Trib Article re: The Church & Members and Mass Deportations

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

Obviously data doesn't mean anything to you.  Only hysterical articles and click bate.  Guess it works on you.  But for me, I actually want facts.

If you base your beliefs on sensational newspaper articles rather than facts, then I can't really help you. 

I am not saying that California doesn't have crime.  I am saying that the people in Los Angeles tried a different approach to the mass incarceration by electing Gascon as the DA.  It didn't work.  They voted him out with a recall.  

But that doesn't seem to be your position.  

That is my position.

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

You want to gin up everyone with sensational stories rather than look at the real data.  

Nope.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Rain]

1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

All of you people advocating for Willie Nelly immigration and border crossing should try doing it the opposite direction.

None of us are advocating for willy-nilly immigration and border crossing. We just feel there can be better ways to do it.

1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

When I show up to Mexico in my boat which happens to be my home, I have to check in with the port captain, immigration, customs, and agriculture. Then I have to get a 10-year import permit even if I'm only going to stay for 10 months or 10 days. Then I have to get Mexican insurance because American Insurance is no good there. If I don't do any of these things properly they will take my boat away.

There are of course different rules for crossing by car but you will have Mexican insurance because if you get in a wreck and you don't have it you'll go to jail. It will automatically be your fault.

Try getting a job in French Polynesia without the proper paperwork. We all set around the campfire talking to these French Bankers that were working in San Francisco and they were having a great ol time and I wanted a job building the docks in the marina and I couldn't get a work permit because I'm not from an EU country. And by the way your Visa Runs Out July 1st adios amigo.

 

 

Edited December 27, 2024 by Rain

[california boy]

20 minutes ago, Rain said:

None of us are advocating for willy-nilly immigration and border crossing. We just feel there can be better ways to do it.

 

Exactly.  This is not a black and white issue.  Using the terms closed border or open borders can mean a lot of things.  I think everyone believes there should be a way for people to enter the country legally.  How that is done seems to be something that no politician has been able to do.  I can guarantee that future administrations, despite campaign rhetoric will not be able to illuminate illegals from entering the country.  

[Calm]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Illegals commit crimes at double the rate of native-born: Study

Quote

The Washington Times had asked several experts to look at Mr. Lott’s research paper but some didn’t respond, while one said he was unable to get Mr. Lott’s data and had questions about Mr. Lott’s methodology.

Mr. Lott said told The Times that the data belonged to Arizona and his agreement was that he wouldn’t give out the raw data without their approval.

 

I think it is probably a good idea to wait to see if the method he used is reliable.  Added:  According to your factcheck link, it is not.

Did you read the factcheck link you gave it or just the first couple of paragraphs.  If you read it all you would have seen this on the research you cite for undocumented immigrants committing more crimes per capita:

Quote

 

Although Lott says his study is unique because “for the first time” he was able to differentiate between immigrants in the country legally and illegally, that claim was contested by Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute. Nowrasteh argues Lott’s study contains a “fatal flaw” in its assumption that it was able to “identify illegal immigrants” from the data. The Washington Post Fact Checker did a deep dive on the arguments and counterarguments about the validity of the study.

“The overall picture of immigrants and crime remains confused due to a lack of good data and contrary information,” Steven Camarota and Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that advocates low immigration, wrote in 2009.

 

 

Edited December 27, 2024 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

The Washington Times had asked several experts to look at Mr. Lott’s research paper but some didn’t respond, while one said he was unable to get Mr. Lott’s data and had questions about Mr. Lott’s methodology.

Mr. Lott said told The Times that the data belonged to Arizona and his agreement was that he wouldn’t give out the raw data without their approval.

 

Expand  

I think it is probably a good idea to wait to see if the method he used is reliable.

I know I always like to get my data analysis from partisan hacks. 
 

https://x.com/johnrlottjr

No agenda there…

[Calm]

Also of note…the Lott article is from 2018, the Texas research was dated January 2024.  Apparently Texas is the one state that tracks documented or undocumented status with arrests.

Quote

The estimates in this study come from Texas criminal records that include the immigration status of everyone arrested in the state from 2012 to 2018. These data enabled researchers to separate arrests for crimes committed by undocumented immigrants from those committed by documented immigrants and native-born U.S. citizens. (For more detail on the study’s data sources and methodology, see the sidebar “What Makes the Texas Data Unique?”)

The researchers tracked these three groups’ arrest rates across seven years (2012-2018) and examined specific types of crime, including homicides and other violent crimes.[2] They used these arrest rates as proxies for the rates of crime commission for the three groups. It should be noted that arrest is a commonly used, but imperfect measure of crime that in part reflects law enforcement activity rather than actual offending rates.

 

Edited December 27, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

From the link in the article describing why the Texan data is unique:

Quote

 

Calculating offending rates for a specific group is usually a simple operation: First count the number of arrests in that group, then divide by the group’s total number of people. For undocumented immigrants, however, both numbers have been difficult to estimate in the past.

To count the total number of undocumented immigrants in Texas (i.e., the denominator of the offense rate), this study used data from the Center for Migration Studies, which the authors called “one of the most reliable, respected, and peer-reviewed sources on the undocumented immigrant population.”[6]

But the real innovation of this study was in counting the number of arrests within Texas’s undocumented population (i.e., the numerator of the offense rate). To find that number, the study relied on a unique feature of the state’s legal system. When a Texas law enforcement agency arrests someone, they are legally required to look up that person’s place of birth and citizenship. To do that, agencies send the person’s fingerprints to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which reports the person’s immigration status. This status becomes part of any criminal record in Texas.

As the study’s authors write, “To our knowledge, Texas is the only state that requires the determination and documentation of immigration status as part of its standard criminal justice records practice. …Simply put, no other data source in the United States could accomplish this task with the same degree of breadth, rigor, and detail.”[7]

 

https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/undocumented-immigrant-offending-rate-lower-us-born-citizen-rate#note7

So looks like the most up to date study with the most directly relevant data used.  

Edited December 27, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

Found this interesting in the Light research’s discussion:

Looks like as far as crime rates go, sanctuary policies were likely neither helpful nor harmful.

 

[Calm]

From wiki on the Lott study (reportedly the only research that supports the higher rates of crime for illegal immigrants iirc):

Quote

Lott has non-peer-reviewed research that purports to show that undocumented immigrants are more crime-prone than U.S. citizens. In doing so, Lott lumped together both legal and illegal immigrants in prison into a category for illegal immigrants, leading to an elevated crime rate for illegal immigrants.^[63][64] The Washington Post fact-checker wrote that this was a "significant flaw in Lott's study that undercuts his conclusion. Lott says the overall thrust of his study still holds, but the issue muddles his research and invites guesswork as to the actual crime rate for the undocumented immigrant population in Arizona."^[65]

Lott's claims were heavily promoted by the Trump administration to justify its anti-immigration policies, in particular their attempts to end DACA.^[63][66]

My bold. If I understand the problem correctly, he counted both illegals and legal immigrants as illegal, which would really throw off the count.  I may be wrong though.  He may have estimated what proportion was illegal (but apparently he has not shared his methodology), but guessing percentages isn’t necessary for the Texas research, so I see the Texas research as likely much, much more reliable.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott

Edited December 27, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

If I understand the problem correctly, he counted both illegals and legal immigrants as illegal, which would really throw off the count.  I may be wrong though.

I was wrong.  Here is the actual problem…which really trashes his research imo…he was studying a population that has a high percentage of legal immigrants who have committed crimes that make them eligible for deportation…so his data is pretty useless for talking solely about illegal immigrants when it’s actually a combination of legal and illegal immigrants.  He equates “deportable” with “illegal” and that isn’t accurate.

If it was an honest mistake, he didn’t realize that legal immigrants can be deported as well as illegal, that still draws into question his familiarity with the subject. If he is not that knowledgeable, his methodology and analysis is going to suffer.  
 

Otoh, if he did understand the issue with using “deportable” as equal to “illegal” and went ahead and did it anyway, not trustworthy for any analysis imo.  And him refusing to share his data in the beginning makes me wonder, though he may have been simply reporting the truth.  Apparently others have seen the data now and thus pinpointed the major issue with it, his confusing illegal and deportable.
 

Quote

There are much bigger questions about whether Lott is interpreting that data accurately. He says his data shows high incarceration among “illegal immigrants,” but the actual term in the records is “deportable” — a category that includes both unauthorized immigrants and legal immigrants who’ve lost their legal status, often because they’ve been convicted of certain crimes.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/1/17054546/immigration-crime-dreamers-daca-gangs

Edited December 27, 2024 by Calm

[rodheadlee]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

None of us are advocating for willy-nilly immigration and border crossing. We just feel there can be better ways to do it.

 

Yes but that has been what's happening for the past 4 years. Funny thing is it takes me about 10 minutes to cross the border going south into Mexico and 3 hours to get back over the Border. I can get smuggled across quicker than that. So yeah something needs to be done.

I was just pointing out that other countries take their immigration seriously.

Edited December 27, 2024 by rodheadlee

[rodheadlee]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Mexico secures its southern border: Mexico is stopping nearly three times as many migrants now, helping keep U.S. border crossings down

Somehow, I've missed all the moralizing about how Mexico should let in anyone who wants to go there.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes when we entered at Chiapas at the southern border the Mexican Army came aboard our boat and made sure there was no guns or hidden human beings or drugs and a doctor came aboard and took our temperatures and made sure we weren't sick.

 

It's funny foreigners think that people that arrive by boat are rich but I would wager the car you drive is worth more than my boat. It's sometimes leads to a problem with people wanting mordida.

[rodheadlee]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

I was wrong.  Here is the actual problem…which really trashes his research imo…he was studying a population that has a high percentage of legal immigrants who have committed crimes that make them eligible for deportation…so his data is pretty useless for talking solely about illegal immigrants.

If it was an honest mistake, he didn’t realize that legal immigrants can be deported as well as illegal, that still draws into question his familiarity with the subject. If he is not that knowledgeable, his methodology and analysis is going to suffer.  
 

Otoh, if he did understand the issue with using “deportable” as equal to “illegal” and went ahead and did it anyway, not trustworthy for any analysis imo.  And him refusing to share his data makes me wonder. 
 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/1/17054546/immigration-crime-dreamers-daca-gangs

Just throwing this deportable thought out there, there are veterans waiting on the Mexican side of the border to get reinstated into the United States that have fought for us and have been tossed out for getting into a bar fight etc etc for misdemeanors. I definitely feel that if you served in the armed forces for our country you should be given citizenship and not be deportable.

Edited December 27, 2024 by rodheadlee

[Calm]

57 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Just throwing this deportable thought out there, there are veterans waiting on the Mexican side of the border to get reinstated into the United States that have fought for us and have been tossed out for getting into a bar fight etc etc for misdemeanors. I definitely feel that if you served in the armed forces for our country you should be given citizenship and not be deportable.

Amen to to that!

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

Yes but that has been what's happening for the past 4 years.

If so, it is time to change to a law that can be enforced effectively imo.

[Tacenda]

I recently listened to a dairy farmer say that if they deported the workers of various farms like his, the nation would probably be in for needing those foods in two days, or production would halt. That's how quickly our food would go away apparently. Stock up on food storage, but that's worrisome then people will do what they did when Covid hit, and there were shortages of toilet paper. Only in this case it'd be far worse.

[california boy]

11 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Yes but that has been what's happening for the past 4 years. Funny thing is it takes me about 10 minutes to cross the border going south into Mexico and 3 hours to get back over the Border. I can get smuggled across quicker than that. So yeah something needs to be done.

I was just pointing out that other countries take their immigration seriously.

I sailed in the Mediterranean every summer for 14 years from Turkey to Gibraltar and just about every country in between.  I can tell you that border security varies significantly from country to country. Some like Italy, don't care at all.  When I entered Italy from France the first summer I sailed, I thought I had to make sure I registered with the authorities that I was entering the country.  I went to the port authorities at the marina, they didn't care.  I went to. immigration, they didn't care.  I went to the port police, they didn't care.  I finely gave up.  Was never boarded by any authorities the multiple times I sailed in Italy.

In Greece it was the opposite.  They controlled things so tightly, it was laughable.  When you enter the country, you have to go through a very long immigration process.  They spent over an hour pulling out dusty logs, filling out the same information over and over again, with a special stamp for each book.  There must have been over 10 different stamps on a carousel for the process that had to be done with a second officer present, watching the process at all times.  Then they give you a log book.  Every single port you go to requires going to the harbor master and getting stamped in.  When you leave you also have to be stamped out and tell them the next port you will be entering, each time showing vessel registration papers from the US, proof of insurance and the ships log.  It was crazy the amount of bureaucracy they demanded.  I might add that the last time I was in Greece, was less than 10 years ago.  None of this was computerized.  So all these logs including the one that I had been keeping the whole summer while sailing is sitting somewhere just stacking up. 

Most countries are somewhere in-between.  But at any time, the port police can and have boarded my boat to spot check my papers.  My boat was a U.S registered boat, which like a U.S. passport, generally lets you be waved through with little scrutiny in most cases.

Ever country on the Mediterranean deals with illegal immigrants, mostly from Africa, yet the amount of security to enter the country didn't seem to make much difference that I could tell in the amount of immigrants illegally selling knock-off designer stuff, beach blankets, etc on the streets daily trying to make enough money to live.  

Edited December 27, 2024 by california boy

[smac97]

On 12/25/2024 at 9:22 PM, smac97 said:

Are you denying that George Soros has funded the campaigns of number of prosecutors who have adopted a nullification-through-non-enforcement approach once in office?  Larry Krasner (Philadelphia), Kim Foxx (Chicago), George Gascón (Los Angeles), Alvin Bragg (New York),  and so on?

https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/george-soross-prosecutors-wage-war-law-and-order

This is not name-calling.

Meanwhile a recent story from New York: 

What to know about the death of a woman who was set on fire in a New York City subway train

This woman would have been alive to celebrate  Christmas today if we had secure borders.  She deserved more than what our current crop of nullification-through-non-enforcement malefactors are doing to this country.   

We need to secure our borders.

Thanks 

-Smac

Her name was Debrina Kawam:

Quote

The homeless woman torched to death at a Brooklyn subway stop has been identified as a 57-year-old woman from New Jersey, officials said Tuesday.

Debrina Kawam of Toms River was set on fire as she slept in an F train stopped at the end of the line at Coney Island-Stillwell Ave. station about 7:30 a.m. Dec. 22. The homicide shocked the city and nation and set off a race to identify the body burned beyond recognition.

Mayor Adams said Tuesday that he knows little about her.

“No more than the name and that she resided in New Jersey,” Adams said. “She had a brief stint in our homeless shelter system, our shelter system. And your heart goes out to the family, a horrific incident to have to live through.”

A current resident at Kawam’s former home on Waterbury Court in Toms River spoke with the Daily News to share an odd encounter with the victim in May, saying Kawam appeared at the doorstep of the home and asked for her family — several weeks after they’d moved out.

“She said, ‘I’m Debrina. I’m the sister. I want to see my mother’,” the Toms River resident, who gave her name as Olga, told The News. “An older lady, she may have been mentally disabled.

“She gave me that vibe, because how could she not know that her family was living here? Something was wrong.”

Olga said she invited Kawam into her home and then called a real estate agent, hoping they could share a phone number for the woman’s family. The agent didn’t respond, and Kawam began rambling about not having a phone.

“She didn’t have a phone. She said, ‘No, I’ve gotta get one. I’ve gotta get one,’ ” Olga recounted.

According to police, Sebastian Zapeta, 33, was caught on camera sitting on a bench at the subway platform, watching the victim after she’d been set ablaze before he fled the scene.

We need to secure our borders.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

nevermind

Edited January 1, 2025 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Danzo]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

Her name was Debrina Kawam:

We need to secure our borders.

Thanks,

-Smac

I guess you can sleep better knowing that  only US citizens can commit horrific crimes.

Somehow that doesn't make me feel safer.

 

 

 

[Kevin Christensen]

On 12/13/2024 at 3:20 PM, smac97 said:

Kevin,

What are your thoughts about securing the border?  Are you in favor of it?  Oppose it?  Do you find any moral ambiguity in not securing the border?

Is the rule of law a relevant consideration?

An open border creates massive business opportunities for coyotes, who apparently regularly abuse women and children during illegal border crossings.

All sorts of baddies can and do cross the border illegally, along with the decent people just looking for a better opportunity.  An open border allows in the former along with the latter.

There are plenty of people who lack the means to cross the border illegally, as they are situated in Africa, Asia, etc.  Does the moral imperative to help others only apply to people who have access to northern Mexico or southern Canada?  Or might basic fairness require that people who want to come here should "get in line"?

Many countries secure their borders, but it seems like the United States is the only one that is vilified for it.

Thanks,

-Smac

One thing I notice about this reply to my comment is that it does not address my comment, but rather shifts the direction of the discussion entirely away from the issue I raised in citing Deuteronomy on loving the stranger, and remembering that we were strangers.  That is, it demonstrates the political technique of "controlling the narrative" in a particularly instructive way.

The forthcoming administration has demonstrated that their motives are not based on the first and great commandment, nor the second, which is like unto it, the foundation underlying all the law and the prophets according to Jesus, that is, that legality should have its basis in morality, and NOT the other way around.  That inversion is to suppose that what is legal is moral.  "Why do you transgress the commandment of God because of your traditions?"

The incoming administration has demonstrated, via the family separations program that they are not just willing, but eager to inflict deliberate harm on innocent people in order to secure the border.  Not to mention to keep undesirables out  who are not real people deserving human considerations, but "vermin" who poison the blood of the nation.  That is, not white people, not the right people, somehow, not "Us."  I read a study showing that the common denominator of most of the participants in the January 6 insurrection was that they bought into replacement theory.  And the passion with which they believed shows up the accounts of shocking racist verbal and physical abuse endured by black Security Guards during the three hour siege. The talk of concentration camps and the use of the military to capture and expel undesirables, does not, I submit, have a basis in loving God with all our heart, might, mind and strength, and loving our neighbors as ourselves.  "America First" by definition does not mean loving our neighbors as ourselves.  

Paradigms are established by standard examples.  Jesus told parables as standard examples.  Who is my neighbor?  "Whatsoever ye have done them ye have done it unto me."  How we treat others is how Jesus will measure us. 

"For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. 

But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,

6 And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,

7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. [or, Senator, or Justice, or  Mr. President]

8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. (Matthew 23)

There is no escape from using examples to support generalizations about what we suppose to be the truth, to represent the way things were, the way things are, and the way things are to come.  So the question to consider is, are those examples put forward as representative truly and fairly representative?  That is, are they testable, accurate in their predictions, comprehensive and coherent, fruitful, simple and aesthetically apt, do they bestow future promise?  

Or, as lenses through which to view our society, do they distort what is real in service of other agendas?

smac cited the story of a illegal immigrant from Guatemala who killed a woman on a New York Subway station.  Okay.  Just how typical is that?  How representative of immigrants in general?  If someone tells me about how Mormons in 1857 massacred a wagon train passing through Utah, is it fair and just to to use that story to generalize and predict how all Mormons in all times and places will behave towards non-LDS persons passing through their towns?   Is it fair to use that as a basis for legislation regarding the social protections allowed or tied to LDS members forever. Or was Mountain Meadows an exceptional event, NOT representative, the explanation of which lies not in the Mormon faith, but a combination of factors including trauma in the history of the individuals concerned, and their isolation and tragic conflicts and failures of communication and the wartime setting?

How does generalizing from exceptional events, or misreading events, or misrepresenting events, lead to accurate and beneficial paradigms? Think of the parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant.  In every case, their misinterpretations come from a combination of inadequate sampling and overgeneralization.  All that could be fixed by listening and cooperating and trying to reconcile differences.  Not to silence and expel difference as Fake News.

What percentage of the people in the United States who die from violence every year do so because of immigrant violence compared to those who die from citizen violence?  Can we assume from the sensational but exceptional story about a Guatemalan that I should not think at all about gun laws and those who defend the right to bear arms against the notably high levels of gun violence and devastating mass shootings in the US especially compared to other democratic countries?  Is personal and family safety the most urgent and priority upon to elect a president who campaigned on the issue of criminals and the violently insane from the Congo and Central and South America cause all our problems and that he alone can fix it by building walls, and using the military to round up and expel undesirables, and fix the corrupt fake media and courts that have pointed out his own criminality, and appointing an Attorney General who will find excuses to prosecute anyone who has criticized him?  When all the borders are sealed and undesirables are deported, what will happen to the citizen gun and domestic violence statistics compared to that in European Nations and Japan and Australia?  It is notable that Hate Crimes increased after every Trump rally.  How many people would still be alive today if US legislators were able to pass effective gun legislation after Sandy Hook?  How does that number compare with the number of people who are set on fire on New York Subways by Guatemalan immigrants?   And should I start looking askew at the Guatemalan sister in my Ward?

Deuteronomy asks Israel to remember that they were strangers on Egypt. And history asks the LDS to remember that we have been expelled as undesirables several times.

Quote

Like the choice between competing political institutions, that between competing paradigms proves to be a choice between incompatible modes of community life. … When paradigms enter, as they must, into a debate about paradigm choice, their role is necessarily circular. Each group uses its own paradigm to argue in that paradigm’s defense. (Kuhn, 94)

If securing the Border was done on the basis of the First and Great Commandment, and the Second Like Unto it, then I expect it would be done in fair manner. But the incoming administration does not exude that vibe.  It's not God and Neighbors and love, but Me First.  Oh, and on the issue of immigrants supposedly taking US jobs, the calculations ought to include the contributions of immigrants in actually creating jobs and opportunities and service provided for American citizens.  What will it cost us when all that goes away?  We may find out.

All in all, I have recently become more aware of a Pink Floyd song.

On the turning away
From the pale and downtrodden
And the words they say
Which we won't understand

Don't accept that what's happening
Is just a case of others' suffering
Or you'll find that you're joining in
The turning away

 

It's a sin that somehow
Light is changing to shadow
And casting its shroud
Over all we have known

Unaware how the ranks have grown
Driven on by a heart of stone
We could find that we're all alone
 

In the dream of the proud

On the wings of the night
As the daytime is stirring
Where the speechless unite in a silent accord

Using words, you will find, are strange
Mesmerised as they light the flame
 

Feel the new wind of change
On the wings of the night

No more turning away
From the weak and the weary
No more turning away
From the coldness inside

Just a world that we all must share
It's not enough just to stand and stare
Is it only a dream that there'll be
No more turning away?

Source: Musixmatch

Songwriters: David Jon Gilmour / Anthony Jon Moore

FWiW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited January 3, 2025 by Kevin Christensen
typo

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

One thing I notice about this reply to my comment is that it does not address my comment, but rather shifts the direction of the discussion entirely away from the issue I raised in citing Deuteronomy on loving the stranger, and remembering that we were strangers.  That is, it demonstrates the political technique of "controlling the narrative" in a particularly instructive way.

The forthcoming administration has demonstrated that their motives are not based on the first and great commandment, nor the second, which is like unto it, the foundation underlying all the law and the prophets according to Jesus, that is, that legality should have its basis in morality, and NOT the other way around.  That inversion is to suppose that what is legal is moral.  "Why do you transgress the commandment of God because of your traditions?"

The incoming administration has demonstrated, via the family separations program that they are not just willing, but eager to inflict deliberate harm on innocent people in order to secure the border.  Not to mention to keep undesirables out  who are not real people deserving human considerations, but "vermin" who poison the blood of the nation.  That is, not white people, not the right people, somehow, not "Us."  I read a study showing that the common denominator of most of the participants in the January 6 insurrection was that they bought into replacement theory.  And the passion with which they believed shows up the accounts of shocking racist verbal and physical abuse endured by black Security Guards during the three hour siege. The talk of concentration camps and the use of the military to capture and expel undesirables, does not, I submit, have a basis on loving God with all our heart, might, mind and strength, and loving our neighbors as ourselves.  "America First" by definition does not mean loving our neighbors as ourselves.  

Paradigms are established by standard examples.  Jesus told parables as standard examples.  Who is my neighbor?  "Whatsoever ye have done them ye have done it unto me."  How we treat others is how Jesus will measure us. 

"For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. 

But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,

6 And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,

7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. [or, Senator, or Justice, or  Mr. President]

8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. (Matthew 23)

There is no escape from using examples to support generalizations about what we suppose to be the truth, to represent the way things were, the way things are, and the way things are to come.  So the question to consider is, are those examples put forward as representative truly and fairly representative?  That is, are they testable, accurate in their predictions, comprehensive and coherent, fruitful, simple and aesthetically apt, do they bestow future promise?  

Or, as lenses through which to view our society, do they distort what is real in service of other agendas?

smac cited the story of a illegal immigrant from Guatemala who killed a woman on a New York Subway station.  Okay.  Just how typical is that?  How representative of immigrants in general?  If someone tells me about how Mormons in 1857 massacred a wagon train passing through Utah, is it fair and just to to use that story to generalize and predict how all Mormons in all times and places will behave towards non-LDS persons passing through their towns?   Is it fair to use that as a basis for legislation regarding the social protections allowed or tied to LDS members forever. Or was Mountain Meadows an exceptional event, NOT representative, the explanation of which lies not in the Mormon faith, but a combination of factors including trauma in the history of the individuals concerned, and their isolation and tragic conflicts and failures of communication and the wartime setting?

How does generalizing from exceptional events, or misreading events, or misrepresenting events, lead to accurate and beneficial paradigms? Think of the parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant.  In every case, their misinterpretations come from a combination of inadequate sampling and overgeneralization.  All that could be fixed by listening and cooperating and trying to reconcile differences.  Not to silence and expel difference as Fake News.

What percentage of the people in the United States who die from violence every year do so because of immigrant violence compared to those who die from citizen violence?  Can we assume from the sensational but exceptional story about a Guatemalan that I should not think at all about gun laws and those who defend the right to bear arms against the notably high levels of gun violence and devastating mass shootings in the US especially compared to other democratic countries?  Is personal and family safety the most urgent and priority upon to elect a president who campaigned on the issue of criminals and the violently insane from the Congo and Central and South America cause all our problems and that he alone can fix it by building walls, and using the military to round up and expel undesirables, and fix the corrupt fake media and courts that have pointed out his own criminality, and appointing an Attorney General who will find excuses to prosecute anyone who has criticized him?  When all the borders are sealed and undesirables are deported, what will happen to the citizen gun and domestic violence statistics compared to that in European Nations and Japan and Australia?  It is notable that Hate Crimes increased after every Trump rally.  How many people would still be alive today if US legislators were able to pass effective gun legislation after Sandy Hook?  How does that number compare with the number of people who are set on fire on New York Subways by Guatemalan immigrants?   And should I start looking askew at the Guatemalan sister in my Ward?

Deuteronomy asks Israel to remember that they were strangers on Egypt. And history asks the LDS to remember that we have been expelled as undesirables several times.

If securing the Border was done on the basis of the First and Great Commandment, and the Second Like Unto it, then I expect it would be done in fair manner. But the incoming administration does not exude that vibe.  It's not God and Neighbors and love, but Me First.  Oh, and on the issue of immigrants supposedly taking US jobs, the calculations ought to include the contributions of immigrants in actually creating jobs and opportunities and service provided for American citizens.  What will it cost us when all that goes away?  We may find out.

All in all, I have recently become more aware of a Pink Floyd song.

On the turning away
From the pale and downtrodden
And the words they say
Which we won't understand

Don't accept that what's happening
Is just a case of others' suffering
Or you'll find that you're joining in
The turning away

 

It's a sin that somehow
Light is changing to shadow
And casting its shroud
Over all we have known

Unaware how the ranks have grown
Driven on by a heart of stone
We could find that we're all alone
 

In the dream of the proud

On the wings of the night
As the daytime is stirring
Where the speechless unite in a silent accord

Using words, you will find, are strange
Mesmerised as they light the flame
 

Feel the new wind of change
On the wings of the night

No more turning away
From the weak and the weary
No more turning away
From the coldness inside

Just a world that we all must share
It's not enough just to stand and stare
Is it only a dream that there'll be
No more turning away?

Source: Musixmatch

Songwriters: David Jon Gilmour / Anthony Jon Moore

FWiW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Who are you and where have you been all of my life! Not meant as a come on, just fell in love with this post. And love it because you are so well respected on this board and it really smacks a pow when someone who is thought of as very intelligent and someone who is so respected says something and how it will make others think! 

At this time in life, this is something that needed to be said. We may only have this blessed time before a life of what we've known becomes a totally different life indeed. 

It's bound to be our time since so many other countries have had to go through it. But how I wish it wouldn't, we as Americans stand as a beacon to the countries who aren't free and we as a country have been allies to so many. I hate to see this change but I'm so afraid it may.

God bless America, especially so, for other countries are blessed through many of our attributes. Now these countries whom are free and divine, may be what we will hope to be.

I'm not a doomsday person and I hate that some out there are, and may want the world to end. Which is sad because environment etc should be taken care of for future generations. 

I think God/Jesus wants us to keep this world afloat not destroy it. For those that want it to burn down so they can return to where ever, I say don't be so quick to want that. 

But sorry for the novel, thanks to someone who I don't know in person but would love to! ❤️

 

[Peacefully]

5 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

One thing I notice about this reply to my comment is that it does not address my comment, but rather shifts the direction of the discussion entirely away from the issue I raised in citing Deuteronomy on loving the stranger, and remembering that we were strangers.  That is, it demonstrates the political technique of "controlling the narrative" in a particularly instructive way.

The forthcoming administration has demonstrated that their motives are not based on the first and great commandment, nor the second, which is like unto it, the foundation underlying all the law and the prophets according to Jesus, that is, that legality should have its basis in morality, and NOT the other way around.  That inversion is to suppose that what is legal is moral.  "Why do you transgress the commandment of God because of your traditions?"

The incoming administration has demonstrated, via the family separations program that they are not just willing, but eager to inflict deliberate harm on innocent people in order to secure the border.  Not to mention to keep undesirables out  who are not real people deserving human considerations, but "vermin" who poison the blood of the nation.  That is, not white people, not the right people, somehow, not "Us."  I read a study showing that the common denominator of most of the participants in the January 6 insurrection was that they bought into replacement theory.  And the passion with which they believed shows up the accounts of shocking racist verbal and physical abuse endured by black Security Guards during the three hour siege. The talk of concentration camps and the use of the military to capture and expel undesirables, does not, I submit, have a basis on loving God with all our heart, might, mind and strength, and loving our neighbors as ourselves.  "America First" by definition does not mean loving our neighbors as ourselves.  

Paradigms are established by standard examples.  Jesus told parables as standard examples.  Who is my neighbor?  "Whatsoever ye have done them ye have done it unto me."  How we treat others is how Jesus will measure us. 

"For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. 

But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,

6 And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,

7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. [or, Senator, or Justice, or  Mr. President]

8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. (Matthew 23)

There is no escape from using examples to support generalizations about what we suppose to be the truth, to represent the way things were, the way things are, and the way things are to come.  So the question to consider is, are those examples put forward as representative truly and fairly representative?  That is, are they testable, accurate in their predictions, comprehensive and coherent, fruitful, simple and aesthetically apt, do they bestow future promise?  

Or, as lenses through which to view our society, do they distort what is real in service of other agendas?

smac cited the story of a illegal immigrant from Guatemala who killed a woman on a New York Subway station.  Okay.  Just how typical is that?  How representative of immigrants in general?  If someone tells me about how Mormons in 1857 massacred a wagon train passing through Utah, is it fair and just to to use that story to generalize and predict how all Mormons in all times and places will behave towards non-LDS persons passing through their towns?   Is it fair to use that as a basis for legislation regarding the social protections allowed or tied to LDS members forever. Or was Mountain Meadows an exceptional event, NOT representative, the explanation of which lies not in the Mormon faith, but a combination of factors including trauma in the history of the individuals concerned, and their isolation and tragic conflicts and failures of communication and the wartime setting?

How does generalizing from exceptional events, or misreading events, or misrepresenting events, lead to accurate and beneficial paradigms? Think of the parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant.  In every case, their misinterpretations come from a combination of inadequate sampling and overgeneralization.  All that could be fixed by listening and cooperating and trying to reconcile differences.  Not to silence and expel difference as Fake News.

What percentage of the people in the United States who die from violence every year do so because of immigrant violence compared to those who die from citizen violence?  Can we assume from the sensational but exceptional story about a Guatemalan that I should not think at all about gun laws and those who defend the right to bear arms against the notably high levels of gun violence and devastating mass shootings in the US especially compared to other democratic countries?  Is personal and family safety the most urgent and priority upon to elect a president who campaigned on the issue of criminals and the violently insane from the Congo and Central and South America cause all our problems and that he alone can fix it by building walls, and using the military to round up and expel undesirables, and fix the corrupt fake media and courts that have pointed out his own criminality, and appointing an Attorney General who will find excuses to prosecute anyone who has criticized him?  When all the borders are sealed and undesirables are deported, what will happen to the citizen gun and domestic violence statistics compared to that in European Nations and Japan and Australia?  It is notable that Hate Crimes increased after every Trump rally.  How many people would still be alive today if US legislators were able to pass effective gun legislation after Sandy Hook?  How does that number compare with the number of people who are set on fire on New York Subways by Guatemalan immigrants?   And should I start looking askew at the Guatemalan sister in my Ward?

Deuteronomy asks Israel to remember that they were strangers on Egypt. And history asks the LDS to remember that we have been expelled as undesirables several times.

If securing the Border was done on the basis of the First and Great Commandment, and the Second Like Unto it, then I expect it would be done in fair manner. But the incoming administration does not exude that vibe.  It's not God and Neighbors and love, but Me First.  Oh, and on the issue of immigrants supposedly taking US jobs, the calculations ought to include the contributions of immigrants in actually creating jobs and opportunities and service provided for American citizens.  What will it cost us when all that goes away?  We may find out.

All in all, I have recently become more aware of a Pink Floyd song.

On the turning away
From the pale and downtrodden
And the words they say
Which we won't understand

Don't accept that what's happening
Is just a case of others' suffering
Or you'll find that you're joining in
The turning away

 

It's a sin that somehow
Light is changing to shadow
And casting its shroud
Over all we have known

Unaware how the ranks have grown
Driven on by a heart of stone
We could find that we're all alone
 

In the dream of the proud

On the wings of the night
As the daytime is stirring
Where the speechless unite in a silent accord

Using words, you will find, are strange
Mesmerised as they light the flame
 

Feel the new wind of change
On the wings of the night

No more turning away
From the weak and the weary
No more turning away
From the coldness inside

Just a world that we all must share
It's not enough just to stand and stare
Is it only a dream that there'll be
No more turning away?

Source: Musixmatch

Songwriters: David Jon Gilmour / Anthony Jon Moore

FWiW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Before your post gets sliced and diced and/or the thread is closed because of politics, I just want to thank you for this post. Everything you said resonated with me.
 

Church members, of all people, should be fighting for immigrants, refugees, and even those who may make their way here illegally to escape poverty and violence. Marginalized people should fight for other marginalized people. For some reason, some modern LDS people have aligned themselves with the evangelicals and the far-right which may not serve them well in the long run because those people do not see us as their equals. “Mormons” are not the pure blood they are looking for, imo. 

Edited January 3, 2025 by Peacefully

[smac97]

20 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Quote

What are your thoughts about securing the border?  Are you in favor of it?  Oppose it?  Do you find any moral ambiguity in not securing the border?

Is the rule of law a relevant consideration?

An open border creates massive business opportunities for coyotes, who apparently regularly abuse women and children during illegal border crossings.

All sorts of baddies can and do cross the border illegally, along with the decent people just looking for a better opportunity.  An open border allows in the former along with the latter.

There are plenty of people who lack the means to cross the border illegally, as they are situated in Africa, Asia, etc.  Does the moral imperative to help others only apply to people who have access to northern Mexico or southern Canada?  Or might basic fairness require that people who want to come here should "get in line"?

Many countries secure their borders, but it seems like the United States is the only one that is vilified for it.

One thing I notice about this reply to my comment is that it does not address my comment, but rather shifts the direction of the discussion entirely away from the issue I raised in citing Deuteronomy on loving the stranger, and remembering that we were strangers.  That is, it demonstrates the political technique of "controlling the narrative" in a particularly instructive way.

It seems that both your prior comment and my response to it, any your comment above, are doing the same thing.  I asked you several questions with you did not address.  Is that an effort at "controlling the narrative"?

In your view, do any of the Church's statements quoted in the OP conflict with the passage in Deuteronomy?

• "Most Americans agree that the federal government of the United States should secure its borders and sharply reduce or eliminate the flow of undocumented immigrants. Unchecked and unregulated, such a flow may destabilize society and ultimately become unsustainable."
• "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints discourages its members from entering any country without legal documentation, and from deliberately overstaying legal travel visas."
• "The history of mass expulsion or mistreatment of individuals or families is cause for concern especially where race, culture, or religion are involved.  This should give pause to any policy that contemplates targeting any one group, particularly if that group comes mostly from one heritage."
• "The Church supports an approach where undocumented immigrants are allowed to square themselves with the law and continue to work without this necessarily leading to citizenship."
• "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints supports a balanced and civil approach to a challenging problem, fully consistent with its tradition of compassion, its reverence for family, and its commitment to law."
• We follow Jesus Christ by loving our neighbors. The Savior taught that the meaning of “neighbor” includes all of God’s children, in all places, at all times.
• We recognize an ever-present need to strengthen families. Families are meant to be together. Forced separation of working parents from their children weakens families and damages society.
• We acknowledge that every nation has the right to enforce its laws and secure its borders. All persons subject to a nation’s laws are accountable for their acts in relation to them.

In response to a thread about unlawful, and essentially "unchecked and unregulated" immigration into the United States, you cited the passage in Deuteronomy.  I thought it was a point worth considering, so I did.  If you want a specific response, here it is:

I think it is a false dichotomy to suggest that we must choose between (A) securing our borders and enforcing immigration laws or (B) observing Deuteronomy 10:18-19.

I think the Church is correct when it states that "every nation has the right to enforce its laws and secure its borders."

I think the Church is correct when it "discourages its members from entering any country without legal documentation, and from deliberately overstaying legal travel visas."

I think the Church is correct when it observes that "{u}nchecked and unregulated" immigration "may destabilize society and ultimately become unsustainable."  We are seeing this a lot in Europe, parts of the United States and elsewhere.

I think the Church is correct when it states that "{a}ll persons subject to a nation’s laws are accountable for their acts in relation to them."

I can affirm these things and also acknowledge our obligation as disciples of Jesus Christ to treat each other with respect, compassion, etc.

Regarding Deuteronomy, the United States is likely the most generous nation in the history of the world, even to a fault in some respects.  The government itself sends out about $70 billion per year in humanitarian aid (meanwhile, we are now many trillions in debt).  And that does not include the substantial private charitable / philanthropic efforts originating from U.S. citizens and groups, including the Church and its members.  We also can and should have a robust system in place for guest workers to come and work here lawfully.

20 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

The forthcoming administration has demonstrated that their motives are not based on the first and great commandment, nor the second, which is like unto it, the foundation underlying all the law and the prophets according to Jesus, that is, that legality should have its basis in morality, and NOT the other way around.  That inversion is to suppose that what is legal is moral.  "Why do you transgress the commandment of God because of your traditions?"

What do you think the "motives" are?

As Latter-day Saints, "{w}e believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."  (AoF 1:12.)  I think this principle is relevant and important even when strong politically partisan winds blow us in other directions.

The Church, per D&C 134:10, disavows any civil or law enforcement authority.  

These two passages, when considered side by side, require us to acknowledge that civil authorities must enforce its laws.  We, as part of the electorate, can use our right to vote so as to allow our religious principles to have some influence in the enactment and enforcement of civil laws.  I think securing our borders and regulating immigration can and should be informed my those principles.  However, I respectfully disagree with the notion that Deuteronomy requires us to go along with unlawful, and essentially "unchecked and unregulated" immigration into the United States.

20 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

The incoming administration has demonstrated, via the family separations program that they are not just willing, but eager to inflict deliberate harm on innocent people in order to secure the border. 

A few thoughts:

First, the "separating families at the border" issue is complex, but it is plainly partisan to focus on "{t}he incoming administration" versus other administrations.

• Border Criminologies: To understand Trump's family separations, we must understand how Obama set the stage (May 2024)
• McClatchy DC: Yes, Obama separated families at the border, too (April 2019)
• CNN: Fact-checking Trump’s claims that Obama separated families (April 2019)
• BBC: US border: Who decided to separate families? (June 2019)
• Vox: Why keeping families together in immigration detention might not be much of a solution / The government tried this in 2014. It was a disaster. (June 2018)
• Vox: What Obama did with migrant families vs. what Trump is doing (June 2018)
• KPBS: Report reveals migrant family separations continue under Biden (July 2024)
• Pro Publica: The Biden Administration Is Separating Families at the Border. It Doesn’t Always Say Why.  (December 2024)
• UCLA Law: New Report: Family Separation Persists at the U.S.-Mexico Border (June 2024)
• National Immigrant Justice Center: The Biden Administration Routinely Separates Immigrant Families (June 2022)

Second, I have never quite understood this argument.  Framing enforcement of the law as "family separation" would negate tens of millions of police actions each year in the United States.  When a police officer arrests a person and takes him into custody, that is "family separation."  When a judge sentences a man to prison or jail time, that is "family separation."  And so on.

Third, the consequences for breaking the law often expand to and affect more than just the individual doing the lawbreaking.  We can and should do what we can to mitigate this, but I respectfully reject that such efforts should include wholesale or widespread de facto nullification of border security and immigration laws.  

20 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Not to mention to keep undesirables out  who are not real people deserving human considerations, but "vermin" who poison the blood of the nation. 

Not sure what you are referencing here.  From ChatGPT:

Quote

Has Donald Trump or anyone working for/with him ever referred to illegal immigrants as "vermin"?

 

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Donald Trump has used dehumanizing language when discussing immigrants, though he has not explicitly referred to them as "vermin." In June 2018, he tweeted that Democrats "want illegal immigrants...to pour into and infest our Country, like MS-13," using the term "infest" to describe the presence of illegal immigrants.

BuzzFeed News

In May 2018, during a discussion about immigration and criminal gangs, Trump referred to certain individuals as "animals." This comment was interpreted by some as a reference to all immigrants, though the White House later clarified that he was specifically referring to MS-13 gang members.

PolitiFact

More recently, in November 2023, Trump referred to his political opponents as "vermin," stating, "We pledge to you that we will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists, and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country." This language drew criticism for echoing authoritarian rhetoric.

OPB

While Trump has used terms like "infest" and "animals" in the context of illegal immigration, and "vermin" when referring to his political opponents, there is no record of him directly calling illegal immigrants "vermin."

I oppose any racialist sentiments being a part of securing our borders.  But this accusation may be more partisan than substantive.

20 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

That is, not white people, not the right people, somehow, not "Us." 

CFR, please.  

20 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

smac cited the story of a illegal immigrant from Guatemala who killed a woman on a New York Subway station.  Okay.  Just how typical is that? 

First, I'm not speaking of typicality.  I'm speaking of crimes that would not have happened if we had secured borders.  We have enough criminality in the United States without effectively inviting more of it via "unchecked and unregulated" immigration.  I think criminality was part of the Church's calculus when it made this statement: "Unchecked and unregulated, such a flow {of illegal immigration} may destabilize society and ultimately become unsustainable."

Second, it seems pretty much intuitive that unlawful, and essentially "unchecked and unregulated" immigration into the United States will result in substantial numbers of people with violent propensities coming across our borders (alongside those who are otherwise law-abiding and just want to work here).

Third, statistics about illegal immigrants being more or less likely to commit crimes are hard to come by in the U.S.

20 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

What percentage of the people in the United States who die from violence every year do so because of immigrant violence compared to those who die from citizen violence? 

A few years ago my son, in a moment of anger, punched a closet door in our house, damaging it.  I was not happy about it, but I worked with him and we sorted it out.

If someone had broken into my home and caused similar damage to it, I would not have responded the same way. 

I did not want my son damaging my home, but he had the right to be in it.  A stranger coming into my home has no such right.

Again, from the Church's statement: "We acknowledge that every nation has the right to enforce its laws and secure its borders. All persons subject to a nation’s laws are accountable for their acts in relation to them."

20 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Can we assume from the sensational but exceptional story about a Guatemalan that I should not think at all about gun laws and those who defend the right to bear arms against the notably high levels of gun violence and devastating mass shootings in the US especially compared to other democratic countries?

I think quite a bit of violent crime in the United States is facilitated by illegal, "unchecked and unregulated" immigration into the United States.  I think it is foolish to ignore this.

20 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

If securing the Border was done on the basis of the First and Great Commandment, and the Second Like Unto it, then I expect it would be done in fair manner. But the incoming administration does not exude that vibe. 

I'm less interested in this partisan stuff.  The administrations which preceded and followed the "incoming" both arguably did things about the border which did  not "exude" a "vibe" reflecting "the First and Great Commandment, and the Second Like Unto it."  

Meanwhile, we need to secure our borders.

Enforcement of secular law is a difficult thing.  We ought to discuss it without undue recursive forays into emotionalisms, recriminations, etc.  My sentiments about border security are not borne of regard for "the incoming administration."  Rather, I base my reasoning on the Constitution, on valuing the Rule of Law, on the 12th Article of Faith, on my review of available evidence, on my personal experience, and on my regard for the United States as an institution, both actualized and aspirational.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 3, 2025 by smac97

[smac97]

16 hours ago, Peacefully said:

Church members, of all people, should be fighting for immigrants, refugees, and even those who may make their way here illegally to escape poverty and violence.

So . . . open borders.  That is your stance?  Anyone who wants to come here for any reason should be able to come to the U.S. and stay here forever?

I'd like to better understand this position.  Are there any limiting principles?  Is there any circumstance in which you would support securing our borders against anyone coming in?

Also, what is your response to this statement from the Church re: illegal immigration: "All persons subject to a nation’s laws are accountable for their acts in relation to them."  How do you reconcile this with "Church members {} should be fighting {} those who may make their way here illegally..."?

16 hours ago, Peacefully said:

Marginalized people should fight for other marginalized people.

Are there any malefactors coming across the border illegally?  Gang members?  People with violent/criminal histories?  Terrorists?  Spies?  Do you think we should take any steps to exclude such persons?

Do you think all countries should abolish border security and immigration laws?  Or just the United States?

16 hours ago, Peacefully said:

For some reason, some modern LDS people have aligned themselves with the evangelicals and the far-right which may not serve them well in the long run because those people do not see us as their equals. “Mormons” are not the pure blood they are looking for, imo. 

Sigh.

I think we need to secure our borders for all sorts of reasons, not a one of them involves racialist sentiments.

Imputations of racism, bigotry, etc. in lieu of reasoned, substantive, evidence-based argument are not the way to go here.  When folks like you resort to this stuff, it makes me think that you can't defend your position on its merits, so you instead go with demagoguery (which I infer from A) Kevin's imputations of racial hatred ("That is, not white people, not the right people..."), and B) your endorsement of those imputations ("Everything you said resonated with me...")).

I'm willing to listen to what folks like Kevin and you have to say, and perhaps even be persuaded by it.  Until we get to the baseless accusations of racial hatred, at which point I surmise that your argument is lacking in substance and is more based on emotion, on obeisance to partisan political doctrines, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 3, 2025 by smac97