did clothe them, and did give unto them lands for their inheritance; and they did administer unto them according to their wants. Now this did stir up the Zoramites to anger against the people of Ammon, and they began to mix with the Lamanites and to stir them up also to anger against them. Wow, it is almost as if Mormon saw our day and knew what to include. Anticipated Response: But.......this does not apply because blah, blah, blah, a-blah blah....... If God gave us this book for our day and had prophets selectively edit thousands of years of history down to an incredibly short digest of just the stuff we needed and then we go around looking for ways that said examples do not apply then we are scripturing wrong. 2
The Nehor Posted October 26, 2018 Posted October 26, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Some might even suggest... Speaking as men, wary of the backlash of a very conservative general membership. LDS talk about a great sifting coming and I believe it and I also suspect political idolatry may be one of the primary reasons. In many of the stories about upcoming changes in the Church they talk about how the American Saints will find it the hardest. Political idolatry seems to fit there. Round peg, meet round hole. The good ship Zion drops a few more of our superficial superstitious cultural philosophies/barnacles. Edited October 26, 2018 by The Nehor 1
The Nehor Posted October 26, 2018 Posted October 26, 2018 3 minutes ago, Steve J said: Yes, that was a reason... but that was not the "big issue" I know, I was just having fun.
Kevin Christensen Posted October 26, 2018 Posted October 26, 2018 46 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: It is not irregular or immoral for a nation to secure its borders or to set orderly procedures in place for immigration. Most, if not all, nations do it. And it is not fair to storm the borders and enter a country illegally when others are waiting in line to follow the procedures that have been set in place. By the way, it wasn’t President Polk who rebuffed Joseph Smith. It was President Martin Van Buren. Not until later would Polk be elected, he who ordered the enlistment of the Mormon Battallion from the Latter-day Saints who were then in Iowa en route to the Great Basin under Brigham Young’s leadership. Thanks for the correction on Van Buren. Away from my books, drawing on memory I had another senior moment. I've heard Trump excuse some of Putin's characteristically immoral behavior on grounds that the US has killed people too. "Everybody does it" or even "Most people or nations do it" is not the kind of thinking that should emerge from a study of Christianity, ethics or morality. And on the other side of "Everybody does it," we have Stephen Miller famously saying that he shouldn't have to pick up his own garbage because that's what janitors are for. Some people are excessively obnoxious, and they ought not be setting national policy. For the past few years, the US has not been a shining example of how to best secure borders. The separation of children from parents and the use of concentration camps, and the lack of procedures to reunite the, let alone, sending parents back without their children, and send a four year old child back to Guatemala without notifying a parent in time to arrange a personal pick up... this is not orderly, regular, and it has been, most observers agree, a very good example of how to be moral. We ought to do better, and out policies ought to be based on something other than white nationalism and xenophobia. I rather think that Christianity and the Book of Mormon might provide helpful guidance. Given how far the caravan is from the borders, and that they have most of Mexico to walk yet, I think that "storming the borders" is not an apt image to employ here. These are people running for their lives, banding together for mutual protection. Telling, them, "Hey, get back in line and wait your turn" does not apply to the realities of their situation. They have a long ways to go to get to the line. Going back is not a matter of quietly waiting their turn but a matter of putting their own lives, and their children's lives at risk. Would you walk over a thousand miles towards a nation that had elected Donald Trump with your family in tow if you had a better option at home? Have asked yourself that question? Telling atrocity and scare stories about immigrants, as opposed to a comprehensive and careful view of the overall situation is the best antidote to generalizing from exceptional circumstances. The story of the blind men and the elephant is an apt parable about what can go wrong, when generalizing not only from inadequate sampling, but into unsuitable metaphors. Statistically speaking, most immigrants are more law abiding than native born. The other night I saw a woman in Minnesota express her fear that the migrants were going to come and squat in the summer vacation homes that were unoccupied in the Minnesota winters. Really? FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA 2
provoman Posted October 26, 2018 Posted October 26, 2018 "Going back is not a matter of quietly waiting their turn but a matter of putting their own lives, and their children's lives at risk." Is that not an atrocity and scare story? What proof do you offer that anyone in the caravan life is at risk upon returning to their country of origin and following the legal rpocess for lawful entry into the United States. 1
Steve J Posted October 26, 2018 Posted October 26, 2018 6 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said: Thanks for the correction on Van Buren. Away from my books, drawing on memory I had another senior moment. I've heard Trump excuse some of Putin's characteristically immoral behavior on grounds that the US has killed people too. "Everybody does it" or even "Most people or nations do it" is not the kind of thinking that should emerge from a study of Christianity, ethics or morality. And on the other side of "Everybody does it," we have Stephen Miller famously saying that he shouldn't have to pick up his own garbage because that's what janitors are for. Some people are excessively obnoxious, and they ought not be setting national policy. For the past few years, the US has not been a shining example of how to best secure borders. The separation of children from parents and the use of concentration camps, and the lack of procedures to reunite the, let alone, sending parents back without their children, and send a four year old child back to Guatemala without notifying a parent in time to arrange a personal pick up... this is not orderly, regular, and it has been, most observers agree, a very good example of how to be moral. We ought to do better, and out policies ought to be based on something other than white nationalism and xenophobia. I rather think that Christianity and the Book of Mormon might provide helpful guidance. Given how far the caravan is from the borders, and that they have most of Mexico to walk yet, I think that "storming the borders" is not an apt image to employ here. These are people running for their lives, banding together for mutual protection. Telling, them, "Hey, get back in line and wait your turn" does not apply to the realities of their situation. They have a long ways to go to get to the line. Going back is not a matter of quietly waiting their turn but a matter of putting their own lives, and their children's lives at risk. Would you walk over a thousand miles towards a nation that had elected Donald Trump with your family in tow if you had a better option at home? Have asked yourself that question? Telling atrocity and scare stories about immigrants, as opposed to a comprehensive and careful view of the overall situation is the best antidote to generalizing from exceptional circumstances. The story of the blind men and the elephant is an apt parable about what can go wrong, when generalizing not only from inadequate sampling, but into unsuitable metaphors. Statistically speaking, most immigrants are more law abiding than native born. The other night I saw a woman in Minnesota express her fear that the migrants were going to come and squat in the summer vacation homes that were unoccupied in the Minnesota winters. Really? FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA Are all real 4,000 fleeing for their lives? Or are they fleeing from poverty and violence? Violence, while terrible, is comparable to the US cities of Baltimore and Chicago. Most when starting on this journey stated that they were coming to the US for jobs and a better life for their kids. While I totally empathize with their actions, this does not qualify for asylum and is no different in many cases than another 30-50 million Mexicans who live in a violent country without the economic opportunities as America.. same for Brazil, Nigeria, Kenya, Sirra leone, Vietnam, Phillipines, Palestine, Morocco
The Nehor Posted October 26, 2018 Posted October 26, 2018 1 minute ago, provoman said: "Going back is not a matter of quietly waiting their turn but a matter of putting their own lives, and their children's lives at risk." Is that not an atrocity and scare story? What proof do you offer that anyone in the caravan life is at risk upon returning to their country of origin and following the legal rpocess for lawful entry into the United States. They are walking across Mexico. What more evidence do you need that it sucked back there? 1
The Nehor Posted October 26, 2018 Posted October 26, 2018 2 minutes ago, Steve J said: Are all real 4,000 fleeing for their lives? Or are they fleeing from poverty and violence? Violence, while terrible, is comparable to the US cities of Baltimore and Chicago. Most when starting on this journey stated that they were coming to the US for jobs and a better life for their kids. While I totally empathize with their actions, this does not qualify for asylum and is no different in many cases than another 30-50 million Mexicans who live in a violent country without the economic opportunities as America.. same for Brazil, Nigeria, Kenya, Sirra leone, Vietnam, Phillipines, Palestine, Morocco Cool, so see if they want to come too.
Steve J Posted October 26, 2018 Posted October 26, 2018 4 minutes ago, The Nehor said: They are walking across Mexico. What more evidence do you need that it sucked back there? Yes it sucked. No one argues that. (Side point they are not all walking the whole way... many are getting rides, still I readily acknowledge its not a fun journey) but is this surprising??? They are walking to go from making dollars a day to making hundred of dollars a week with first world living standards. If there was a caravan to walk through Mexico for three months to make 500,000 dollars at job and get 100x better standard of living... I’m doing that as well...
provoman Posted October 26, 2018 Posted October 26, 2018 9 minutes ago, The Nehor said: They are walking across Mexico. What more evidence do you need that it sucked back there? well thanks for the response, it does nothing to address Kevin's unfounded claim, but whatever.
changed Posted October 26, 2018 Posted October 26, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Sounds racist to me. Racial sterotyping is not acceptable. I should clarify - the migrants I work with come from all over the world - from the middle east, Asia, Africa, South America, India - I was not implying any single race, it is quite a beautiful melting pot going on in my little classroom The common denominator between all of the "world travelers" is their propensity to seek opportunity - they are all proactive in their quest to explore and find better lives. Edited October 26, 2018 by changed
let’s roll Posted October 26, 2018 Posted October 26, 2018 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: How? Another Afghanistan? Another Iraq? Another drug war? You cannot send in foreign troops to fight corruption unless you are deposing the government. We can feed and integrate immigrants. We are good at it. We have been doing it for almost 250 years now. We do not have much of a success record in dealing with the kind of operation you describe unless your main goal in regime change is “No commies in power, everyone else is fine no matter how evil they are”. That being said if there is a way to do what you describe effectively I say we do it. But it is not an either/or proposition. We can still help refugees while building up a nation. I agree it’s not an either/or answer. Immigration and asylum play a role, I’ve represented folks (pro bono) in successful petitions for political asylum. But my point was we’re treating it as an either/or proposition. You don’t see any discussion in the US of improving conditions in their home countries, only vitriol on both sides on immigration. We can do more. The Berlin Wall came down, Germany was unified, governments in Eastern Europe left the Communist bloc. It can be done with the proper focus and resolve of all parties. . I’m advocating for that type of focus and resolve as we, in parallel, carry out rational immigration and asylum policies.
Recommended Posts