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

[Meadowchik]

6 hours ago, halconero said:

- 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.

Not only are those maintained connections financially beneficial, but it also implies a continuing exchange of ideas. Values and expectations can then be transmitted across cultures, with people attempting adaptations in their home countries which they have learned from trusted associates who've immigrated elsewhere, and the immigrants themselves infusing new ideas into their new home countries.

 

[Bob Crockett]

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. 

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

You and your form of socialism.  

Or they can have personal freedom and live in the land of the free. 

[JamesBYoung]

Those are meaningless words, Bob Crockett, if they can't access social and economic freedom.

Libertarian forms of socialization empower the wealthy and grind the faces of the poor into the dirt.

[theplains]

On 12/4/2019 at 6:17 PM, Duncan said:

Just to clarify the Church's statement didn't say anything about immigration, just about refugees and to "respond appropriately and legally"

In the spirit of the law of "love thy neighbour," would sheltering, feeding, and clothing people 
be First Presidency examples of responding inappropriately and illegally to illegal immigrants/
refugees who need help?  Or does it only pertain to giving them a job and/or medical services?

Thanks,
Jim

[Bob Crockett]

2 hours ago, JamesBYoung said:

Those are meaningless words, Bob Crockett, if they can't access social and economic freedom.

Libertarian forms of socialization empower the wealthy and grind the faces of the poor into the dirt.

I've been influenced by the thinking of Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom.  The author won the Nobel Prize for this work.

I'm not familiar with the term "socialization" in dealing with economic theory.  

I believe that Joseph Smith was a classic liberal, or a libertarian.  His teachings seem to indicate unrestricted immigration, private charitable work to aid the poor, and equal opportunity for all.  

It is one thing to argue that a libertarian theory would grind the faces of the poor, and quite another thing to use immigration policy to keep the poor out of the country so that there could not possibly be any grinding going on.  I'm pretty sure the poor Latin American immigrants, given a choice, would argue that they'd like to take their chances in the U.S.

Nehor argues against "human trafficking" and the depredations practiced upon the victims of trafficking.  There wouldn't be an economic black market need for human coyotes if immigration were unrestricted.

Edited December 10, 2019 by Bob Crockett

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

In the spirit of the law of "love thy neighbour," would sheltering, feeding, and clothing people 
be First Presidency examples of responding inappropriately and illegally to illegal immigrants/
refugees who need help?  Or does it only pertain to giving them a job and/or medical services?

Thanks,
Jim

you'll have to decide, different places have different laws so whatever and however your local community sees fit to help then that's the answer

[JamesBYoung]

2 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

I've been influenced by the thinking of Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom.  The author won the Nobel Prize for this work.

I'm not familiar with the term "socialization" in dealing with economic theory.  

I believe that Joseph Smith was a classic liberal, or a libertarian.  His teachings seem to indicate unrestricted immigration, private charitable work to aid the poor, and equal opportunity for all.  

It is one thing to argue that a libertarian theory would grind the faces of the poor, and quite another thing to use immigration policy to keep the poor out of the country so that there could not possibly be any grinding going on.  I'm pretty sure the poor Latin American immigrants, given a choice, would argue that they'd like to take their chances in the U.S.

Nehor argues against "human trafficking" and the depredations practiced upon the victims of trafficking.  There wouldn't be an economic black market need for human coyotes if immigration were unrestricted.

Then you are not talking about real libertarianism, if you use JSJr. as a model, a man who had no trouble morally at all in suppressing his opponents in and out of the law, which proves my point.

[Bob Crockett]

My point remains that there is quite a bit of difference between keeping the riffraff out of the U.S. so that there is no "grinding" going on versus letting them in to seek their own destiny.

[The Nehor]

On 12/10/2019 at 6:15 AM, Bob Crockett said:

You and your form of socialism.  

Or they can have personal freedom and live in the land of the free. 

I do not have a form of socialism. Is this a reference to the Marshall Islands thing and my being told that stopping human trafficking is socialism?

[The Nehor]

On 12/10/2019 at 10:46 AM, Bob Crockett said:

I've been influenced by the thinking of Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom.  The author won the Nobel Prize for this work.

I'm not familiar with the term "socialization" in dealing with economic theory.  

I believe that Joseph Smith was a classic liberal, or a libertarian.  His teachings seem to indicate unrestricted immigration, private charitable work to aid the poor, and equal opportunity for all.  

It is one thing to argue that a libertarian theory would grind the faces of the poor, and quite another thing to use immigration policy to keep the poor out of the country so that there could not possibly be any grinding going on.  I'm pretty sure the poor Latin American immigrants, given a choice, would argue that they'd like to take their chances in the U.S.

Nehor argues against "human trafficking" and the depredations practiced upon the victims of trafficking.  There wouldn't be an economic black market need for human coyotes if immigration were unrestricted.

There wouldn’t be a black market for assassinations if we just allowed murder. I am not saying immigration is like murder. I do not but the idea that you can control things by legalizing them has had mixed results. Everyone said legalized prostitution would prevent human trafficking for prostitution but it did not work. It has worked in other areas.

Setting up a system of trapping the impoverished in their state is grinding their faces. I am not opposed to most libertarian principles of practiced by decent people. I just do not trust those who hold those beliefs because they are rarely decent people. I suspect the laws and society of a Terrestrial (and Celestial) world are more libertarian than our Telestial societies but they also benefit from not having scumbags in them.

I have never seen an argument that convinced me Joseph Smith was a libertarian (or a communist or a socialist or a laissez faire capitalist). I have seen a lot of arguments for them but they are more propaganda for an economic agenda instead of an honest appraisal of his life, sayings, and actions.

[blarsen]

On 12/9/2019 at 11:05 PM, halconero said:

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.

Wow.  A thoughtful, informed academic post.  But what do you think of groups aiding and abetting extremely high mass immigration volume for perhaps the purpose of destabilizing or homogenizing a target culture, even a qua invasion of another country, or do you discount such efforts.

What about movements such as the reconquista movement and one of its point organizations such as La Raza.  Their rhetoric back in the 90s/early decade of this century was certainly disturbing, though they seem to be quieter than they were back then.

[halconero]

10 hours ago, blarsen said:

Wow.  A thoughtful, informed academic post. 

Thank you.

Quote

But what do you think of groups aiding and abetting extremely high mass immigration volume for perhaps the purpose of destabilizing or homogenizing a target culture, even a qua invasion of another country, or do you discount such efforts.

I'm sure there are groups out there that think such an end is likely if they aid and abet high levels of immigration. I'm not convinced that their ability to aid and abet such high levels represents a more significant "pull" variable when compared to much more obvious ones like strong GDPs, opportunities for work, etc or push factors in their countries of origin like poverty or war. I'm also not convinced that immigration has a causal impact on cultural distabilization. Rather, extractive or closed economies, which tend to favour a particular social elite, whether it be a one-party state where groups like the CCP are favoured, or an ethnic group (like the former-Yugoslavia's Serbian population), tend to be rocked by multiculturalism insofar as their closed societies deny opportunities to new entrants. Relatively open economies and institutions tend to be able to absorb new entrants rather easily. This is because the culture of first durable settlement is well established, and it doesn't mind the participation of newbies. These newbies tend to adapt to the culture of first durable settlement over 1-3 generations.

Quote

What about movements such as the reconquista movement and one of its point organizations such as La Raza.  Their rhetoric back in the 90s/early decade of this century was certainly disturbing, though they seem to be quieter than they were back then.

I'm sure their motives are genuine and they're trying their best to accomplish them. I don't think they're practical.

Edit: To put another way, even if there are groups of people out there who think mass migration is a great way to destabilize a country, there are probably better things they could be doing to actually accomplish their goals. There's just no guarantee migration will successfully destabilize things, and in fact, it may end up strengthening that country's GDP and trade relations throughout the world, and that the ability to influence the agency that goes into the mass movement of ~250 million international migrants is way beyond the ability of any one group to coordinate.

Edited December 15, 2019 by halconero

[halconero]

Now, respecting the fact that, as much I'd love to talk about immigration policy all day, this still is a Gospel forum, I think it's important to highlight the fact that God lays out migration policies throughout the scriptures. The Old Testament outlines the laws for claiming and granting asylum to both foreigners and to other Israelites, and it perscribes how to treat non-citizen residents of Israel.

The Book of Mormon outlines a very clear case of both asylum and of refugee resettlement of the Anti-Nephi-Lehites by the Nephites. It also describes the free flow of people and commerce as being a hallmark of righteousness.

The New Testament starts with the story of Mary, Joseph and Christ becoming what are today known as IDPs, or internally displaced persons. They would likely meet the threshold of individuals at risk of torture or persecution on account of their race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group under the Refugee Convention or the Convention Against Torture. If they could not have been voluntarily repatriated (as is the case in the NT), or locally integrated in Egypt (the second durable solution), they would have almost certainly been eligible for third country resettlement.

D&C and Church History outlines the flight of the Church from the United States an into what was then-Mexico for the purposes of safety.

I'll have to find it, as I'm 100% paraphrasing here, but when Joseph Smith described the migration policy for pre-Millennial Zion, he outlined it simply as being open to members and non-members, without much of an economic or social test, so long as they were open to keeping the laws of Zion.

Edited December 15, 2019 by halconero

[Rain]

8 hours ago, halconero said:

Now, respecting the fact that, as much I'd love to talk about immigration policy all day, this still is a Gospel forum, I think it's important to highlight the fact that God lays out migration policies throughout the scriptures. The Old Testament outlines the laws for claiming and granting asylum to both foreigners and to other Israelites, and it perscribes how to treat non-citizen residents of Israel.

The Book of Mormon outlines a very clear case of both asylum and of refugee resettlement of the Anti-Nephi-Lehites by the Nephites. It also describes the free flow of people and commerce as being a hallmark of righteousness.

The New Testament starts with the story of Mary, Joseph and Christ becoming what are today known as IDPs, or internally displaced persons. They would likely meet the threshold of individuals at risk of torture or persecution on account of their race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group under the Refugee Convention or the Convention Against Torture. If they could not have been voluntarily repatriated (as is the case in the NT), or locally integrated in Egypt (the second durable solution), they would have almost certainly been eligible for third country resettlement.

D&C and Church History outlines the flight of the Church from the United States an into what was then-Mexico for the purposes of safety.

I'll have to find it, as I'm 100% paraphrasing here, but when Joseph Smith described the migration policy for pre-Millennial Zion, he outlined it simply as being open to members and non-members, without much of an economic or social test, so long as they were open to keeping the laws of Zion.

If you don't mind, I'd like to share this with people outside this forum and maybe on facebook please. Are you ok with that?

Edit: and yes, would you look for that last part please?

Edited December 15, 2019 by Rain

[halconero]

3 hours ago, Rain said:

If you don't mind, I'd like to share this with people outside this forum and maybe on facebook please. Are you ok with that?

Edit: and yes, would you look for that last part please?

No problem. Also, here’s the quote. It’s actually from John Taylor. Basically, when the time comes for Zion to establish itself politically it shall have a rather open policy for providing protection (asylum) to people seeking to move there.

“We have got this kingdom to build up; and it is not a phantom, but a reality. We have to do it, God expects it at our hands. We have got to have—now do not tell any body for it is a great secret; we have got to have political power. What, will not that be treason? Perhaps so, but no matter; we have got to go on and progress in these things. We have got to establish a government upon the principle of righteousness, justice, truth and equality and not according to the many false notions that exist among men. And then the day is not far distant when this nation will be shaken from centre to circumference. And now, you may write it down, any of you, and I will prophesy it in the name of God. And then will be fulfilled that prediction to be found in one of the revelations given through the Prophet Joseph Smith:”

”Those who will not take up their sword to fight against their neighbor must needs flee to Zion for safety. And they will come, saying we do not know anything of the principles of your religion, but we perceive that you are an honest community; you administer justice and righteousness, and we want to live with you and receive the protection of your laws, but as for your religion we will talk about that some other time. Will we protect such people? Yes, all honorable men.”

”When the people shall have torn to shreds the Constitution of the United States the Elders of Israel will be found holding it up to the nations of the earth and proclaiming liberty and equal rights to all men, and extending the hand of fellowship to the oppressed of all nations. This is part of the programme, and as long as we do what is right and fear God, he will help us and stand by us under all circumstances.” —Journal of Discourses 21:8

Edited December 15, 2019 by halconero

[provoman]

 

Quote

The Book of Mormon outlines a very clear case of both asylum and of refugee resettlement of the Anti-Nephi-Lehites by the Nephites. It also describes the free flow of people and commerce as being a hallmark of righteousness.

As for the Anti-Nephi-Lehites wasnt the process a request to enter? Alma 27, the Anti-Nephi-Lehites, went to the Nephites (unclear to me if they enter Nephite lands). The Nephites who taught those people enter Nephite lands, spoke to the Chief Judge and the Chief sent out to request of the Nephites what would done. The Nephites gave them the Land of Jershon on the condition that effectively taxes be paid to upkeep the Nephite armies that would protect the Anti-Nephi-Lehites.

As for the free flow, are you referring to post visitation of Christ?

Quote

The New Testament starts with the story of Mary, Joseph and Christ becoming what are today known as IDPs, or internally displaced persons. They would likely meet the threshold of individuals at risk of torture or persecution on account of their race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group under the Refugee Convention or the Convention Against Torture. If they could not have been voluntarily repatriated (as is the case in the NT), or locally integrated in Egypt (the second durable solution), they would have almost certainly been eligible for third country resettlement.

Would Mary and Jospeh qualify? Weren't all first borns target regardless "race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group"

Edited December 15, 2019 by provoman

[provoman]

On 12/9/2019 at 10:31 PM, halconero said:

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

Could you provide a reference? What I can recall is there were no borders when all the land was unified post visitation of Christ.

[halconero]

Hey provoman,

I’m at church, and am running off to dinner with my parents + my girlfriend’s family. I’ll post references and answer your (really awesome) questions later in the evening.

[halconero]

Edit: Let me repost. The forum is acting weird for me at the moment.

Edited December 16, 2019 by halconero
Technical weirdness.

[Rain]

On 12/8/2019 at 12:46 AM, 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.

This is not a reply - wanted to make sure you saw this.

I just got notice from IRC (International Rescue Committee.)

"On November 14, 2019, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) published a proposal to radically increase application fees paid by immigrants and introduce a new fee for asylum applications.

"These new higher fees, including an exorbitant 83% increase for naturalization applications, will create an insurmountable obstacle for refugees, asylees, immigrants, and U.S. citizens seeking to change their status, receive a needed work or travel permit or re-unify with family members. This includes nearly nine million lawful permanent residents who may not be able to afford U.S. citizenship. In addition, if these fees take effect, the U.S. will become one of only four countries in the world that require asylum seekers to pay a fee.

"EXTENSION: You have until Dec 30 to oppose immigration fee changes that will impact millions. Submit your comment w/Team IRC: act.rescue.org/feeschedule"

So if this goes through the process will be even more expensive.