what is our position on the Caravan

[Robert F. Smith]

51 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Not entirely accurate. He had more border patrol agent then any previous President. Some Democrats touted that number as proof that Obama was tough on border security but most of the bump came from bipartisan legislation (which Obama signed). The biggest increase in Border Patrol agents came under George W. Bush though the ramp up began under Clinton.

OK, I'll go along with that without verification.  Obama was always bipartisan, even at Harvard Law Review where as editor he catered to both left and right members of his staff, thus angering both sides.

51 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Deportations are down but arrests and removal orders are reportedly up.

But yeah, Obama was not a pro-immigration president and attempts to portray him as such are disingenuous. Attempts to paint Trump as “not as bad as Obama” on immigration are also disingenuous.

Obama managed the system based on well-defined policies, while his successor has introduced chaos and lack of policy.

[SteveO]

39 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Your stupid scenario about ICE is not legitimate. If legislation opened the borders (abolished all law against entering the country) and the President still tried to keep people out that would not be choosing whether to enforce a law because the law no longer exists. It would be making up a law. The President could, in your inane scenario, mobilize the military and put the border under martial law without congressional approval but if Congress wanted to stop the President all they have to do is stop paying for it.

You got me.  The law wouldn’t exist.  Can’t kid a kidder right?

Why would I do that? I would not want to. Immigration control serves a valuable purpose. The President could order ICE to allow people to cross the border without question though if he chose to.

Wonderful, I think we would agree on a lot with regards to immigration then.

If you believe all laws must be enforced do you believe the FBI and other federal agencies should start arresting all marijuana growers, users, and dispensaries in states where it has been ruled legal. All of that is still illegal under federal law and federal trumps state law. So, should we grab the prescription lists and haul all the medical marijuana users into federal court? That would be the only consistent position I could see with your “enforce all laws no matter what” philosophy.

On a more local level should traffic cops issue citations to everyone going as much as 1 mph over the speed limit? Should we take away their ability to issue warnings? I doubt you have thought your position through all the way.

I’ve always been a big believer in federalism.

And yes you are of course right about going one mph over and jay walking and spitting gum out on the sidewalks.  I’ll rephrase then: 

If enforcing the law as written is immoral,  then it is the law itself that is immoral, not its enforcement.  You have to change the law.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

If you trust Snopes...

I trust Snopes.

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Obama managed the system based on well-defined policies, while his successor has introduced chaos and lack of policy.

Also true.

[Scott Lloyd]

11 hours 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?

I agree that the Church’s statement is very measured. 

But I wonder why, in your quotation of it, you included only the portion that has direct bearing on those already in the country and left out the first part, which seems most relevant to the matter under discussion in this thread, i. e. the approach of some 14,000 or so (last I heard) with the apparent intent of storming the southern border unlawfully and unchecked. 

Here is that portion:

“Most Americans agree that the federal government of the United States should secure its borders and sharply reduce or eliminate the flow of undocumented immigrants. Unchecked and unregulated, such a flow may destabilize society and ultimately become unsustainable.

“As a matter of policy, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints discourages its members from entering any country without legal documentation, and from deliberately overstaying legal travel visas.”

 

Edited October 27, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[halconero]

34 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree that the Church’s statement is very measured. 

But I wonder why, in your quotation of it, you included only the portion that has direct bearing on those already in the country and left out the first part, which seems most relevant to the matter under discussion in this thread, i. e. the approach of some 14,000 or so (last I heard) with the apparent intent of storming the southern border unlawfully and unchecked. 

Here is that portion:

“Most Americans agree that the federal government of the United States should secure its borders and sharply reduce or eliminate the flow of undocumented immigrants. Unchecked and unregulated, such a flow may destabilize society and ultimately become unsustainable.

“As a matter of policy, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints discourages its members from entering any country without legal documentation, and from deliberately overstaying legal travel visas.”

 

Have they stated their intent to storm the border unlawfully? Or claim asylum whether at a port of entry, or shortly after crossing at a port of entry? Because both of those things are legal under both US and International Law.

[Bernard Gui]

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Most of them are from Honduras.

Also, I never expected that this was an entirely lawful migration.

Sorry......Hondureños also must have visas to enter Mexico. 

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If I understand correctly they plan to ask for asylum. It is not illegal to enter the US and ask for asylum. Also, if some terrorist or criminal is trying to smuggle themselves into the country going with a group that is plastered all over the news and is almost certainly going to be greeted by part of the military is probably not how you would do it.

Also, why is the military moving forces into the area? I mean, is there a reason other then the President thinking we are about to be invaded by Mongol hordes before he could build the Great Wall?

One asks for asylum at a designated port of entry or the US embassy in your home country, IIRC. It's not unreasonable to assume terrorists of some stripe hide among the thousand who cross the border illegally. The military is being called (and has been called before by other Presidents) to reinforce the overwhelmed Border Patrol. The court system is so backlogged, it make asylum application moot. There must be a reasonable, timely, fair, and workable way to handle immigration. Over a period of time, constant illegal crossings does constitute an invasion. 

Quote

You may only apply for asylum if you are arriving in or already physically present in the United States. To apply for asylum in the United States, you may ask for asylum at a port-of-entry (airport, seaport, or border crossing), or, if you are already in the United States, you may file Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, at the appropriate Service Center. You may apply for asylum regardless of your immigration status, whether you are here legally or illegally.

You must apply for asylum within one year of your last arrival in the United States, unless you can demonstrate that there are changed circumstances that materially affect your eligibility for asylum or extraordinary circumstances directly related to your failure to file within one year.  You must apply for asylum within a reasonable time given the circumstances.  Changed or extraordinary circumstances may include certain changes in the conditions in your country, changes in your own circumstances, and other events. For a non-exhaustive list of circumstances that may be considered changed or extraordinary circumstances, see 8 CFR § 208.4.  See also, "Bars to Applying for and Receiving Asylum" in the links below.

You will be barred from applying for asylum if you previously applied for asylum and were denied by the Immigration Judge or Board of Immigration Appeals, unless you demonstrate that there are changed circumstances which materially affect your eligibility for asylum. You will also be barred if you could be removed to a safe third country pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement.  Currently, the U.S. has a Safe Third Country agreement with only one country, Canada, and the agreement does not apply to individuals applying for asylum affirmatively.

 

[Thinking]

22 hours ago, The Nehor said:

My thoughts are we should live up to the poem we mounted on the Statue of Liberty:

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-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

This post should end the thread. No need for more discussion.

[bluebell]

20 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

It is not that simple. 

It's not that complicated either.  

It was US policy to support leaders that were anti-communist regardless of their actions and we would help remove democratically elected presidents if they did not agree with our politics (with the most famous case being our involvement with the government of Chile and our removal of democratically elected Allende and support of Pinochet, a horrible man who murdered thousands, which we ignored).  Recently declassified documents also show that we aided/allowed Pinochet to kill American citizens in Chile and to assassinate one of his political opponents while he was in Washington DC.

The U.S. actually diverted military assets from the Vietnam War to Mexico in 1968 to help squash a student led rebellion against the government (which resulted in the Tlatelolco Massacre) using the existence of communist student body groups as justification.  You can also read the declassified documents on those happenings (there are over 100 and they are really interesting).

We also helped El Salvador prop up their right-wing political and military leaders against socialist groups, resulting in the massacre at El Mozote (where over 162 children were killed, along with their families).  We continued to support, supply arms, and money to the military in El Salvador for 11 years after that massacre, despite knowing exactly what was going on.

I could go on.  The ways that we backed corruption and helped screw up South and Central America is long and very embarrassing.  I don't think any country was left untouched.

 

 

Edited October 27, 2018 by bluebell

[The Nehor]

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.

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.

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

And when they shall arrive the Saints shall insist on thorough background checks involving multiple Zion agencies and visas shall be examined and the Saints will insist on making sure that you do not violate the laws of the territories of the warlords you shall pass through as you flee for your lives. And verily, many shall weep as they are cast out of Zion for not having their passport.

[Tacenda]

25 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

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.

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.

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

And when they shall arrive the Saints shall insist on thorough background checks involving multiple Zion agencies and visas shall be examined and the Saints will insist on making sure that you do not violate the laws of the territories of the warlords you shall pass through as you flee for your lives. And verily, many shall weep as they are cast out of Zion for not having their passport.

Keep these coming Nehor! Wish it was publicized throughout the news, but most wouldn't understand it, just the LDS. Of course if Americans are worried about these non Americans coming into their territory I can see why, since we terrorized the Native Americans when we set foot on their lands. But I doubt very much these refugees would do this. 

[carbon dioxide]

Apparently a lot of people where offered asylum in Mexico but they do not want that.  As one said " "Our goal is not to remain in Mexico. Our goal is to make it to the (U.S). We want passage, that's all."  https://www.yahoo.com/news/migrant-caravan-members-reject-offer-040211669.html  These people should be rejected asylum in the US immediately and sent back.  Those who seek asylum are supposed to accept it in the first country where they are safe.  It is not about finding the best spot in the world they can find.

[mbh26]

You're either allowed to have a country with borders or you're not.  Up until now, every sovereign nation has had that right.  Do we allow a beggar on the street to dictate what percentage of our income he is entitled to?  Even the brethren own private property and don't give everything they have to the poor.  In fact they don't allow the poor to decide what percentage of their income the poor are entitled to.  Are the brethren good examples of disciples of Christ or not?  

[MiserereNobis]

16 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

If you don't, you are at an extreme disadvantage unless you live with relatives who speak it

I was responding specifically to Steve J's post about his friend's wife not getting a job because she didn't speak Spanish.

[MiserereNobis]

15 hours ago, SteveO said:

Your thinking that we can just ignore laws we think aren’t “nice” is beyond absurd.

Ok, let's go extreme. Fugitive Slave Act. Would you return a runaway slave to the south? The laws surrounding fugitive slaves definitely weren't nice and they were definitely the law. So what is, SteveO? Return the slave or ignore the law?

I hope in the moment I would have the moral courage to stand up and not return the slave, even if it meant going to jail.

Have you been to jail for justice?

Quote

If congress passed a law tomorrow abolishing ICE and opening the borders, you’d probably scream bloody murder if Trump ignored it.  Setting a precedent that ignores laws you think aren’t “nice” sets the precedent for whoever is in power to ignore laws they don’t think are “nice”.  You wouldn’t want to live like that.  You’d think the political left would’ve learned that lesson by now...

Straw man, dude, straw man. I haven't said ONE word about ICE. I'm also not talking about politicians. I'm talking about citizens. And I'm referring directly to the idea that one can always obey the law and be kind to one another. One cannot always do that. And when the two clash, God's law trumps man's law every time.

Quote

Your wanting to compare this to Jim Crowe laws is a false equivalency.  Jim Crowe blatantly disregarded federal law and Constitutional amendments that had been established 100 years previously.

The Supreme Court is the supreme arbiter of law and constitutionality and the Supreme Court ruled in Plessy v. Ferguson that "separate but equal" which formed the backbone of Jim Crowe was constitutional.

So, Jim Crowe was legal, decreed by the legislative bodies and the highest court of the land. So take your pick, legal Jim Crowe or disobedience to the law in order to be kind to one another and love one another.

I find it odd to be arguing with an LDS (you are LDS, right?) that the law of land doesn't need to be followed when the law of land goes against God's law and justice. I mean, LDS have their history with polygamy being against the law. If you lived back in the days of President Woodruff (if I'm getting my dates right), would you have turned in the LDS leaders because they were breaking anti-bigamy laws? If the prophet called you into polygamy, would you have said no because it was against the law?

Perhaps I misunderstand your position, so I'll ask: should the law of the land always be followed 100% of the time?

Edited October 27, 2018 by MiserereNobis

[Storm Rider]

I did think it was funny when the news recently reported the woman unable to buy a hamburger in south Florida because she could not speak Spanish and none of the employees stated they could speak English. No, we don't need a national language because... well because. Hmm, because all people are loving and will always understand each other and want to serve others. 

There is very, very little Biblical support for this type of invasion of another country that common sense cannot easily see the silliness of such a position.  If this really was about feeding the poor and helping the stranger then why is there a country and why aren't we all poor?  We should be forfeiting all our assets and giving to the poor.  It seems to me that Christ stated that the poor would always be with us. Why do you think he would state something like that?  

I see any sense in having an open border. In fact, I see the exact opposite - nations should have borders that protect their safety, their culture, and the common good. It makes sense to have an immigration policy and enforce it.

Lastly, I don't for one moment believe this little parade from the south has not been orchestrated. Who benefits from such an action? Find those individuals, beat them, strip them of their citizenship, and cast them out. There are few things that are so heinous as to use humans for political gain. 

[MiserereNobis]

3 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

There is very, very little Biblical support for this type of invasion of another country

You're right. We should follow the Biblical invasion of Canaan and kill every man, woman, child, and animal.

Wait, I'm starting to sound like Nehor...

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

You're right. We should follow the Biblical invasion of Canaan and kill every man, woman, child, and animal.

Wait, I'm starting to sound like Nehor...

Mom always said, "you cannot go down the chimney without getting any soot on you."

 

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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.

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.

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

And when they shall arrive the Saints shall insist on thorough background checks involving multiple Zion agencies and visas shall be examined and the Saints will insist on making sure that you do not violate the laws of the territories of the warlords you shall pass through as you flee for your lives. And verily, many shall weep as they are cast out of Zion for not having their passport.

Nope. There are other ways. 

Edited October 27, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Kevin Christensen]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

I did think it was funny when the news recently reported the woman unable to buy a hamburger in south Florida because she could not speak Spanish and none of the employees stated they could speak English. No, we don't need a national language because... well because. Hmm, because all people are loving and will always understand each other and want to serve others. 

There is very, very little Biblical support for this type of invasion of another country that common sense cannot easily see the silliness of such a position.  If this really was about feeding the poor and helping the stranger then why is there a country and why aren't we all poor?  We should be forfeiting all our assets and giving to the poor.  It seems to me that Christ stated that the poor would always be with us. Why do you think he would state something like that?  

I see any sense in having an open border. In fact, I see the exact opposite - nations should have borders that protect their safety, their culture, and the common good. It makes sense to have an immigration policy and enforce it.

Lastly, I don't for one moment believe this little parade from the south has not been orchestrated. Who benefits from such an action? Find those individuals, beat them, strip them of their citizenship, and cast them out. There are few things that are so heinous as to use humans for political gain. 

The paranoia about invasion reminds me of this little discourse in Alma 26, concerning some foreign refugees who, I notice were accepted in Zarahemla, given land and support, and even encouraged to not break their oaths in wartime in the midst of a deadly national crisis:

Quote

25 And moreover they did say: Let us take up arms against them, that we destroy them and their iniquity out of the land, lest they overrun us and destroy us.

26 But behold, my beloved brethren, we came into the wilderness not with the intent to destroy our brethren, but with the intent that perhaps we might save some few of their souls.

As to why Christ stated that the poor would always be with us, he does actually answer the question in context.

Quote

For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will, ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.

She hath done what she could: she is come to aforehand to anoint my body to the burying. (Mark 14:7-8)

This ritually significant occasion is presented as describing an exceptional circumstance (Christ's anointing, notably the only anointing of Jesus in the scriptures, important because Christ/Messiah means "anointed") , not as a pass to justify a general and justified neglect of the poor, (embodied in the recent tax cut and consequent massive increase in the deficit). Mormon was blunt:

Quote

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.

38 O ye pollutions, ye hypocrites, ye teachers, who sell yourselves for that which will canker, why have ye polluted the holy church of God? Why are ye ashamed to take upon you the name of Christ? Why do ye not think that greater is the value of an endless happiness than that misery which never dies—because of the praise of the world?

39 Why do ye adorn yourselves with that which hath no life, and yet suffer the hungry, and the needy, and the naked, and the sick and the afflicted to pass by you, and notice them not? (Mormon 8:37-39)

Nibley spoke forcefully on the topic back in the decades ago, and concludes with a quote from Brigham Young that could be the epitaph for our times, our glorious Trumptopia:

Quote

All my life I have shied away from these disturbing and highly unpopular—even offensive—themes. But I cannot do so any longer, because in my old age I have taken to reading the scriptures and there have had it forced upon my reluctant attention, that from the time of Adam to the present day, Zion has been pitted against Babylon, and the name of the game has always been money—”power and gain.”

It has been supposed that wealth gives power. In a depraved state of society, in a certain sense it does, if opening a wide field for unrighteous monopolies, by which the poor are robbed and oppressed and the wealthy are more enriched, is power. In a depraved state of society money can buy positions and titles, can cover up a multitude of incapabilities, can open wide the gates of fashionable society to the lowest and most depraved of human beings; it divides society into castes without any reference to goodness, virtue or truth. It is made to pander to the most brutal passions of the human soul; it is made to subvert every wholesome law of God and man, and to trample down every sacred bond that should tie society together in a national, municipal, domestic and every other relationship.¹⁰⁹

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1114&index=4

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[SteveO]

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Perhaps I misunderstand your position, so I'll ask: should the law of the land always be followed 100% of the time?

I rephrased my position a few posts ago: If enforcing the law as written is immoral,  then it is the law itself that is immoral, not its enforcement.  You have to change the law. 

 

 

[mbh26]

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.

38 O ye pollutions, ye hypocrites, ye teachers, who sell yourselves for that which will canker, why have ye polluted the holy church of God? Why are ye ashamed to take upon you the name of Christ? Why do ye not think that greater is the value of an endless happiness than that misery which never dies—because of the praise of the world?

39 Why do ye adorn yourselves with that which hath no life, and yet suffer the hungry, and the needy, and the naked, and the sick and the afflicted to pass by you, and notice them not? (Mormon 8:37-39)

 

Kevin why can't one criticize the general authorities with this same scripture?  Why does it just have to be Republican voting taxpayers?  The GAs own private property, definitely more than the average tithe payer.  They adorn the temples with fine apparel that could have been given to the caravan.  There are beggars out on temple square that they pass by every day.  Yet I'd bet that nearly all of them are going to the Celestial Kingdom and probably be judged by Jesus Christ Himself as worthy to enter.  So what gives?  

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

The paranoia about invasion reminds me of this little discourse in Alma 26, concerning some foreign refugees who, I notice were accepted in Zarahemla, given land and support, and even encouraged to not break their oaths in wartime in the midst of a deadly national crisis:

As to why Christ stated that the poor would always be with us, he does actually answer the question in context.

This ritually significant occasion is presented as describing an exceptional circumstance (Christ's anointing, notably the only anointing of Jesus in the scriptures, important because Christ/Messiah means "anointed") , not as a pass to justify a general and justified neglect of the poor, (embodied in the recent tax cut and consequent massive increase in the deficit). Mormon was blunt:

Nibley spoke forcefully on the topic back in the decades ago, and concludes with a quote from Brigham Young that could be the epitaph for our times, our glorious Trumptopia:

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1114&index=4

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

1

Yet, none of those scriptures tell us to not have national borders. I really think your position is untenable and illogical. Though I understood the use of the oil and Jesus' statement that I will only be a here a little while whereas the poor will always - ALWAYS - be with you. The anointing - that is a stretch unless you are also proposing that the anointer held the priesthood. I think it is better to say he was anointed with oil based on the customs of the day. I love the scriptures, but I don't think it is spiritually healthy to stretch them into meanings that are not evident.  This also applies to the "refugees" coming to Zarahemla - simply does not fit and I think you know better.

I believe we should help the poor and I do so by my actions and by our donations and offerings. 

What do you call it when a nation is invaded by groups that are neither invited or wanted?  Webster's defines it as "an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain".  Attempting to belittle this invasion by people we do not know are poor, have not been invited, and just simply assume that they can go anywhere they want. Why?  By what authority?  It is laughable to assume these individuals think that their actions are acceptable.  They know they are not welcome and demand entry anyway.  It does not matter that they are not carrying guns - as far as anyone knows - what is absolutely crystal clear is that they are not wanted.

chose to all walk together to enter the USA. If you believe, please know I have beach front property in Kansas for sale and rich people like yourself will surely want to buy to give to the poor. Nations can only survive with borders that are respected by others.  The USA and Western Europe are not the dumping grounds for other nations to dispose of their respective peoples. 

Lastly, did not vote for Trump. Don't like him, but on this issue he is right and I am able to support this issue.

Edited October 28, 2018 by Storm Rider

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, SteveO said:

I rephrased my position a few posts ago: If enforcing the law as written is immoral,  then it is the law itself that is immoral, not its enforcement.  You have to change the law. 

 

 

And what if the authorities don't change the law? Or that the unjust law hasn't yet been changed?

Back to my example. Please give a direct answer. Slavery is legal; fugitive slave acts are legal. A runaway slave knocks on your door. Do you turn her in, telling her you are sorry and you hope the law changes soon, or do you harbor her, breaking the law, and help her on her way north?

Or back to the polygamy example. It's 1882. Polygamy is illegal. Do you still support and follow the law, turning the LDS church leaders in, saying no to the prophet when you are called to polygamy, while you wait for the law to change, or do you break the law and follow your religious conscience?

I'm still baffled by your position. Obedience to the law is the highest good, even if the law is immoral? Because, you know, there is going to be a time when an immoral law is still on the books and has yet to be changed. What do you do in the interim? Follow it or break it?