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

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

Governments are called for and sanctioned by God, and we are even called on to pray for “our leaders to live peaceable lives”. Any Nation must have both boundaries, to have both, “laws and peace”. Both scriptural history, and world history, make it clear that the world would be in a constant state of war everywhere, where the “strong will constantly prey on the weak”. Now maybe it is my professions in the “military and law-enforcement”, for 31 years speaking here, or just being a student of history. As for your comment that, “we have plenty of land in our country for everyone”, are you counting every acre in the deserts, mountain slops, volcanos etc? Also, how would this Nation continue to be the breadbasket of the world? It was the same God you speak of, who separated peoples among the earth, for a number of reasons. Chief among them being the danger of one government and one people, it was called the “Tower of Babel”. 

Let's skip past the problems associated with countries having borders which government representatives will not allow people to cross without their permission.  Let's instead just imagine that anyone could move to any country in the world they wanted to live in and all government representatives everywhere just said something like: "Welcome, welcome!  Happy to have you here!  And if there is anything I can do to make your stay here more pleasant, please be sure to let me or any of my government aids know how we can help you!"

And yes I am including all of the mountains and deserts and volcanoes, anywhere anyone might want to live for either a log time or just a little while.  I've lived in deserts, Arizona for a few years, and am currently living in the Cascade mountain range not very far from Mt. St. Helen.  Have you ever heard of Mt. St. Helen before?  I've also go over to to Mt. Hood quite a bit, where lots of people are happy to call their home.  

And contrary to what you may believe, God doesn't stop people from moving to a country.  Other people do that.  God has no problem with people separating to live in other areas.  He just didn't advertise or tell everybody about the American continent for a while because he knew lots of people would want to live here as soon as they found out about it.  It's just the American government that is making that difficult for everyone who would like to come here.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Not bowing out, IPad about to die. May be back in an hour or two.

[Duncan]

9 minutes ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

“Refugees”, fall under the umbrella of much of much of “legal immigration”, and I believe I addressed the “legal” aspects of this, which covers any issues of “appropriately”. Wow, really I must quote every syllable? 

if refugees fall under legal immigration, they what is the concern here? The Church is talking about refugees, not illegal immigration

[Danzo]

we just finished helping a person here illegally to get a tax id number and file their taxes.

This person will now help keep the social security trust fund solvent for those of you who collect social security.

 

Your welcome.

[Hamba Tuhan]

26 minutes ago, Duncan said:

if refugees fall under legal immigration, they what is the concern here? The Church is talking about refugees, not illegal immigration

According to the UN, 'Refugees are people who have fled war, violence, conflict or persecution and have crossed an international border to find safety in another country'. I honestly don't know what the terms legal and illegal mean in this context. If someone hasn't crossed an international border, s/he isn't a refugee.

Likewise, if a person hasn't crossed the international border as a consequence of fleeing war, violence, conflict or persecution, s/he isn't a refugee. I feel confident that the First Presidency understand this internationally accepted definition.

Edited December 5, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan

[Duncan]

5 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

According to the UN, 'Refugees are people who have fled war, violence, conflict or persecution and have crossed an international border to find safety in another country'. I honestly don't know what the terms legal and illegal mean in this context. If someone hasn't crossed an international border, s/he isn't a refugee.

to quote George Costanza, "I am aware"! but somehow the topic isn't about refugees, it's about God not wanting people to move, illegal immigration, the Tower of Babel, "the danger of one government and one people" overtones of no Zion?

Edited December 5, 2019 by Duncan

[Calm]

PaPa, do you believe if a parent is in the country illegally, the Church supports deporting him or her, thus breaking up the family?

[provoman]

17 minutes ago, Danzo said:

To be baptized the person had to break the law.

Marriage is not required for baptism.

[Danzo]

6 minutes ago, provoman said:

Marriage is not required for baptism.

When did they start allowing unmarried people living together to get baptized?

I must have missed that change in the handbook.

 

Edited December 5, 2019 by Danzo

[strappinglad]

May I suggest that every politician at every level be required to host and support a family of immigrants for a year before they are allowed to vote on increased or reduced immigration. 

Open borders = chaos. Immigration needs to be done ,yes, but in an orderly manner . Demographics and logistics , folks!

[ERMD]

17 minutes ago, Danzo said:

When did they start allowing unmarried people living together to get baptized?

I must have missed that change in the handbook.

 

The unmarried/co-habiting person has a choice.  Get married or stop living with someone.  I've known people who have done both.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

44 minutes ago, Duncan said:

if refugees fall under legal immigration, they what is the concern here? The Church is talking about refugees, not illegal immigration

There is none, I thought I was addressing your point. Although now I am questioning my ability, or should I say inability to read and understand English, and how to discern the meaning of a question? So, let us pretend I can do neither, and will you afford me the kindness of walking back through your comments and concerns?  

[Danzo]

4 minutes ago, ERMD said:

The unmarried/co-habiting person has a choice.  Get married or stop living with someone.  I've known people who have done both.

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.

[Hamba Tuhan]

10 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

May I suggest that every politician at every level be required to host and support a family of immigrants for a year before they are allowed to vote on increased or reduced immigration.

The politician whom I work for has repeatedly taken members of a refugee family we met through our missionaries to medical and other appointments, including taking the kids to school, but she doesn’t get to vote on any national immigration matters. Good enough?

[Ahab]

13 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

May I suggest that every politician at every level be required to host and support a family of immigrants for a year before they are allowed to vote on increased or reduced immigration. 

Open borders = chaos. Immigration needs to be done ,yes, but in an orderly manner . Demographics and logistics , folks!

I'm fine with having people checked at the borders to see if they are carrying weapons or drugs or anything illegal like that.  I had to go through that kind of check to get into Disneyland recently. And when they saw I didn't have anything like that they just let me go in.

Why can't it be like that?   Answer: it could be.  They could then just say something like: "Hi!  Good to see you! Welcome, welcome! Have a nice day!"

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

49 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Let's skip past the problems associated with countries having borders which government representatives will not allow people to cross without their permission.  Let's instead just imagine that anyone could move to any country in the world they wanted to live in and all government representatives everywhere just said something like: "Welcome, welcome!  Happy to have you here!  And if there is anything I can do to make your stay here more pleasant, please be sure to let me or any of my government aids know how we can help you!"

All I guess I can point out, is that each State is not an autonomous country, settled by the horrific Civil War. Individual States do not set immigration policy, and are not permitted to circumvent the Constitution. In addition, this is a pro-leaning website, and we (or I) are addressing in part or whole the First Presidency, which overall supports the rule of law, in all Nations in which it operates, as relating to the issues addressed. 

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

You are aware that the US government didn't restrict immigration until 1882 when the US decided it wasn't fond of Chinese people.

Somehow, what is so obvious to you wasn't obvious to the founding fathers of our country or their children and grandchildren. (See chapter 7 ) 

That was only one issue, and we are no longer living in 1882, or I hope not.

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

All I guess I can point out, is that each State is not an autonomous country, settled by the horrific Civil War. Individual States do not set immigration policy, and are not permitted to circumvent the Constitution. In addition, this is a pro-leaning website, and we (or I) are addressing in part or whole the First Presidency, which overall supports the rule of law, in all Nations in which it operates, as relating to the issues addressed. 

I support the principles governing the rule of law.  I just don't support stupid laws.  Crosswalk lights are another bane of my life in this country.  Don't walk until the sign says I can walk?!?  If I don't see anything coming after I look both ways I just start walking.

I think the Declaration of Independence is in my favor.  Sure, some police officer may try to stop me or write me a ticket, like the King of England and his armies tried to stop our countries forefathers, but I have had it with stupid laws in this country!  Notice has been given!

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, ERMD said:

The unmarried/co-habiting person has a choice.  Get married or stop living with someone.  I've known people who have done both.

So a parent in the case being described should move out and only visit their children so they can be baptized and stay legal?

There would also be additional costs of having two households for the family, likely low income to begin with, which means very limited child support could be given.

Edited December 5, 2019 by Calm

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

So a parent in the case being described should move out and only visit their children so they can be baptized and stay legal?

I'm curious how you would honestly and intellectually answer that question yourself.  Suppose it was you in the scenario, or something similar, if you can imagine something like that for yourself.

 

[Duncan]

31 minutes ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

There is none, I thought I was addressing your point. Although now I am questioning my ability, or should I say inability to read and understand English, and how to discern the meaning of a question? So, let us pretend I can do neither, and will you afford me the kindness of walking back through your comments and concerns?  

the Church issues a statement about refugees, you bring up illegal immigration, the tower of babel, people shouldn't live in other countries, so I don't know what your post has to do with what the Church is saying in their statement. It never mentioned immigration, legal or otherwise. So, if there is no concern then what is the point of this whole post?!

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

39 minutes ago, Duncan said:

the Church issues a statement about refugees, you bring up illegal immigration, the tower of babel, people shouldn't live in other countries, so I don't know what your post has to do with what the Church is saying in their statement. It never mentioned immigration, legal or otherwise. So, if there is no concern then what is the point of this whole post?!

Cameron, you are taking a confluence of my statements, stringing them together out of context to denote your disapproval, either at my words, or for answering others questions in context. You know me too well, to try and paint me with such a broad Busch, as an unreasonable bigot. Again, I was addressing individual questions posed by other posters in the context of their questions. “Refugees”, come to other Nations of the earth during, “legal and illegal course”, usually due to any number or reasons. They come because of, war, famine, political persecution, economic reasons, just to name a few, some just want too. The First Presidency did not enumerate them all the ways one might be a “Refugee”, not should they need too. Since the term as broad implications, which is why they admonished us to act when we can, and should act, “appropriately and legally”. The “Tower of Babel” comment as you well know, was to answer Ahab’s charge (or assertion that all boundaries, or countries having them, as being contrary to the Laws of God (now this is a paraphrase of his point, so please do not go back and cite me for having a coma out of place). Now, I know I am stepping out of a limb, but I am addressing both you comment here, and as it relates to the “OP”, I know it will be followed with a bit more wrath. 
 

I sometimes wonder if threads, if threads or just maybe my own should be like the “three word story”. I or others can begin with...

Me: I don’t agree

Other: Agree with what?

Me: With last comment 

Other: What last comment?

Me: The other comment

Other: Which “other” comment? 
 

Etc

Etc

Etc  

 

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

PaPa, do you believe if a parent is in the country illegally, the Church supports deporting him or her, thus breaking up the family?

I was not aware the Church was supporting or suggesting deportation of anyone ever. I pray this is not the case. Because if you are suggesting that my comments even implied such a thing, you most of all. I am indeed both misunderstood, and am devoid of any ability to express myself in print, and an illiterate. If this is so, I no longer need embarrass myself so, and I should get the hint. If this is so, spare me the pain, and just tell me, “you are an embarrassment”.  Back down to 5% on my iPad, that would seem a good omen. 

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

3 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

Utah was settled by Mormons illegally immigrating into Mexico while fleeing the US legal system in order to practice polygamy.  There is some historical precedent in the First Presidency's statement. 

Or maybe they understand as Christians there is a higher law do be decent and moral to our fellow human beings. 

Phaedrus 

Yes they were, but we no longer live in these days, and their now laws that public servants must comply with. However, just too the point , you are correct.

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, Danzo said:

 Some of man's laws are wrong.  When it comes to Immigration laws, as they exist in the united states, those laws are evil.

I hope for the day when God's laws and man's laws no longer conflict. 

Amen.  Our current immigration laws and attitude conflict with several gospel principles.

3 hours ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

Well as retired police, could you give me a list? 

Does it matter?  Any law of the land that goes against the laws of God ought not to be upheld by saints.