MiserereNobis Posted October 28, 2018 Posted October 28, 2018 4 minutes ago, Storm Rider said: what is absolutely crystal clear is that they are not wanted. And perhaps that is the sad, immoral part of this whole thing. Come, let us sing "A Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief" together. 2
JAHS Posted October 28, 2018 Posted October 28, 2018 Quote "what is our position on the Caravan" I had one once but the transmission went out and I had to put out $3000.00 to get it fixed, so my opinion of them is not very good. 3
Calm Posted October 28, 2018 Posted October 28, 2018 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 while it is being changed, should it be followed? 1
Storm Rider Posted October 28, 2018 Posted October 28, 2018 22 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: And perhaps that is the sad, immoral part of this whole thing. Come, let us sing "A Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief" together. This turns into a farce - everyone must either bow down and rip our clothing while opening their doors to anyone that even thinks, "Yeah, I might want to live in that country" or you are accused of being uncharitable. I remain adamant and convinced this present situation has nothing to do with charity or anything of a spiritual nature. These are each and every one of them capable of living in their country and each has chosen to invade another country. No wars, no famine, just we don't want to be here and we want what that country has. If we want to discuss how we as a nation could do more to assist others in their own nations then I am all ears. Throwing money at it does not work - or at least it hasn't yet. Teaching them better ways of doing things also hasn't worked. What works?
CV75 Posted October 28, 2018 Posted October 28, 2018 24 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: And perhaps that is the sad, immoral part of this whole thing. Come, let us sing "A Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief" together. I think until some saviors rise up and form a caravan of their own, it will be politics as usual. It seems to me that good people on both sides of political solutions can choose to operate from a humanitarian perspective, if they have the will and interest. That is all the travelers are doing. 1
MiserereNobis Posted October 28, 2018 Posted October 28, 2018 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Storm Rider said: These are each and every one of them capable of living in their country CFR ETA: and I'm holding you to this, especially the "each and every one of them" Edited October 28, 2018 by MiserereNobis 1
MiserereNobis Posted October 28, 2018 Posted October 28, 2018 9 minutes ago, Storm Rider said: What works? Maybe the method we've had since our founding: 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 2
SteveO Posted October 28, 2018 Posted October 28, 2018 33 minutes ago, Calm said: And while it is being changed, should it be followed? Why change it if you won’t follow it? Why even bother with the legislative process?
MiserereNobis Posted October 28, 2018 Posted October 28, 2018 3 minutes ago, SteveO said: Why change it if you won’t follow it? Why even bother with the legislative process? Ok, then please address the examples I've given. You know where the apostles are in hiding when the feds come looking. They are breaking the law by living in and advocating polygamy. Would you turn them in? 1
SteveO Posted October 28, 2018 Posted October 28, 2018 27 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: Ok, then please address the examples I've given. You know where the apostles are in hiding when the feds come looking. They are breaking the law by living in and advocating polygamy. Would you turn them in? I do believe we no longer practice polygamy...
Storm Rider Posted October 28, 2018 Posted October 28, 2018 33 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: Maybe the method we've had since our founding: 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 That has not worked for some time but it was a nice sonnet that was added to the Statue, on a plaque, sometime in the early 1900s in a tribute to its author, Emma Lazarus. The only writing on the statue itself is the date, July 4, 1776 - the day the United States adopted the Declaration of Independence. France conceived of the statue in admiration of the freedoms found in the USA and sorely lacking under the rule of Napoleon III in France. The addition of the sonnet was nice, but its purpose was in memory of both Emma Lazarus - who not only wrote the sonnet but also assisted in raising funds to build the pedestal for the statue. The sonnet retains value, but it hardly applies to a nation in the 21st century rather than the barren land of the 1870s. It is funny how the passing of time is either accompanied by growth and prosperity or the collapse of nations. I would hope that we use just a small ounce of wisdom and maintain our borders. 1
MiserereNobis Posted October 28, 2018 Posted October 28, 2018 8 minutes ago, SteveO said: I do believe we no longer practice polygamy... Please stop being so obtuse. You are living in Utah in 1883. What would you do? Turn in the apostles and say no to the prophet while you wait for the law to change or break the law?
Storm Rider Posted October 28, 2018 Posted October 28, 2018 1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said: CFR ETA: and I'm holding you to this, especially the "each and every one of them" Can you disprove it? Does anyone have any evidence on these people? Are they alive? Yes. Can they walk? Yes. What is the logical deduction of this state of being? Yes, 5 points to the quick mind, they are each and every one of them capable of living in their own nation. Why make this so hard and why struggle on a gnat when we swallow camels so often? It makes no sense. So many want to play the role of the bleeding-heart liberal and not a single, logical argument why open borders make sense? Why? Because they don't exist.
SteveO Posted October 28, 2018 Posted October 28, 2018 8 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: Please stop being so obtuse. You are living in Utah in 1883. What would you do? Turn in the apostles and say no to the prophet while you wait for the law to change or break the law? Wasn’t intentional. Why did we stop polygamy?
MiserereNobis Posted October 28, 2018 Posted October 28, 2018 31 minutes ago, SteveO said: Wasn’t intentional. Why did we stop polygamy? Well obviously because it was against the law. The ending of polygamy had nothing to do with revelation, right?
MiserereNobis Posted October 28, 2018 Posted October 28, 2018 35 minutes ago, Storm Rider said: Can you disprove it? That's not a valid response to a CFR. CFR. Or retract.
Bernard Gui Posted October 28, 2018 Posted October 28, 2018 3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: 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? Yet the result of this logic is chaos and anarchy. There is a middle ground. 2
MiserereNobis Posted October 28, 2018 Posted October 28, 2018 3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Yet the result of this logic is chaos and anarchy. There is a middle ground. Please elaborate. How would you respond to an immoral and unjust law? (like fugitive slave, Jim Crow, or Mormon specific anti-polygamy)
Bernard Gui Posted October 28, 2018 Posted October 28, 2018 2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: Maybe the method we've had since our founding: 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 Founded in 1883?
MiserereNobis Posted October 28, 2018 Posted October 28, 2018 2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Founded in 1883? 1883 was the time of the poem, not the ideas expressed.
Bernard Gui Posted October 28, 2018 Posted October 28, 2018 (edited) 13 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: Please elaborate. How would you respond to an immoral and unjust law? (like fugitive slave, Jim Crow, or Mormon specific anti-polygamy) It's so facile to play the presentism game. I would do what I could to change the law by legal means. It might take time and effort and it may not happen in my lifetime. For example, I think some of the laws allowing abortion are immoral and unjust. I suppose I should be willing to go to jail to oppose them, right? Destroy abortion facilities? Willing to go to jail for that? Fugitive slave, Jim Crow, polygamy? What I would do today knowing what I know now may not be the same as what I would do if I were living at the time and where my loyalties and sentiments lay. I think the laws allowing recreation use of pot are immortal and unjust. Does that give me the moral imperative to burn down the new marijuana production facility in my neighborhood? We have deliberative legislative processes for a reason. We have ways to make the changes we need to make. If we all pick and choose to follow only the laws we agree with and refuse to follow laws with which we do not agree, the result is anarchy. Edited October 28, 2018 by Bernard Gui 2
Bernard Gui Posted October 28, 2018 Posted October 28, 2018 (edited) 10 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: 1883 was the time of the poem, not the ideas expressed. Really? Quote The original United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limited naturalization to immigrants who were free White persons of good character. It thus excluded American Indians, indentured servants, slaves, free blacks and later Asians, although free blacks were allowed citizenship at the state level in certain states. It also provided for citizenship for the children of U.S. citizens born abroad, stating that such children "shall be considered as natural born citizens," the only US statute ever to use the term. It specified that the right of citizenship did "not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States." In order to address one's good character, the law required two years of residence in the United States and one year in the state of residence, prior to applying for citizenship. When those requirements were met, an immigrant could file a Petition for Naturalization with "any common law court of record" having jurisdiction over his residence. Once convinced of the applicant's good moral character, the court would administer an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution of the United States. The clerk of the court was to make a record of these proceedings, and "thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States." The Act also establishes the United States citizenship of certain children of citizens, born abroad, without the need for naturalization: "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790 Do you think there should be numerical and other limits on yearly immigration? If so, what would those be? Should we have an orderly process for immigration, or is it a free-for-all? Edited October 28, 2018 by Bernard Gui 1
Robert F. Smith Posted October 28, 2018 Posted October 28, 2018 23 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: ......................... 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. ......................... The so-called "caravan" of people from Central America was only formed for group protection from rampant crime en route. They are families fleeing very unstable societies. They have no intention of attempting to storm our southern border, which could not be successful in any case. They really have no choice. Either they remain in their home countries and suffer brutality from gangs and local government (including kidnapping of their children), or they can flee -- despite the uncertainties. They are desperate. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted October 28, 2018 Posted October 28, 2018 19 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: The so-called "caravan" of people from Central America was only formed for group protection from rampant crime en route. They are families fleeing very unstable societies. They have no intention of attempting to storm our southern border, which could not be successful in any case. They really have no choice. Either they remain in their home countries and suffer brutality from gangs and local government (including kidnapping of their children), or they can flee -- despite the uncertainties. They are desperate. Time will tell, I suppose. But if the group forced its way into Mexico, why wouldn’t it try to force its way into the United States?
Scott Lloyd Posted October 28, 2018 Posted October 28, 2018 (edited) On a board where political discussion is supposedly disallowed (“unless directly related to the Church”) I’m seeing precious little in this highly charged political thread pertaining to “discussion of LDS doctrine, history, geography, etc.” Yeah, I know I don’t have to read it. Just sayin’. Edited October 28, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
Recommended Posts