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

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Any heartache caused by such an action is not the responsibility of the host country, but of the illegal aliens themselves.

What if the host country has created a situation that promotes illegal immigration?

Quote

strongly support first world nations supporting third world nations in effective ways to create businesses, safe neighborhoods, and strong national cultures. 

In an semiideal world this would probably be enough.

But what if such support fails due to corruption or incompetence or influence of other less beneficent governments more concerned with taking advantage or simply natural disaster or other conditions that the locals have no control over, do you think a country should resort to opening up their borders more generously and disadvantaging their own citizens somewhat to help refugees survive?

Edited December 5, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Don't live in Utah; don't care to live in Utah; and don't care what they want to eat.

On a side note, I am against national brands invading other countries. Nothing is more sad than to visit great cities of the world and see a McDonald's or Kentucky Fried Chicken. I wish there was a way to minimize this type of thing. 

What about more useful companies such as those that produce cars and trucks? Should they only be allowed to ship their vehicles in or should even that be illegal to prevent domination of any local vehicle producer?  Should there be no Fords allowed anywhere but the US?

 Do you support respect of patents across borders or do you think intellectual property ends at the border?  If you support international patents to avoid others producing products and then shipping at lower costs worldwide, how do you suggest a country develop local businesses dependent on such patents if such businesses are unlikely to have the resources at the beginning to pay for use of patents from other countries?

Edited December 5, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

magine the impact that would have had if I had been the victim of war, violence, persecution, or some other conflict. Imagine if I hadn't had a church to go to on Sunday where people saw me as 'one of us'.

In Russia there was little to no interaction with locals save for the one professor and her mother that got my husband over there to teach. Her husband and daughter kept their distance when we got together. The only social interaction with any other children was at church.  Church and the US Embassy were the only places we could relax. I wonder at times what long term impact that had on my then five year old daughter in terms of her social anxiety.  I know I suffered from depression and major anxiety the entire time I was there. I can’t imagine what effect moving permanently would have had. As much as I tried to fit in, I am rotten with language and then there was the need to avoid some things simply because of health. I can see Russians might feel I was just there trying to take advantage of them since we were there for economic reasons if they just saw us refusing to eat and drink with them on a regular basis and rarely speaking. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

why does the Church support obeying the law, here and elsewhere?

Added:  I see this was already asked, so feel free to ignore.

How do you view the Church helping young adults that are here in the US illegally to go on missions while helping them to avoid getting caught by avoiding situations where they would need to have papers of identification or travel documents?

Or baptizing or giving temple recommends to illegal immigrants?

Edited December 5, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

What of those who die, just because we feel we have a “moral right” to do so, not by law, but because of our feelings. I

What about those who die because we refuse them entry?

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

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

And how would they then get back?  Or do you think they should just stay?

[Bob Crockett]

41 minutes ago, Calm said:

Added:  I see this was already asked, so feel free to ignore.

How do you view the Church helping young adults that are here in the US illegally to go on missions while helping them to avoid getting caught by avoiding situations where they would need to have papers of identification or travel documents?

Or baptizing or giving temple recommends to illegal immigrants?

When I was on my mission in the 70s the Church eliminated the requirement that immigrants be legal in order to be baptized.   My mission had a huge influx of converts.

Many years later I was a stake mission president.  The church removed the requirement of legal status for a member to serve as a bishop or full time missionary. 

Don’t the moves rather answer the question posed by the OP?

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I know I suffered from depression and major anxiety the entire time I was there. I can’t imagine what effect moving permanently would have had.

Yep. The Lord certainly knew what He was talking about. Social isolation is as deadly as hunger and thirst, as detrimental as sickness and imprisonment, and is common amongst migrants of all kinds, doubly so amongst refugees.

Quote

Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger [ξένος, foreigner], and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 

As someone who has spent most of my adult life living in a series of 'foreign' lands, I can only imagine the impact some of the opinions made on this thread could have had on me absent a solid understanding of Gospel principles and access to the community of the Saints.

Edited December 5, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan

[Meadowchik]

 I recommend caution when proclaiming moral absolutes like this. People do not get to choose whether their home country is safe or not. 

[Duncan]

7 hours ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

Don’t know where this came from, but what person could have a problem with, “In-N-Out Burgers, I mean that is “Holy Land”, yummy! 😅

it came from responding to Storm Rider!

[Danzo]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Will that person be given SS benefits upon retirement if he/she is here illegally?

The simple answer is probably not, not  with what we did with yesterday. The person will pay into the trust fund bur not accrue any benefits. We applied for an ITIN number, which does not give any social security benefits.

The more complex answer is that social security benefits accrue based on presence of a social security number (not ITIN number) at the time worked, not the time drawing the social security benefit.

Legal presence is a status that is subject to change. In theory a person could be legal accrue benefits, then collect social security benefits later when their status has Changed and the no longer are lawfully present.  

At present time this particular person will be contributing to the social security trust fund with out accruing any social security benefit.  Everyone who gets a social security check should be grateful that people like he help keep their checks coming in by their sacrifice.

[JLHPROF]

8 hours ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

 but if “immigration laws”, we all a violation of all the laws of God, then why does the Church support obeying the law, here and elsewhere? 

Your Honor, I very much regret that the laws of my country should come in conflict with the laws of God; but whenever they do, I shall invariably choose the latter. - President Rudger Clawson

We still teach the story of Daniel in the den of lions with great admiration for this prophet who broke the law of the land.

Edited December 5, 2019 by JLHPROF

[Stargazer]

15 hours ago, Ahab said:

Among the many evil laws that exist in the world I think the laws making it illegal for people to move to a country... any country, ours or any other country on this planet... ranks pretty high up there on that list.  God didn't put borderlines on our planet and I think everyone should be considered free to move to any country they wish to live in.

I'm okay with the buying and selling of a modest-sized parcel of property as a means to control who gets some land to call their own, but we shouldn't be stopping people at the borders of countries to say they can't move here if they want to.

So many stupid laws on this planet makes it too easy for people to disrespect the concept of law and order when those stupid laws shouldn't exist in the first place.  Better to just have good laws that are there for a good reason.  We have plenty of land in our country for everyone.

DC 58:21 Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land.

You may disagree with the immigration laws, but apparently God wants you to obey them.

DC 98:5-6 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me. Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;

Again, inasmuch as the law is constitutional, the Lord enjoins you to befriend it -- which means to obey it and require others to obey it as well.

If you have a beef with the law, use the law to lobby to have it changed.  

You want a moral justification for the law as it now stands?  Fine.  You live in a dwelling, do you not?  Would you not object if someone decided to move into your dwelling without your permission?  Of course you would.  The land of the United States is the common property of the people of the United States.  Those who wish to come to the land of the United States must get the permission of the common owners of the land of the United States, or in other words, the permission of the people of the United States, as expressed in the laws their freely elected representatives have enacted for this purpose.

Your idealized vision, as you express it, "God didn't put borderlines on our planet and I think everyone should be considered free to move to any country they wish to live in." will be fulfilled once the Lord returns in glory.  Until then, men are left to themselves, to do their best to secure their own best interests in accordance with God's laws.  And you will note that God never gave as a commandment that anyone could move anywhere they felt like without consideration of the people who were already there.  If you think he did, then you automatically justify invasion.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Your Honor, I very much regret that the laws of my country should come in conflict with the laws of God; but whenever they do, I shall invariably choose the latter. - President Rudger Clawson

We still teach the story of Daniel in the den of lions with great admiration for this prophet who broke the law of the land.

What is this quote from, when they objected to laws on polygamy? Do you have a date on this quote? Maybe a reread of the Articles of Faith, written by the “Prophet Joseph Smith, concerning our belief in “obeying the law”. Now that is both the police and the Latter-day Saint in me speaking. 

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

And how would they then get back?  Or do you think they should just stay?

I must be tired, could you put this in context, so I don’t have plow back through which question I was answering. 

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

 I recommend caution when proclaiming moral absolutes like this. People do not get to choose whether their home country is safe or not. 

Too whom is this addressed? If it is myself, I was speaking of the shame of such leaders who often create the very conditions that cause the innocent to flee, NOT the Refugees. 

[Duncan]

10 minutes ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

What is this quote from, when they objected to laws on polygamy? Do you have a date on this quote? Maybe a reread of the Articles of Faith, written by the “Prophet Joseph Smith, concerning our belief in “obeying the law”. Now that is both the police and the Latter-day Saint in me speaking. 

As you recall President Clawson was imprisoned for polygamy in the 1880's and so I suspect he said it then but it comes from that old church video, LDS Leaders past and present

[Danzo]

15 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

DC 58:21 Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land.

You may disagree with the immigration laws, but apparently God wants you to obey them.

DC 98:5-6 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me. Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;

Again, inasmuch as the law is constitutional, the Lord enjoins you to befriend it -- which means to obey it and require others to obey it as well.

If you have a beef with the law, use the law to lobby to have it changed.  

You want a moral justification for the law as it now stands?  Fine.  You live in a dwelling, do you not?  Would you not object if someone decided to move into your dwelling without your permission?  Of course you would.  The land of the United States is the common property of the people of the United States.  Those who wish to come to the land of the United States must get the permission of the common owners of the land of the United States, or in other words, the permission of the people of the United States, as expressed in the laws their freely elected representatives have enacted for this purpose.

Your idealized vision, as you express it, "God didn't put borderlines on our planet and I think everyone should be considered free to move to any country they wish to live in." will be fulfilled once the Lord returns in glory.  Until then, men are left to themselves, to do their best to secure their own best interests in accordance with God's laws.  And you will note that God never gave as a commandment that anyone could move anywhere they felt like without consideration of the people who were already there.  If you think he did, then you automatically justify invasion.

Are you aware that at the time of D&C 58, the "Law of the land" didn't restrict immigration.

Or maybe you  believe the scripture covers all law that have ever been made or ever will be made?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

4 minutes ago, Duncan said:

As you recall President Clawson was imprisoned for polygamy in the 1880's and so I suspect he said it then but it comes from that old church video, LDS Leaders past and present

Thank you for the context, I hope none have such issues of cherry picking most laws today. 

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

What about those who die because we refuse them entry?

This reply was from another edited comment, with an “I” at the end, so again could I have some context? 

[Danzo]

7 minutes ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

Thank you for the context, I hope none have such issues of cherry picking most laws today. 

Unfortunately, the shear volume of laws requires us to cherry pick the laws we are even aware of. 

You have to be aware of a law before you can even decide whether to follow it or not.

I can't tell you how many times I have had to teach government attorneys and agents what the law actually says.  If the government doesn't know what the law says how can anyone else be expected to know, much less follow all laws.

[Danzo]

Just another example of how the immigration law is evil. 

Most laws punish the person who is actually breaking the law.  We don't send a bank robber's innocent child to prison.  But immigration law punishes children for the behavior of their parents. 

This flies in the face of the second article of faith.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

They are not. They support keeping families together. 

It is the law that may break up families. At this time in the US, laws may get broken if one helps a family stay together...perhaps not personally breaking a law, but helping another to do so.

I am going to be blunt and say I am confused by your opening post. I don’t understand the point you were trying to make. It probably would have been helpful to post what the Church said that you think was misunderstood and not just paraphrase it.

 

Children have been being separated by many administrations for a long time, only to ensure the adults they are with are indeed their parents. Sadly some, due to minor or major crimes committed by adults, who are in this country illegally, and it is a tragedy, but in some cases it is unavoidable. Just as it is when any parent commits other crimes and in-prisoned. On the border this has been going on for over a 1.5 decades minimum. Thank you for being “blunt”, sorry for the confusion, but I was just trying to point out that the First Presidency’s message, was not advocating the violation of the laws of any Nation as it applies to “refugees”. Anyway, “sorry, but to be blunt”, I just have to go for a while. I did ask for you to tell me the truth, and you have. It would seem I do lack any ability to both express my ideas clearly, and I am even more lacking in my ability to read our language, as well as understanding what is being asked. I am just embarrassed that it took 13 years to understand this, but I do love you guys. To quote scripture, (maybe, well no it is scripture) “And now I bid you all farewell. I soon go to the rest in the paradise of God...” (or so I hope). Be well all, be safe, be loving, and be both kind and understanding. 

[pogi]

11 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

 I appreciate separate nations with unique cultures, languages, and forms of government.

Me too.  But I also appreciate a multitude of subcultures within a culture - that is what makes America great - a diversity of thought, culture, and ideas.  Could you imagine going out to eat and only having American food (whatever that is!) to choose from?  No authentic Mexican joints, no Thai, Indian, Italian, Chinese, Japanese/Sushi, etc. etc.  I love going to China towns, or little Italy, or the little street taco stands.  I love seeing the diverse cultural dresses walking down the streets of SLC.  All thanks to immigration and a melting pot concept.   

[pogi]

11 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I am personally against all migration for economic reasons. 

I am not sure I understand what you are saying.  I am guessing that you are suggesting that we shouldn't allow people in who want to improve their economic condition. 

Unfortunately, that seems to be the only migration that our President wants to allow.  He seems to want to shut-off all migration for ethical/moral reasons (for him it's all about money/economy) -  to keep out the poor, desperate, and destitute and only allow in the well educated, successful, well-off people who are trying to improve their economic condition.  For him, it's all about migration for economic reasons, which it sounds like you disagree with?  I don't.  I think we need a healthy balance of both.  We need well educated, successful people with fresh perspectives and can be assets to our economy, but we also need the ethical/moral side too.