I fear that many misunderstand the Prophet, concerning “refugees”.

[Rain]

15 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I wish the church could open up it's doors for this. We have many in the Arizona area and in the western states. But probably not a whole lot in other areas, but every bit helps. I know that doing so would have to be a large undertaking, very aware.

The church does much more than you are probably aware of. I know of a lot they do and the little I know leads me to believe those things just touch the surface.

There are complications of just opening the doors of the church that many people don't think of and that we have been made aware of as we have worked through it.

And like I have said before, the church is often a better support for organizations already on the ground than plowing in and changing it all. 

The cool thing for members is when we see a need we don't need to wait for the church. We can just dive in with our talents, gaining more talents, building bridges with those not of our faith because we are not "from the church". Then so often the church comes in and gives that support to what we are doing.

It's a different way of doing it all, but I have seen some real positives from doing it this way.

Edited December 8, 2019 by Rain

[nuclearfuels]

On 12/4/2019 at 5:36 PM, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

This thread is not anti-immigration, so please do not misunderstand me. The Prophet, or First Presidency issued a statement concerning “immigrates”, and “refugees”, calling upon “The Saints”, to aide in anyway we can for those who are displaced by many conditions, “legally”. We are a Nation of immigrants, and more importantly a Church of immigrants, as it relates to this thread. As such we have a commission to go into every Nation, to “gather Zion”, those who “choose Zion”, or those “who are Zion”. 
 

A tragedy is happening in our Nation where we have Governors who are encouraging “illegalities”, as it relates to immigration. In the State of California, where disease is running rampant in the streets, some diseases that were once eradicated in America. Created by homelessness, due to living conditions, and unchecked immigration in Nations where vaccinations are almost non-existent. The horrific conditions that exists in so many States, of my fellow Veterans is appalling, and criminal. Other Governors are solving their homeless problems, by busing the problem to other States. New York, has been doing this all the way up and down the Eastern Seaboard for decades. When working Law-Enforcement for the City of Atlanta, this was a common practice. As a Police Officer, I witnessed up close and personal the human tragedy far too often. 
 

Supporting illegal immigration, may make some feel better about themselves, or about America, but it is a very short cited view. For those who do support it, and the Church does not, nor does the “law-abiding”, it is usually because they do not have to see up close and personal the real cost. By cost, I mean in every way, be it logistical, financially, or criminally. For those who believe we as a Church or Nation should turn no one away, they can already aide anyone whom they wish. They can provide housing, education, food, to anyone they wish. They do not need permission from the Church, or Government, to open their homes, give their financial support, educate, or provide health care. But this is not what our Church is suggesting, this because the Church already does so much of this, around the world, after they care for their own, and in some cases before they care for their own. This because often, members are too proud or humble to ask in their own behalf. Jesus Christ indeed fed the multitudes, but he also cared for his disciples, and for his own needs. In order to aide the world, we must care for our own, otherwise as Jesus Christ taught, “we are worse than an infidel”. 
 

Respectful thoughts?  

Wanting to protect and preserve your heritage and culture is not wrong, bad or evil.

It's something like 30:1 as far as cost of resettling immigrants anywhere in the Middle East vs resettling in Europe or the US.

If we want to help disadvantaged people using the limited resources of government, doing what is most cost effective will have the largest impact - to say nothing of the education available via smartpones which also are cheaper than resettling millions of people in Europe and the US.

[Rain]

Sadly I got a corrected email today.  

Quote

I'm big on truth, so I wanted to correct a mistake in yesterday's email. I said: "So far, all but about a dozen governors have said Yes, our doors will remain open to refugees."

Actually, at present, 39 state governors have not yet issued an official "letter of consent" as Governor Ducey did yesterday (AZ, KS, MT, ND, NH, NJ, NM, PA, UT, VA, and WA officially have consented).

...We believe this letter made a difference in Arizona and are hopeful the same will be said for other states.

Please consider writing a letter to your  governor if your state is not listed above. 

[Danzo]

4 hours ago, blarsen said:

So I'm a Colonel Chivington?!  Good grief Danzo, don't be so touchy.  Just legitimate questions. 

Regarding those you've known to be in that condition, I'm wondering why they were left in the lurch all the way around.  Any assessment of those cases should involve questions such as these.  Why?  Possibly to discover recourse and justification for making the parents more responsible for the situation they created.

If this isn't possible, I see little problem in discovering a fast track/easy way for the children, now adults, to be brought into our system; especially if they never learned their parents native language and if they could not be counted as citizens of their parent's country of origin.

It doesn't matter whether the parents were negligent or careless or evil.

A law that punishes a person (essentially for life) for mistakes of a parent is an evil law. 

I am not sure why anyone is defending it.  I believe it is indefensible.

[JamesBYoung]

Danzo is 100% right.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

On 12/5/2019 at 5:03 PM, Calm said:

I know.  It was PaPa's idea for immigrants to return to their native countries as missionaries, he described it as an "effective tool"***.  Since the context was illegals/undocumented migrants, I was wondering how he imagined that would work.

 

Unless I wrote this in my sleep, not so, not even a suggestion. Unless taken out of context. “Effect tool”? 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, JamesBYoung said:

Danzo is 100% right.

Ditto!

[provoman]

13 hours ago, Danzo said:

It doesn't matter whether the parents were negligent or careless or evil.

A law that punishes a person (essentially for life) for mistakes of a parent is an evil law. 

I am not sure why anyone is defending it.  I believe it is indefensible.

Aren't children prohibited from baptism because of the parent(s)?

Edited December 8, 2019 by provoman

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

Unless I wrote this in my sleep, not so, not even a suggestion. Unless taken out of context. “Effect tool”? 

You were likely sleepy then as I am not sure how I took it out of context since it was a one line answer to a one line question...

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/72453-i-fear-that-many-misunderstand-the-prophet-concerning-“refugees”/?do=findComment&comment=1209945297

In response to this question from Hamba I think:

Quote

• Does the Church call undocumented migrants on missions?

You said:

Quote

 I cannot answer your third question, although it would be an effective tool, to send them home to their native country for all. 

If "it" is "calling undocumented migrants on missions" as it reads, then didn't you say sending them home to their native country for that mission an effective tool?  If you didn't mean that or now more awake realize that isn't what you actually think, no problem imo.  I post semiout of it lots and sometimes can't decipher my own comment.

Edited December 8, 2019 by Calm

[Danzo]

58 minutes ago, provoman said:

Aren't children prohibited from baptism because of the parent(s)?

Not forever, 

Just until they are 18.

Immigration laws aren't that kind

[blarsen]

14 hours ago, Danzo said:

It doesn't matter whether the parents were negligent or careless or evil.

A law that punishes a person (essentially for life) for mistakes of a parent is an evil law. 

I am not sure why anyone is defending it.  I believe it is indefensible.

And how on earth do you think I am defending any law that punishes a person for the mistakes of his parents??  You seem to be intent on misconstruing both my intent and what I've actually said. 

Let me clarify, though.  A way forward in law should be established, if it doesn't already exist, to bring people you've described out of the limbo they find themselves in. 

My original  questions had more to do with my personal curiosity about these instances you describe, and I would be inclined to ask them of the parents if I had the chance.  If I were one of these parents, I can't imagine not bringing my children up in my native language, as well as not doing everything I could to solve their outcast status, even to the point of acquiring forged birth certificates, if nothing else was possible. 

[Danzo]

2 minutes ago, blarsen said:

And how on earth do you think I am defending any law that punishes a person for the mistakes of his parents??  You seem to be intent on misconstruing both my intent and what I've actually said. 

Let me clarify, though.  A way forward in law should be established, if it doesn't already exist, to bring people you've described out of the limbo they find themselves in. 

My original  questions had more to do with my personal curiosity about these instances you describe, and I would be inclined to ask them of the parents if I had the chance.  If I were one of these parents, I can't imagine not bringing my children up in my native language, as well as not doing everything I could to solve their outcast status, even to the point of acquiring forged birth certificates, if nothing else was possible. 

I am glad you support  an amnesty for these people. I hope we can get Congress to agree as well. The problem is that these people can't vote, so politicians don't feel the urgency.

 

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, blarsen said:

were one of these parents, I can't imagine not bringing my children up in my native language, as well as not doing everything I could to solve their outcast status,

The Chinese and Korean immigrant parents I knew in Canada forbid their children to speak their native tongue at public school even when asked to do so.  I assume it was because they wanted them to fit in as quickly as possible.  Most kids I knew spoke English at home except when a parent or grandparent couldn't understand them.  The better off families sent their kids to Chinese/Korean school on Sundays, but many undocumented migrants wouldn't be able to afford that and possibly not even have much time to teach on their own if they are working multiple jobs.

And if parents themselves want to pick up the language quickly, they need to be talking it in their home as well (immersion learning is much faster).  If that happens, the kids probably pick up some native speech, but not enough to function in a job as adults because writing skills may be absent even if they speak it...though it is likely easier for them to pick it up later on than a brand new language.

[Tacenda]

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

The Chinese and Korean immigrant parents I knew in Canada forbid their children to speak their native tongue at public school even when asked to do so.  I assume it was because they wanted them to fit in as quickly as possible.  Most kids I knew spoke English at home except when a parent or grandparent couldn't understand them.  The better off families sent their kids to Chinese/Korean school on Sundays, but many undocumented migrants wouldn't be able to afford that and possibly not even have much time to teach on their own if they are working multiple jobs.

And if parents themselves want to pick up the language quickly, they need to be talking it in their home as well (immersion learning is much faster).  If that happens, the kids probably pick up some native speech, but not enough to function in a job as adults because writing skills may be absent even if they speak it...though it is likely easier for them to pick it up later on than a brand new language.

I'm sad that my grandsons, don't know a lot of spanish, even though their dad is from Mexico. I'm sure being around many spanish speaking friends and family of their parents, they've been able to pick up several words, but they don't speak fluently. 

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

You were likely sleepy then as I am not sure how I took it out of context since it was a one line answer to a one line question...

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/72453-i-fear-that-many-misunderstand-the-prophet-concerning-“refugees”/?do=findComment&comment=1209945297

In response to this question from Hamba I think:

You said:

If "it" is "calling undocumented migrants on missions" as it reads, then didn't you say sending them home to their native country for that mission an effective tool?  If you didn't mean that or now more awake realize that isn't what you actually think, no problem imo.  I post semiout of it lots and sometimes can't decipher my own comment.

I fear this train has run too far of the rails, and some terrible misunderstandings have occurred. How do I close this thread, and start one to correct these errors. Or just never make this mistake ever again? Do I have the power to close this thread? 

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

I fear this train has run too far of the rails, and some terrible misunderstandings have occurred. How do I close this thread, and start one to correct these errors. Or just never make this mistake ever again? Do I have the power to close this thread? 

You can ‘report’ yourself and ask for it to be closed.  That’s how I get mine closed now.  May take awhile. And if you immediately start another one on the same subject, not sure the mods would appreciate it. 

You could try another post here and then edit the opening post with a link or request to skip to the later post. 

This is a complicated subject and I would suggest dealing with one idea at a time rather than trying to fit several into one post to avoid misunderstandings. 

Edited December 9, 2019 by Calm

[Ahab]

On 12/6/2019 at 8:11 PM, The Nehor said:

Just say that you want them paid less then. That is what you are saying in the end. You give them cheap food, cheap housing, cheap clothing, and maybe those tools but I doubt you are gifting those instead of giving them money so they can prioritize their own needs. And it costs only a fraction of what you would pay someone not in this heinous system. You are inching deeper and deeper into serfdom. There is no good way to improve it. At least serfs were justifiably originally trying to get military protection. You just want to pay people less for the same work. It won’t work. Who is going to volunteer for this program? The people who fill this economic niche right now are people who are victims of human trafficking/slavery or are in gulags or labor camps and you want more of it?

I cannot improve it. It is awful. The whole basis of the system denies social and economic freedom.

Different strokes for different folks is what this looks like to me.  Labor in exchange for room and board was common not so long ago and I'm sure many people would appreciate this as a means of securing their basic necessities.  Households with spare bedrooms or guest houses can do this without much extra expense when making their own meals or washing their own laundry.  Not everyone has so much money that they can afford to give enough of it to help somebody else pay for their own house and luxurious living expenses.

[The Nehor]

17 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Different strokes for different folks is what this looks like to me.  Labor in exchange for room and board was common not so long ago and I'm sure many people would appreciate this as a means of securing their basic necessities.  Households with spare bedrooms or guest houses can do this without much extra expense when making their own meals or washing their own laundry.  Not everyone has so much money that they can afford to give enough of it to help somebody else pay for their own house and luxurious living expenses.

And now you reinvent human trafficked maid services.

Labor was and sometimes still is done in exchange for room and board but it also involved paying the person. When it does not the situation borders on slavery.

[ERMD]

On 12/4/2019 at 6:37 PM, Danzo said:

Split up the family, forcing a single mother to fend for herself and children to grow up without their father?

Yes people have choices, but often one choice is more righteous than the other choice. In this case telling them to stop living together would have split up the family, forcing a single mother to fend for herself and children to grow up without their father.

You asked about a change in the handbook allowing unmarried people living together to be baptized.  This was in response to that.

[Ahab]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

And now you reinvent human trafficked maid services.

Labor was and sometimes still is done in exchange for room and board but it also involved paying the person. When it does not the situation borders on slavery.

I still disagree with you but I am not going to argue with you about this any more in this thread.

[JamesBYoung]

Board and Room without pay is economic slavery, yes.

[Calm]

15 hours ago, JamesBYoung said:

Board and Room without pay is economic slavery, yes.

If it was only parttime and allowed people to go out and get other jobs that did pay money so as to allow freedom of choice for what they wanted to purchase or gave time to study or train in another job, that might work.  But if only always paid in kind in materials that were difficult to resell or made to be working inordinate amount of time in comparison to cost for room and board, I agree that is highly problematic and amounting to slavery with someone else always dictating what they need rather than allowing freedom to make those decisions for themselves.  I can see a situation where part of the payment was milk and peanut butter for a family with lactose intolerant genes and peanut allergies...what are they supposed to do?  Is anyone going to buy peanut butter and milk off of them so that they can replace those with things they can use...and the productivity time lost by having to barter...

Perhaps a room and board arrangement with limits placed on cost and time that could switch easily to paying rent if they had the opportunity for a full time job.  Maybe something like a commune where they can stay for 6 months to a year, the first month free while settling in, getting self or kids in school, finishing paperwork...setting things up so that it doesn't have to be done while trying to adapt to a job as well.  Then residents help with the chores around the communal home as well as jobs set up in the community.  The commune could also provide training and language classes and then helps the family or individuals move to independence by the end of the year.  Requiring work contributions (helping with cooking, gardening, cleaning, working on members' cars, educational help by those better educated, newbie mentoring by those there longest) would keep overall costs down.

But having one entity involved in providing necessities long term as well as employment sets the situation up too easily for oppression.  With no savings, there is no cushion for moving to a better paying or even different job as moving costs money, especially if there is a break between jobs.  And if they are working long hours just to survive, no real time to get better educated or even just look for a better job.  It is too easy to create a trap when the people involved have few rights and likely are aware of only some of them.

I have known some who have exchanged parttime nannying for room and board while going to school, that saved money for both employers (since they already had the room) and employee.

Got too much time on my hands right now and spending it daydreaming.  Should go iron those new curtains.

Edited December 10, 2019 by Calm

[halconero]

On 12/7/2019 at 12:50 PM, Jracforr said:

This generation inherited a perfect West Hemisphere, interms of it's cultural divisions. A Spanish-Portuguese South America, an Anglo-French North America and mixture of all cultures in Central America and the Caribbean. If we could figure out a just economic system for the region, we would not have an immigration problem in any sector, as each cultural group would be content in their own region, as God intended .

Pretty sure righteousness in the Book of Mormon is associated with cross-border commerce and movement of labour, not autarky.

[halconero]

On 12/6/2019 at 1:26 PM, Anonymous Mormon said:

The reason I think we need to limit the number of people is because of cost. Our government is out of control on spending. We already provide lots of social programs to our current population that costs lots of money (health care, food stamps, earned income credits on tax returns, etc.).

Considering most immigrants, except for the very old, tend to demonstrate positive NPV, this should be all the more reason to increase the level of immigration. Also, a good chunk of government spending is non-rival, meaning that it doesn't increase with the population size.

On 12/6/2019 at 1:26 PM, Anonymous Mormon said:

As long as we are spending so much, we can't have an open border. It's the reason that the Nordic countries that have huge social states and are held up as shining beacons of "socialism," don't allow many refugees to come enter. They know they can't afford it.

1) Nordic countries all have market economies, with a freer regulatory environment than in much of the United States, the exception being (to an extent, and only in certain sectors) Sweden.

2) On a per capita basis, all Nordic countries have some of the highest refugee resettlement programs in the world. Norway was #5 in nominal intake for 2018, and in the bar showing the EU's numbers Sweden carries almost 1/4 of it. I should know, as I wrote it, and am happy to send you the excel file sitting in my dropbox. This doesn't even include asylum, wherein the Nordic countries still shine with the exception of Denmark. In fact, Sweden has agreed to increase its intake for the coming fiscal year, with much of the North American rhetoric about its failures being belied by how crime and integration-related statistics are quantified in Sweden. Most Swedish people, academics, and authorities I work with on this issue consider it to be going relatively well, despite continued areas where improvement needs to be made.

On 12/6/2019 at 1:26 PM, Anonymous Mormon said:

In software you have a 3 legged stool of time, money and quality and you can't have all 3. In government, it's more like a 3 legged stool of Spending, Debt, and Immigration. But unfortunately some people do want all 3 and don't see the long term catastrophe.

Increased immigration would help alleviate the first two problems. Considering the average age and relative health of migrant communities, otherwise known as the "healthy immigrant effect," and the fact that these two things tie into a longer working period compared to the native-born population, it would help increase government revenues resulting from a population using fewer public services.

On 12/6/2019 at 1:26 PM, Anonymous Mormon said:

That said, I do believe we need to help those in need and lift those who are refugees out of their situation. I commend you for trying to do this, even though I don't agree with your solution. I don't know the right answer to help the poor and needy of this earth, but I am glad that the Prophet & leaders are speaking out about it. 

Maybe we all need to be called on to sacrifice more. If the prophet called on everyone who had sufficient for their means to give 50% of their excess to the poor/needy, I wonder how many of us would heed the call?

Very good last points.

[halconero]

Dude who's written a lot about immigration here. AMA.

But in all seriousness, I think concerns about immigration are fine, as long as people allow their own concerns to be address through fact or through solutions. Put another way, some concerns about immigration are based on false notions. Other concerns are real, but have practical solutions. Very few concerns about immigration would be solved by limiting it, and may in fact be resolved by expanding it, making it more transparent, and simplifying the process.

To quickly address some of the issues brought up here:

- California's problems with new and emerging diseases and homelessness have much more to do with the breakdown of its homeless-serving sector, and its atrocious zoning and property-tax practices that make it all but impossible to build more market-based, cooperative, or social housing. San Francisco is the peak example of this.

- Refugees aren't here to steal your heritage or culture. In fact, most immigrants are pretty self-selecting. This means that people who are content with the Ayatollah, Xi Jinping, or Maduro are probably pretty content to stay where they area. Those who are most dissatisifed with those system are likely to seek one out one they feel more conducive to their dreams and aspirations. I'm happy to share literature on this particular subject, but if you just wanna watch a cool video, here's President Reagan laying out this idea. In fact, assimilationist policies in the United States, Canada and France, among others, have been shown to backfire by socially isolating communities of newcomers, causing them re-entrench in their physical and cultural communities. A better policy would be a more cultural laissez-faire one. As Tacenda points out with regards to her grandkids, most of these newcomer communities will naturally be absorbed across multiple generations. Fun side note, research on US census data indicates that Swedes and Norwegians demonstrated less inclination towards assimilation than today's East Indians, Pakistanis, Arabs, etc. I suggest following the work of Alex Nowrasteh and Leah Boustan on this topic.

- Except for the very old, immigrants have a positive net present value. This means that immigrants will pay more into the public treasury than they pull out during the course of their lifetime. Higher educated immigrants will pay more of course, but even a young uneducated immigrant still has a positive, if a significantly smaller net present value. Investing or donating to services that increase immigrant adaptation to the workplace, such as a language training or employer-driven visa programs only increase this NPV. Btw, this is because a huge part of government services are non-rival. This means their cost is fixed, and doesn't increase with population size. To use an extreme example, you don't need to increase the size of the US nuclear arsenal in proportion with the US population size.

- The notion that immigrants take a net amount of jobs away from native-born people is dubious at best. For higher-skilled immigrants, evidence suggest a couple things. The first is that their entry into the American workforce is actually likely to bump up the salaries and positions of their native-born colleagues. Think of it this way, when an employer hires more workers, it will often give management positions to previously bottom-rung workers. The same goes with bringining in immigrant workers. Their native-born colleagues will often be put in management positions over them. There is some evidence that the lowest skilled workers might be priced out by the lowest skilled immigrants, but it's a mixed body of literature, with some of it pointing the other way. A dubious outcome is better responded to with jobs retraining or through existing programs like the trade adjustment program in the US, which would fit the definition of a Kaldor-Hicks policy response.

- Refugee resettlement and asylum pose little security risk to the United States. Most terrorism is homegrown, or if it is by an immigrant, it is by those under a temporary visa rather than a green card or naturalization. In fact, reducing refugee resettlement has its own risks. Refugee resettlement acts as a fiscal and social pressure valve on countries that are often US allies. It allows the US to recruit translators and intelligence operators in countries it has vested national security interprets in. It allows the US to embarrass strategic foes via the "poaching" of their best and brightest.

- On the notion of best and brightest, with the exception of totalitarian regimes, most immigrants are allowed to send money home. This is arguably a good thing, and is, in my opinion, a form of "free market foreign aid." Despite the idea of a brain drain, remittances acts as capital injections into developing countries, and since it comes in the form of "bottom-up" cash transfers versus imposed policy regimes by groups like the IMF, it allows countries' citizens to improve their living situations via local knowledge, i.e. improving their situation by identifying their own needs.