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

[Stargazer]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

That comes across as a double standard.  Everyone should obey the laws even if I don't at times when I don't think they should apply....or do you see that paraphrase as inaccurate in some fashion?

Of course it is a double standard.  I'm frequently double-standarded and find myself in the midst of quandaries of all sorts, at times.  I don't necessarily like it.  

We have laws in order to maintain rights and justice.  My right to swing my fist ends some distance from your nose, and all that.  But sometimes a law is wrong, or wrongly applied. Other times it's not.  As a general rule we should obey laws -- but there are particular occasions when we must ignore them.  If only people were angels, then we'd not need any laws.

In my heart of hearts, I'm like @Ahab in that I want to let everyone cross the border who wants to, without let or hindrance of any kind. People should be free.  But it's not practical. At least at this time.  I mean, what's wrong with an open border?  Maybe nothing, but perhaps we should not let the Mexican Army cross over with tanks and attack helicopters -- not that they have that many.  We can start there and say that's absolutely forbidden.  And then negotiate other provisions, such as how many Mexican border crossers we should allow per day.  And whether they're carrying weapons and drugs.  And whether they're members of MS-13. And little stuff like that. Eventually we get to the point that we have to arrest some of them for breaking the rules we set for crossing the border.  And then certain people go ballistic and cry crocodile tears about how the lawbreakers are being treated mean.  Perhaps utter chaos and anarchy is better, all things considered.  I'm not directing this at you, by the way.  I'm just making observations to the general neighborhood.

 

[Stargazer]

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The rule of law has as often given oppression throughout history as it has peace.

I would have to say that in this statement you are absolutely wrong. 

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I would have to say that in this statement you are absolutely wrong. 

Counterpoint: All of human history

[bluebell]

21 hours ago, Ahab said:

I think maybe you're misunderstanding the intent of the phrase.  In America, we are all different and yet we are all Americans.  None of us is the same.  And yet we strive for the ideal of equal rights for everybody... rights that promote what is good for all of us in our pursuit of happiness.

Some people mistakenly believe everyone having equal rights means everyone should have the right to do whatever they want to do, but our country's forefather's never had that in their mind.  Nobody should have the legal right to do something that is evil.

I don't think I am misunderstanding it.  Immigration in the last century (when that phrase first became really popular in the U.S.) was about taking immigrants and making them into Americans in the sense that they leave their previous culture behind and become exactly like those who had been born in the U.S.   It described the need for immigrants to assimilate the culture of their new home.  It did not celebrate multiculturalism.  

The historical use of that phrase in the U.S. is actually a really interesting thing to study.

 

[Meadowchik]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't think I am misunderstanding it.  Immigration in the last century (when that phrase first became really popular in the U.S.) was about taking immigrants and making them into Americans in the sense that they leave their previous culture behind and become exactly like those who had been born in the U.S.   It described the need for immigrants to assimilate the culture of their new home.  It did not celebrate multiculturalism.  

The historical use of that phrase in the U.S. is actually a really interesting thing to study.

 

I remember people using "tossed salad" in favor of "melting pot," as a better analogy for America. I like it and I think the analogy can extend to civic relationships globally: people can come together on common ground in limited ways while still retaining personal and cultural identities and values. Of course that always means something is lost in the process, but hopefully a net benefit can be achieved.

[Danzo]

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

 

I'd be interested to know what law "gives essentially life sentences to infants based on actions of others", though.  

I am going to be traveling today so I might not be able to respond until later. 

Briefly, there is no statute of limitations for immigration status. If you are brought to the us as an infant there is often no way for you to become legal. No way at all. In my professional life I have known many people in their thirties and forties who are here illegally and have absolutely no way to become legal. These people were brought here as infants having no choice.

They know no other language other than English, you would never have any reason to suspect they were even foreigners 

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I am going to be traveling today so I might not be able to respond until later. 

Briefly, there is no statute of limitations for immigration status. If you are brought to the us as an infant there is often no way for you to become legal. No way at all. In my professional life I have known many people in their thirties and forties who are here illegally and have absolutely no way to become legal. These people were brought here as infants having no choice.

They know no other language other than English, you would never have any reason to suspect they were even foreigners 

I have a friend with a husband in this position. He was brought here a toddler by his parents.  He's married to a U.S. citizen, has three little kids, and has been trying to become a legal citizen for over ten years.  He works, pays taxes, has a lawyer, is trying to go through government channels (was using the Dreamer Act to help) but ultimately, there really isn't a process for him to become a citizen, except to leave the country (and his family behind), move to a country he has never been to and knows no one, and then try to legally enter the country again 10 years later.  

Because if you come to the U.S. illegally you have to leave for at least 10 years before you can try to get legal citizenship.  Most people don't realize that.

[alter idem]

19 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I didn't write the headline.

Did you read the article? It gives a pretty complete answer.

I wasn't suggesting you wrote the headline, I was commenting on the headline.  It wasn't directed at criticizing you, sorry it wasn't clear.

[Bob Crockett]

18 hours ago, Stargazer said:

What does this mean, anyway?  The Church is not an agency of the government.  I'd appreciate a CFR, by the way.  I do have access to Handbook 1, as it turns out, so you can refer me to that if that is where you're getting this from.  

Don't tell me what? 😄

If the Church wants to violate immigration and customs laws, who am I to say they shouldn't?  I am sure they do it upon great need.  But I'd be interested to read where the Church absolutely forbids "it".

Laws are there for the good of all.  As @Ahab is fond of pointing out, not all laws are strictly speaking justifiable.  I break laws where it seems that they don't apply -- though I am nevertheless aware that I could be punished if caught.  I encourage everyone to obey the laws, however.  If only to avoid legal entanglements.

And not all of man's laws cover matters relating to God's commandments.  The proscription against driving past the speed limit, for example, if violated does not require repentance.  Because God didn't frame the law.  But you really should try to obey all laws, man's or God's.

 

I am not able to point to chapter and verse.  It is unlikely the church would commit this policy to writing. But having been in the leadership structure I know what the Seventy advise us. 

The Church position is completely consistent with a libertarian philosophy and with Ronald Reagan.  It is not consistent with either political party.  The Republicans want to keep out the unwashed immigrants as they know how the votes go.  

Edited December 6, 2019 by Bob Crockett

[alter idem]

18 hours ago, Stargazer said:

What does this mean, anyway?  The Church is not an agency of the government.  I'd appreciate a CFR, by the way.  I do have access to Handbook 1, as it turns out, so you can refer me to that if that is where you're getting this from.  

Don't tell me what? 😄

If the Church wants to violate immigration and customs laws, who am I to say they shouldn't?  I am sure they do it upon great need.  But I'd be interested to read where the Church absolutely forbids "it".

Laws are there for the good of all.  As @Ahab is fond of pointing out, not all laws are strictly speaking justifiable.  I break laws where it seems that they don't apply -- though I am nevertheless aware that I could be punished if caught.  I encourage everyone to obey the laws, however.  If only to avoid legal entanglements.

And not all of man's laws cover matters relating to God's commandments.  The proscription against driving past the speed limit, for example, if violated does not require repentance.  Because God didn't frame the law.  But you really should try to obey all laws, man's or God's.

 

This is all my opinion,  If the church uses ways to get around immigration laws, such as driving non-legal status missionaries to the mission field (I know this happens, it happened with a sister serving from our ward), then IMO, it's because the Lord wants it that way.  The church has a four fold mission;  Missionary work, perfecting the saints, redeeming the dead and caring for the poor.  This four fold mission comes before anything else, even the laws of Man.  I believe we are seeing the end of the times of the Gentiles and so we are now focusing on the gathering of the Tribes of Israel.  The United States of America is a promised land for those the Lord deems to bring here and he brings them however he wants--those fleeing religious persecution,  or as slaves, as labor to build a railroad, those fleeing famines, war, oppression, etc. The Lord brings who he wants to this country.  If he has to bring them illegally, he will.  The church leaders are not in the business of enforcing a country's immigration laws if it goes against the workings of the spirit as to what they should be doing to bring souls to Christ and prepare for His second coming.  It is the Remnant of Jacob, or the progeny of the Ancient Nephite/Lamanites which will build the New Jerusalem, which is expected to be in Independence, Missouri.

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I don't think I am misunderstanding it.  Immigration in the last century (when that phrase first became really popular in the U.S.) was about taking immigrants and making them into Americans in the sense that they leave their previous culture behind and become exactly like those who had been born in the U.S.   It described the need for immigrants to assimilate the culture of their new home.  It did not celebrate multiculturalism.  

The historical use of that phrase in the U.S. is actually a really interesting thing to study.

 

Okay,  I won't argue and instead will just say that if that's what the phrase was meant to imply, that everyone who comes here should try to be exactly the same as someone who had been born in the U.S.... one of the many in that hodge-podge of so-called American culture which itself is and always has been a multicultural mix of Native American, Hispanic, European, Irish, Scottish, Asian, Pacific Island, and various other countries and cultures... then I would say we are talking about the same thing.

[Anonymous Mormon]

On 12/4/2019 at 4:47 PM, 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!"

@Ahab - The idea works in principle quite well and it is very generous, but in practice I am not so sure. Think of the implications if the US today were to change its policy and completely open its border and allow any and every person to come here.

Currently there are ZERO countries in the world with open borders like what you are describing. If the US were to implement this policy, it would be the FIRST country in the world to do so.

Currently there are also 25.4 Million Refugees in the world. More than half of these refugees live in refugee camps. Most of these refugees live in countries that don't actually want them there because of the burden in taking care of them. (note: statistics are all Googled - if I got them wrong I am open to correction - the concept remains the same)

In one of the few modern day instances where the US had open borders with a much poorer country, Cuba sent all of their prisoners and those from the insane asylums to the US in what was called the Mariel Boatlift. This was only 125,000 people, but it took its toll:
 

Quote

Somehow, we as Floridians and Americans got through those polarizing times of agony. Assimilation 125,000 Cubans caused great stress to the state’s infrastructure, and that of other states around the country, for many years. (Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton lost his re-election bid, in part, because of having to house Mariel prisoners in his state.) The tensions in Miami over the diversion of social- and criminal-justice resources from African Americans to the Mariel prisoners and patients probably contributed to the McDuffie Liberty City and Overtown riots the next month.

Crimes committed by the new Miami Cubans were recorded almost daily. Most data indicated that the impact of the Mariel Boatlift on the South Florida economy, education resources and labor market was negative, keeping civil and political tensions high. Some in the existing Miami Cuban community had disdain for the Marielitos. It was a tough time in South Florida.

https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article209282994.html

 

If the US opened its borders 100% today, this same thing would happen on an unprecedented mass scale. The cost of a one-way plane ticket to the US costs less than providing aid to a refugee for a year. Governments around the world would be running airplane flights night and day to get their refugees into the US. I expect we would easily see at least half of the world's refugee population reach the US within a few years (12+ million people). Additionally, I would expect that other countries would follow Cuba's lead and send their prisoners and insane asylum members, because the cost of a one-way plane ticket is much less than the cost of taking care of an inmate for a year (it would be like the UK did with Australia in its early days).

So when you say we should have a policy of "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!", how do you pay for that. I think you could easily see 30 Million people, all the most needy on this planet, having their flight to the US paid for by governments wanting to get rid of them. How would the US handle supporting a population where 10% of its populous are a) extremely poor, b) don't speak the language, c) don't have applicable job skills?

How would we pay for medical care, job training, language training, food stamps, etc. for all of these people? 

[Ahab]

9 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

@Ahab - The idea works in principle quite well and it is very generous, but in practice I am not so sure. Think of the implications if the US today were to change its policy and completely open its border and allow any and every person to come here.

Currently there are ZERO countries in the world with open borders like what you are describing. If the US were to implement this policy, it would be the FIRST country in the world to do so.

Currently there are also 25.4 Million Refugees in the world. More than half of these refugees live in refugee camps. Most of these refugees live in countries that don't actually want them there because of the burden in taking care of them. (note: statistics are all Googled - if I got them wrong I am open to correction - the concept remains the same)

In one of the few modern day instances where the US had open borders with a much poorer country, Cuba sent all of their prisoners and those from the insane asylums to the US in what was called the Mariel Boatlift. This was only 125,000 people, but it took its toll:
 

 

If the US opened its borders 100% today, this same thing would happen on an unprecedented mass scale. The cost of a one-way plane ticket to the US costs less than providing aid to a refugee for a year. Governments around the world would be running airplane flights night and day to get their refugees into the US. I expect we would easily see at least half of the world's refugee population reach the US within a few years (12+ million people). Additionally, I would expect that other countries would follow Cuba's lead and send their prisoners and insane asylum members, because the cost of a one-way plane ticket is much less than the cost of taking care of an inmate for a year (it would be like the UK did with Australia in its early days).

So when you say we should have a policy of "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!", how do you pay for that. I think you could easily see 30 Million people, all the most needy on this planet, having their flight to the US paid for by governments wanting to get rid of them. How would the US handle supporting a population where 10% of its populous are a) extremely poor, b) don't speak the language, c) don't have applicable job skills?

How would we pay for medical care, job training, language training, food stamps, etc. for all of these people? 

We would not be required to spend or give them any money, but we could with the spirit of charity to guide us.  And charity doesn't mean giving people whatever they want.  It means doing what is in someone's best interest.

So imagine them coming, all who wanted to come.  Imagine they are here now.  They're now at our airports and bus terminals and wherever they got to when they got here. And they're asking us: "Well, can you help us?  Can you help us to know what to do next?"

I don't know if I would see very many of them but if they asked me I would tell them they should organize themselves into workgroups and offer their services in exchange for food, clothing and shelter.  Ask if anyone needs any roads or bridges built, or houses built, or help with raising or growing crops for food and energy.  Ask contractors and government officials and anyone they think might want to get something done.  I would tell them they don't need any money, necessarily.  They just need the basics of life, to start out with, and they can offer their services in exchange for those things.  If contractors and government officials don't have the expense of having to give them money for their services, and instead just give them food and clothing and shelter and the tools they need to get their work done, they would likely start throwing up tents or maybe manufactured homes or trailers and get some of those people to prepare the foods they give them for meals.  And the materials to make clothing too.  All kinds of things, whatever they needed and were able to make or produce.

I think we'd get this country in shape in hardly no time at all with millions of people doing all kinds of work.  And then maybe later they could figure out how to make some money if they wanted or needed any of it to do something else.

 

[Anonymous Mormon]

38 minutes ago, Ahab said:

We would not be required to spend or give them any money, but we could with the spirit of charity to guide us.  And charity doesn't mean giving people whatever they want.  It means doing what is in someone's best interest.

So imagine them coming, all who wanted to come.  Imagine they are here now.  They're now at our airports and bus terminals and wherever they got to when they got here. And they're asking us: "Well, can you help us?  Can you help us to know what to do next?"

I don't know if I would see very many of them but if they asked me I would tell them they should organize themselves into workgroups and offer their services in exchange for food, clothing and shelter.  Ask if anyone needs any roads or bridges built, or houses built, or help with raising or growing crops for food and energy.  Ask contractors and government officials and anyone they think might want to get something done.  I would tell them they don't need any money, necessarily.  They just need the basics of life, to start out with, and they can offer their services in exchange for those things.  If contractors and government officials don't have the expense of having to give them money for their services, and instead just give them food and clothing and shelter and the tools they need to get their work done, they would likely start throwing up tents or maybe manufactured homes or trailers and get some of those people to prepare the foods they give them for meals.  And the materials to make clothing too.  All kinds of things, whatever they needed and were able to make or produce.

I think we'd get this country in shape in hardly no time at all with millions of people doing all kinds of work.  And then maybe later they could figure out how to make some money if they wanted or needed any of it to do something else.

I feel like this is a very idealistic and unrealistic scenario with our current government. If the US government were to pass an open borders policy, it would be by the party who also champions health care for all, high minimum wage, a free living wage, food stamps, free college education, etc. So unfortunately, if we get an open borders policy the same people would also require all of these other "human rights" for the immigrants and bankrupt the country. Also, even if they did have your attitude and not pay the way for them, it would take at least a generation to work itself out as these people learn the language and find occupations.

The other thing your comment require is true introspection. It's easy to say "If we had all these immigrants then I would be willing to give and help them." It's human nature to think we would always perform altruistically in this kind of scenario. But if we are honest, most of us would have to admit that we are not doing near enough to help the already existing large population of those currently in need in our own communities. I fear that if there was an influx of people and they were impacting crime in my area I would be even less charitable than I already am to the poor and needy and not help them (besides continuing to give a fast offering and then patting myself on the back for my good job, because that is my monthly guilt-tax so I can feel good about neglecting the local poor).

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

I feel like this is a very idealistic and unrealistic scenario with our current government. If the US government were to pass an open borders policy, it would be by the party who also champions health care for all, high minimum wage, a free living wage, food stamps, free college education, etc. So unfortunately, if we get an open borders policy the same people would also require all of these other "human rights" for the immigrants and bankrupt the country. Also, even if they did have your attitude and not pay the way for them, it would take at least a generation to work itself out as these people learn the language and find occupations.

The other thing your comment require is true introspection. It's easy to say "If we had all these immigrants then I would be willing to give and help them." It's human nature to think we would always perform altruistically in this kind of scenario. But if we are honest, most of us would have to admit that we are not doing near enough to help the already existing large population of those currently in need in our own communities. I fear that if there was an influx of people and they were impacting crime in my area I would be even less charitable than I already am to the poor and needy and not help them (besides continuing to give a fast offering and then patting myself on the back for my good job, because that is my monthly guilt-tax so I can feel good about neglecting the local poor).

Removing money from the equation, not paying people money/cash for their work and instead just giving them food, clothing, shelter, and tools to do their work would make it a lot easier to get a lot of work done in this country. Take just one of those examples I mentioned, for example, like building roads.  We need a lot of roads built and repaired in this country, but the monetary cost is very expensive because of the current practice of paying the workers with money for their labor.  Remove that roadblock and just give them food, clothing, shelter and he use of tools to do the work.  Even if the government paid a contractor for his time and tools, the government would still save a ton of money by not having to give the contractor any money for the labor of his crew because they would have agreed to do their work in exchange for food, clothing, shelter, and the use of tools to do their job.

It's not as difficult to solve the world's problems as you seem to think it is.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don't think I am misunderstanding it.  Immigration in the last century (when that phrase first became really popular in the U.S.) was about taking immigrants and making them into Americans in the sense that they leave their previous culture behind and become exactly like those who had been born in the U.S.   It described the need for immigrants to assimilate the culture of their new home.  It did not celebrate multiculturalism.  

The historical use of that phrase in the U.S. is actually a really interesting thing to study.

 

This contrast between the immigrants of the past being eager to assimilate and current immigrants being unwilling is largely a myth. In the 18th and 19th centuries groups of immigrants from specific nations often settled together. New York City had all kinds of ethnic enclaves filled with many languages. There were powerful organizations urging them to bloc vote too. There were whole communities in everywhere from Texas to Maine made up of groups from one nation or another. There was paranoia and xenophobia that these groups were not integrating and were seizing political power (the Federalist Party lost power to a large extent for their xenophobia and never got it back). Certain accents or appearance could cut you off from jobs so they banded together for mutual support and virtually all of them eventually integrated. I see no reason to believe the current crop of immigrants will be any different. They will band together for mutual support with those like them and their children and their children’s children will integrate.

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Removing money from the equation, not paying people money/cash for their work and instead just giving them food, clothing, shelter, and tools to do their work would make it a lot easier to get a lot of work done in this country. Take just one of those examples I mentioned, for example, like building roads.  We need a lot of roads built and repaired in this country, but the monetary cost is very expensive because of the current practice of paying the workers with money for their labor.  Remove that roadblock and just give them food, clothing, shelter and he use of tools to do the work.  Even if the government paid a contractor for his time and tools, the government would still save a ton of money by not having to give the contractor any money for the labor of his crew because they would have agreed to do their work in exchange for food, clothing, shelter, and the use of tools to do their job.

It's not as difficult to solve the world's problems as you seem to think it is.

Congratulations on reinventing an even more oppressive company store model and amplifying all the abuses rampant in such a system by completely removing currency and making employees more like serfs of their employers.

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

This contrast between the immigrants of the past being eager to assimilate and current immigrants being unwilling is largely a myth. In the 18th and 19th centuries groups of immigrants from specific nations often settled together. New York City had all kinds of ethnic enclaves filled with many languages. There were powerful organizations urging them to bloc vote too. There were whole communities in everywhere from Texas to Maine made up of groups from one nation or another. There was paranoia and xenophobia that these groups were not integrating and were seizing political power (the Federalist Party lost power to a large extent for their xenophobia and never got it back). Certain accents or appearance could cut you off from jobs so they banded together for mutual support and virtually all of them eventually integrated. I see no reason to believe the current crop of immigrants will be any different. They will band together for mutual support with those like them and their children and their children’s children will integrate.

I agree with everything you've said.

I wasn't making any kind of statement on or contrasting how immigrants felt about assimilating or remaining distinct, then verses now.  I was only talking about how the historical term "melting pot" was used by non-immigrants, what American culture generally wanted/expected from immigrants in the past, and how a lot of people misunderstand the term to be one celebrating cultural diversity when it's actually not. 

Edited December 6, 2019 by bluebell

[The Nehor]

Just now, bluebell said:

I agree with everything you've said.

I wasn't making any kind of statement on or contrasting how immigrants felt about assimilating or remaining distinct, then verses now.  I was only talking about how the historical term "melting pot" was used, what American culture generally wanted from immigrants in the past, and how a lot of people misunderstand the term to be one celebrating cultural diversity when it's actually not. 

Sorry, I misunderstood. When people talk about the melting pot they are often obliquely suggesting that it worked back then but will not now.

[Ahab]

Just now, The Nehor said:

Congratulations on reinventing an even more oppressive company store model and amplifying all the abuses rampant in such a system by completely removing currency and making employees more like serfs of their employers.

The workers should always feel free to walk away from doing that work if they feel like they can get a better situation.

As I see it, there are only 4 options:

1) give them money and/or food and/or clothing and/or shelter without requiring them to do anything in exchange for it

2) give them money and/or food and/or clothing and/or shelter while requiring them to do something in exchange for it

Both of those require money otherwise they just won't work.  One is a handout and the other involves the principle of requiring labor to get a reward

3) give them food and/or clothing and/or shelter without requiring them to do anything in exchange for it

4) give them food and/or clothing and/or shelter while requiring them to do something in exchange for it

No money is required to make these work.  One is a handout and the other involves the principle of requiring labor to get a reward

 

Money is usually considered just a means to an end, and while workers may want more than only food, clothing, shelter and the tools to do the work they do, at least they would have their basic necessities without needing to have any money to get those things.

[bluebell]

Just now, The Nehor said:

Sorry, I misunderstood. When people talk about the melting pot they are often obliquely suggesting that it worked back then but will not now.

I think the idea that America ever was, is, or ever will be a melting pot is a myth.  It sounds nice on the surface, but it's based on the idea that American culture and society is the best and so everyone who immigrates here should want to/be made to assimilate to that culture completely.  If you think about it very much the melting pot idea starts to seem a little to much like benevolent racism to be very comfortable today.  

That's not really a surprise when you consider that the phrase comes from a 1906 play (or was it 1908?  I can't remember off of the top of my head) and diversity, especially racial diversity, was not something that was lauded back then.  

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, Ahab said:

The workers should always feel free to walk away from doing that work if they feel like they can get a better situation.

As I see it, there are only 4 options:

1) give them money and/or food and/or clothing and/or shelter without requiring them to do anything in exchange for it

2) give them money and/or food and/or clothing and/or shelter while requiring them to do something in exchange for it

Both of those require money otherwise they just won't work.  One is a handout and the other involves the principle of requiring labor to get a reward

3) give them food and/or clothing and/or shelter without requiring them to do anything in exchange for it

4) give them food and/or clothing and/or shelter while requiring them to do something in exchange for it

No money is required to make these work.  One is a handout and the other involves the principle of requiring labor to get a reward

 

Money is usually considered just a means to an end, and while workers may want more than only food, clothing, shelter and the tools to do the work they do, at least they would have their basic necessities without needing to have any money to get those things.

It is virtually impossible to survive without some form of money. It is also not cheaper to give people food and clothing instead of the money that could buy said food and clothing. And yeah, it is serfdom. It keeps people in poverty perpetually. They cannot save money because they do not get any. Does the shelter belong to them or do they lose it when they lose the job? Guessing the latter so if you stop working you are on the street the next day. What if one of your serfs decides to improve him or herself? I could go to school. Nope, no money. I could learn online. You really think they will give you free WiFi. My employer is not maintaining my tenement room and I have not had heat or AC for a year. Well, you could seek legal help. Oh wait! Yeah, that costs money. Guess you better suck it up.

Your system is cruel and is basically designed to be oppressive.

[Ahab]

27 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is virtually impossible to survive without some form of money. It is also not cheaper to give people food and clothing instead of the money that could buy said food and clothing. And yeah, it is serfdom. It keeps people in poverty perpetually. They cannot save money because they do not get any. Does the shelter belong to them or do they lose it when they lose the job? Guessing the latter so if you stop working you are on the street the next day. What if one of your serfs decides to improve him or herself? I could go to school. Nope, no money. I could learn online. You really think they will give you free WiFi. My employer is not maintaining my tenement room and I have not had heat or AC for a year. Well, you could seek legal help. Oh wait! Yeah, that costs money. Guess you better suck it up.

Your system is cruel and is basically designed to be oppressive.

You can add to it.  That program would just be the basic foundation and from there they could do more to get more.  Keep your ideas and just add to what I am saying. 

How much money do you pay for basic food, clothing and shelter each month?  How much money do you get paid each month?  Are you saying your expenses for your basic necessities exceed your income?

There would be more government money available to help those on that type of government work program because there would not need to be any money going toward labor in that program. 

Those who got paid with money in other labor situations would still be paying taxes and with those government work programs not using any money for labor that tax money could be used for other things other than those labor expenses. 

Instead of paying tens of millions of dollars in 1 year for a crew of 50 to build a road and supply the materials, tens of millions of dollars in just 1 year for 50 people to do that work, the government would pay only a small fraction of that to provide their food, clothing., shelter and tools to do their jobs.

Health care could be paid for because there would be no money going toward that labor.

Education could be paid for because there would be no money going toward that labor.

Home loans could be paid for or at least subsidized because there would be no money going toward that labor.

Etc.

You are too quick to find fault and give up.  Add to the ideas I offered if you can think of something better.

Edited December 6, 2019 by Ahab

[Anonymous Mormon]

16 minutes ago, Ahab said:

You can add to it.  That program would just be the basic foundation and from there they could do more to get more.  Keep your ideas and just add to what I am saying. 

 

16 minutes ago, Ahab said:

You are too quick to find fault and give up.  Add to the ideas I offered if you can think of something better.

What if we add a rule to limit immigration? That would solve the entire problem we are discussing😁

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

 

What if we add a rule to limit immigration? That would solve the entire problem we are discussing😁

The only good reason I can see to limit the number of people we should want to come here would be because we couldn't think of some way we could use all of that potential labor to get something good done.

I think we just need to think some more about what good things all of those people could do.