Trib Article re: The Church & Members and Mass Deportations

[smac97]

On 12/26/2024 at 7:57 PM, Rain said:

None of us are advocating for willy-nilly immigration and border crossing. 

Peacefully: "Church members {} should be fighting for {} those who may make their way here illegally..."

So far six people have upvoted this statement.

"Willy-nilly" means "without direction or planning; haphazardly."

Disregarding any distinction between legal and illegal immigration sure seems like "advocating for willy-nilly immigration and border crossing."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

50 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.

Dodge

50 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

Dodge

 

50 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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."

Dodge

 

51 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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."

Dodge

 

You aren't engaging Deuteronomy, Or Matthew 25 or any of the other countless  scriptures that deal with how to treat foreigners.

 

[smac97]

On 12/26/2024 at 8:28 PM, california boy said:

Exactly.  This is not a black and white issue.  Using the terms closed border or open borders can mean a lot of things.  

I have not been advocating for a "closed border," but rather secured borders.  And I have said nothing endorsing racialized securitization of our borders or enforcement of immigration policy.  

Nevertheless, I have been publicly accused by, inter alia, Kevin Christensen, a fellow Latter-day Saint whom I hold in high regard, of harboring or endorsing notions of racial hatred ("That is, not white people, not the right people, somehow, not 'Us'").  Bummer.  

On 12/26/2024 at 8:28 PM, california boy said:

I think everyone believes there should be a way for people to enter the country legally.  

We already have "a way for people to enter the country legally."

I am open to revising these ways to make way for larger numbers of legal immigrants.  

Meanwhile, however, we need to secure our borders.

On 12/26/2024 at 8:28 PM, california boy said:

How that is done seems to be something that no politician has been able to do.  

Or willing to do.  There is a difference there.

On 12/26/2024 at 8:28 PM, california boy said:

I can guarantee that future administrations, despite campaign rhetoric will not be able to illuminate illegals from entering the country.  

I think we can do quite a bit to secure our borders, and to drastically reduce the numbers of illegal immigrants.  That we may not be able to secure them completely does not mean we should not attempt to secure them at all.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

Disregarding any distinction between legal and illegal immigration sure seems like "advocating for willy-nilly immigration and border crossing."

Thanks,

-Smac

Only to those who are determined to find a way to disagree with the statement.

The church right now works to help those who are here illegally escape poverty, but the church obviously isn't "advocating for willy-nilly immigration and border crossing."  

 

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Dodge

Dodge

Dodge

Dodge

You aren't engaging Deuteronomy, Or Matthew 25 or any of the other countless  scriptures that deal with how to treat foreigners.

Respectfully, I dispute the notion that "Deuteronomy, Or Matthew 25 or any of the other countless  scriptures" speak directly to matters of border security and immigration policy.

Meanwhile, from the Church:

• "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.

You have "dodged" pretty much all of these.

"We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."  (AoF 1:12.)  You have "dodged" this.

My comment here:

Quote

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.

You have "dodged" this, too.

"{R}emember that you too were strangers in the land of Egypt."  The Children of Israel were held in bondage in Egypt for 400 years.  Respectfully, I differentiate that circumstance from voluntary - though still illegal - "{u}nchecked and unregulated" immigration into the United States.  The Church can and does do a lot to help illegal immigrants, as do many other churches.  Meanwhile, however, civil authorities are supposed to be doing their job, part of which involves securing our borders and enforcing immigration laws.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Quote

Disregarding any distinction between legal and illegal immigration sure seems like "advocating for willy-nilly immigration and border crossing."

Only to those who are determined to find a way to disagree with the statement.

The church right now works to help those who are here illegally escape poverty, but the church obviously isn't "advocating for willy-nilly immigration and border crossing."  

I agree that the Church isn't doing this.  Some on this board, it seems, are.

Whether de facto or de jure (or both?), open borders and nullification of immigration laws appears to be the order of the day for some folks.  Am I misunderstanding things here?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Nofear]

39 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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?

It would certainly be disruptive. Eventually we'd come to a Nash equilibrium. But the topic is far too complex for me to really understand (e.g. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4336/14/5/58). Consequently, given my ignorance, I tend to side much more on the be generous end of things. I tend towards Blackstone's Principle ("It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.") as it applies to immigration.

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Quote

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?

It would certainly be disruptive.

Yes, that is so.  But is that what is being advocated here by some?  

11 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Eventually we'd come to a Nash equilibrium. But the topic is far too complex for me to really understand (e.g. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4336/14/5/58). Consequently, given my ignorance, I tend to side much more on the be generous end of things. I tend towards Blackstone's Principle ("It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.") as it applies to immigration.

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?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Nofear]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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 take no hard stance other than I think it is better to error on being too liberal in our immigration policy than too strict. Like you, I support the Church's position (https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/official-statement/immigration). Like you, I quite endorse Elder Keaton's refugee talk (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2016/04/refuge-from-the-storm?lang=eng). We perhaps differ on specifics. But I'm no expert on the topic and can't really meaningfully engage it.

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, Nofear said:

I take no hard stance other than I think it is better to error on being too liberal in our immigration policy than too strict. Like you, I support the Church's position (https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/official-statement/immigration). Like you, I quite endorse Elder Keaton's refugee talk (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2016/04/refuge-from-the-storm?lang=eng). We perhaps differ on specifics. But I'm no expert on the topic and can't really meaningfully engage it.

Thank you for your comments.  Here is my generalized position:

Quote

I think we should secure the border, and keep it rigorously secured against unlawful crossings. 

I also think we should deport illegal immigrants who have criminal backgrounds (violent felonies and misdemeanors).

I think that having commenced serious work on these initial objectives, we start to re-work and improve immigration laws.

Again, I hope any deportation efforts involve structured and sequenced measures (deport the baddies first), and compassionate accommodations where at all possible.

Again, during this process we could do all sorts of things to formulate accommodations and processes for those who have arrived or stayed illegally but who are otherwise decent, hard-working people.  

Again:

Quote

In a civil context, I don't think an SOL (that is, a time-based limitation on which the State can detect, locate and deport someone who is here unlawfully and on an ongoing basis) is a good idea, as it incentivizes unlawful behavior.  "Hey, all you have to do is sneak in and stay under the radar for X amount of years, then you're home free!"  I prefer above-the-board incentives for lawful entry and presence.  Let's improve the Green Card system.  Perhaps with some limited amnesty provisions at the outset to accommodate those who came here previously under the wink-wink-nudge-nudge system.

Again:

Quote

To some extent, I grant the point that some accommodation may be appropriate for some who came here unlawfully under the wink-wink-nudge-nudge system.  But not as a wholesale thing.

Again:

Quote

If by that you mean mean illegal immigrants who are upstanding and contributing members of society, and who came here under past wink-wink-nudge-nudge circumstances, I reject the characterization.  I am open to some limited amnesty provisions at the outset to accommodate these folks (a point I have made previously).  I am also open to substantially revising and expanding Green Card entry into the U.S. (also a point I have made previously).

 

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[bluebell]

41 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Am I misunderstanding things here?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Yes I believe you are, though I'm not exactly sure why because you're clearly smart enough to have been able to follow what people are saying as well as the rest of us have.

You seem very invested in dismissing the posts or accounts that call for coming at the immigration situation from the point of view of mercy and loving those who are immigrating (even illegally) as we love ourselves, but I have no idea why.  Sometimes it seems like you are trying to misunderstand, or maybe more accurately, it seems like you are trying to find the angle that allows you to continue to assume the worst possible interpretation so your previous arguments don't have to be amended or invalidated.

I've often wondered if it's a lawyer thing when your posts start to do this because it can start to be like you are making an argument for an imaginary judge or jury, rather than having a discussion with other posters.

[Peacefully]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Peacefully: "Church members {} should be fighting for {} those who may make their way here illegally..."

So far six people have upvoted this statement.

"Willy-nilly" means "without direction or planning; haphazardly."

Disregarding any distinction between legal and illegal immigration sure seems like "advocating for willy-nilly immigration and border crossing."

Thanks,

-Smac

Please keep the whole context of what I wrote “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. ”

To me, the bold isn’t allowing everyone in “willy-nilly” it is compassionate and treating every case individually. Sending everyone back “willy-nilly” doesn’t seem to be the Lord’s way or the church’s way. The church “discourages “ illegal immigration but doesn’t forbid it. I think that leaves room for those fleeing for their lives who don’t have time to fill out the requisite paperwork. I’m pretty sure the Mormon pioneers could empathize. 

 

[Peacefully]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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..."?

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?

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

See my previous response. Thx! 

Edited January 3, 2025 by Peacefully

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Peacefully said:

Please keep the whole context of what I wrote “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.

Fair enough.

1 hour ago, Peacefully said:

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. ”

To me, the bold isn’t allowing everyone in “willy-nilly”

Sure seems like it.  You seem to be disregarding the distinction between legal and illegal immigration.  I get that you qualify this disregarded distinction by referencing people who come here illegally "to escape poverty and violence," but as a practical matter, there is no way to sustain this differentiation as a matter of border security.  It's not like we have some sort of lie detector system in place at the border that filters out illegal border crossers who come "to escape poverty and violence" versus border crossers who come for other, and nefarious, reasons.  To allow illegal immigration is to allow all illegal immigrants. 

1 hour ago, Peacefully said:

it is compassionate and treating every case individually.

How would this be done as a matter of border security?  I am genuinely curious about the logistics of such a proposal.

1 hour ago, Peacefully said:

Sending everyone back “willy-nilly” doesn’t seem to be the Lord’s way or the church’s way.

I agree.  Hence my previously-stated position, which is not "willy-nilly."

That said, the Church has no civil authority or mandate to secure national borders.  The federal government, however, does have such authority and mandate.

1 hour ago, Peacefully said:

The church “discourages “ illegal immigration but doesn’t forbid it.

In a civil context, the Church can't "forbid" anything.

1 hour ago, Peacefully said:

I think that leaves room for those fleeing for their lives who don’t have time to fill out the requisite paperwork.

So . . . open borders?  How do you differentiate between

(A) allowing illegal crossings for legitimate purposes ("to escape poverty and violence" and/or "for their lives") and

(B) preventing or reducing illegal crossings for illegitimate purposes (trafficking of women and children, drugs, weapons, gang activity, terrorists, spies, etc.)?

The folks crossing under the auspices of (B) aren't "fill{ing} out the requisite paperwork," either.

1 hour ago, Peacefully said:

I’m pretty sure the Mormon pioneers could empathize. 

Would they empathize with category (B) types as well?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 3, 2025 by smac97

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Respectfully, I dispute the notion that "Deuteronomy, Or Matthew 25 or any of the other countless  scriptures" speak directly to matters of border security and immigration policy.

Dodge

You don't seem to be able to engage with this on a gospel level.  You just want to spout politics.

"I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not."

The church takes this scripture very seriously as evidenced by how it actually treats immigrants.

Your position is in direct contrast with just about every scripture I know of that talks about how to treat foreigners and immigrants. I don't recall any scripture that tells us to turn away immigrants.

 

 

[Danzo]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You seem to be disregarding the distinction between legal and illegal immigration.  I get that you qualify this disregarded distinction by referencing people who come here illegally "to escape poverty and violence," but as a practical matter, there is no way to sustain this differentiation as a matter of border security.  It's not like we have some sort of lie detector system in place at the border that filters out illegal border crossers who come "to escape poverty and violence" versus border crossers who come for other reasons.  To allow illegal immigration is to allow all illegal immigrants. 

You really can't grasp that whether an immigrant is legal or illegal is entirely up the whims of a Giant Federal bureaucracy.  The law can choose to make legal people illegal and illegal people legal (and does so all of the time) for arbitrary reasons.

If you don't like illegal people in the US, Change the law and make them legal!  

. . . Unless there is something else about them that you don't like

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Quote

Am I misunderstanding things here?

Yes I believe you are, though I'm not exactly sure why because you're clearly smart enough to have been able to follow what people are saying as well as the rest of us have.

I also have a long enough track record of being plain in my commentary.  If I don't understand something, I say so.  

I am advocating for the rule of law, and for the Church's position.  And for that, I am getting accused of endorsing racial hatred.  I'm not exactly sure why, but I surmise it is because such accusations are intended to stifle and short circuit discussion.

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You seem very invested in dismissing the posts or accounts that call for coming at the immigration situation from the point of view of mercy and loving those who are immigrating (even illegally) as we love ourselves, but I have no idea why. 

I disagree with this characterization. 

First, to disagree is not to "dismiss."  

Second, I have been on the receiving end of some pretty ugly denigrations, including from fellow Latter-day Saints whom I otherwise generally hold in high regard and admiration.  

Third, these denigrations seem to be pretty "dismissive" of alternative viewpoints, such as mine.

Fourth, rather than clarifying anything as to what I may be misunderstanding, you are resorting to personal digs/commentary.

Fifth, I suspect there is some deliberateness in the obscuring of positions in this thread.  I think some people really are advocating for de facto (and/or de jure) open borders, and for large-scale nullification of immigration laws, but they do not want to "say the quiet part out loud."

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Sometimes it seems like you are trying to misunderstand, or maybe more accurately, it seems like you are trying to find the angle that allows you to continue to assume the worst possible interpretation so your previous arguments don't have to be amended or invalidated.

What is it that you think I have misunderstood?

Should we secure our borders, or not?  I think we should.

Should we "vet" people who want to come and live and work in the United States, or not?  I think we should.

Are there any conditions that we should set for people entering into and remaining in the United States?  I think there should be.

Should we make some accommodations for those who have, in the past, come to and remained in the United States under past wink-wink-nudge-nudge systems?  I think we should.

Should we continue to disregard widespread violation of immigration laws?  I think we should not.

Should we continue to tacitly encourage/incentivize widespread violation of immigration laws?  I think we should not.

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I've often wondered if it's a lawyer thing when your posts start to do this because it can start to be like you are making an argument for an imaginary judge or jury, rather than having a discussion with other posters.

We're having a discussion in which we are exchanging arguments, evidence, points of view, opinions, etc.  All of us are doing this.  That my approach may give off whiffs of "legal" presentation should not be surprising, as I am a lawyer.  But that does not preclude discussion (unlike accusations of racial hatred, which tends toward stifling discussion).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And for that, I am getting accused of endorsing racial hatred. 

To be clear, I am not accusing you of endorsing racial hatred.

I am accusing you of defending a harmful law that you don't really seem to understand. You have never, in this thread, shown that you know how the law actually works. That you have to use Chat GPT to come up with  your descriptions of the law is evidence of this. 

I am also accusing you of being overly partisan. 

For some strange reason you seem to blame current politics on a problem that has been happening for the last 40 years at least.  That shows me that you really don't understand the law.  My wife crossed the border illegally for the first time in 1990. Who was president then?

I would hope that you would take the opportunity to understand the current law, and its effects.  Look for and advocate changes to the current law so that the law can treat immigrants better, and help you feel safe.  Look for ways that the law can incorporate  gospel principles like forgiveness and mercy, and repentence not only justice.  

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Quote

You seem to be disregarding the distinction between legal and illegal immigration.  I get that you qualify this disregarded distinction by referencing people who come here illegally "to escape poverty and violence," but as a practical matter, there is no way to sustain this differentiation as a matter of border security.  It's not like we have some sort of lie detector system in place at the border that filters out illegal border crossers who come "to escape poverty and violence" versus border crossers who come for other reasons.  To allow illegal immigration is to allow all illegal immigrants. 

You really can't grasp that whether an immigrant is legal or illegal is entirely up the whims of a Giant Federal bureaucracy. 

Well, no.  Whether an immigrant is "legal or illegal" is determined by how he entered the country, whether he overstayed his visa, etc.

Whether an illegal immigrant faces the consequences for his conduct is a bit more up in the air.  Due to the massive influx of millions of illegals over the last few years, and in years past, many have been able to stay here undetected.  But as the Church has aptly noted:

"{E}very nation has the right to enforce its laws and secure its borders."

and

"All persons subject to a nation’s laws are accountable for their acts in relation to them."

and

"Unchecked and unregulated, such a flow {of illegal immigration} may destabilize society and ultimately become unsustainable."  

I think we are at, or else are approaching, the "unsustainable" phase of things.

10 minutes ago, Danzo said:

The law can choose to make legal people illegal and illegal people legal (and does so all of the time) for arbitrary reasons.

Or for logical and reasonable reasons.

10 minutes ago, Danzo said:

If you don't like illegal people in the US, Change the law and make them legal!

So . . . open borders?

10 minutes ago, Danzo said:

. . . Unless there is something else about them that you don't like

Again with the racial hatred accusation.  In lieu of reasoned argument, it seems.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Danzo said:

To be clear, I am not accusing you of endorsing racial hatred.

Also Danzo:

Quote

If you don't like illegal people in the US, Change the law and make them legal!  

. . . Unless there is something else about them that you don't like

The "something else about them that you don't like" is pretty clearly an accusation of racial hatred.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

Dodge

You don't seem to be able to engage with this on a gospel level. 

Ah.  So not only are out proffering accusations of racial hatred, I'm not even a good Latter-day Saint.

Lovely stuff, this.

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

You just want to spout politics.

Actually, I have wanted to discuss the topic as free from "politics" as possible.  I have not quoted politicians, and have instead quoted the Church's position and statements, several times over.

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

"I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not."

The church takes this scripture very seriously as evidenced by how it actually treats immigrants.

I have not been speaking of the Church's humanitarian efforts, which I admire and support.  I have, instead, referenced these statements from the Church:

"{E}very nation has the right to enforce its laws and secure its borders."

and

"All persons subject to a nation’s laws are accountable for their acts in relation to them."

and

"Unchecked and unregulated, such a flow {of illegal immigration} may destabilize society and ultimately become unsustainable."  

And your ongoing reaction to these is, to quote a guy, to "dodge" them.  Or worse, to implicitly disregard and undermine and reject them.

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

Your position is in direct contrast with just about every scripture I know of that talks about how to treat foreigners and immigrants.

Nonsense.

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

I don't recall any scripture that tells us to turn away immigrants.

Nation states with specified borders, and with laws regulating passage across borders (laws enacted by legislative and executive office-holders appointed by popular vote), pretty much did not exist 2,000 years ago.  They do, however, exist now.  And the Church has published statements such as those I have quoted over and over which support our system of laws.

The ancient scriptures don't have a lot to say about some modern "hot button" topics such as abortion, "gender/sexual identity," and, of course, immigration.  Fortunately, one of the great values of having living prophets and apostles is that we can receive guidance as to such contemporary issues, trends, etc.  This guidance can be particularly important when, as it seems here, substantial sociopolitical winds are blowing us in one direction or another.

I think we should secure our borders and generally administer codified immigration laws.  I also think we should amend and improve our laws as I have previously noted several times.  I reject the ongoing imputations from people like you ("Unless there is something else about them that you don't like") and Kevin (That is, not white people, not the right people, somehow, not 'Us'") that this reflects some sort of racial hatred.  I deny any such notion.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 3, 2025 by smac97

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I am accusing you of defending a harmful law that you don't really seem to understand.

I think I have a pretty firm grasp of the generalized notions in play here (border security, immigration laws, legal v. illegal immigration).

26 minutes ago, Danzo said:

You have never, in this thread, shown that you know how the law actually works. That you have to use Chat GPT to come up with  your descriptions of the law is evidence of this. 

I am also accusing you of being overly partisan. 

Right back atcha.

I don't think wanting a secured border is partisan, nor does my advocacy of it endorse racial hatred (contrary to your insinuation in "Unless there is something else about them that you don't like...").

26 minutes ago, Danzo said:

For some strange reason you seem to blame current politics on a problem that has been happening for the last 40 years at least.  That shows me that you really don't understand the law.  My wife crossed the border illegally for the first time in 1990. Who was president then?

I think border and immigration policy has been poorly handled for a very long time.  

26 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I would hope that you would take the opportunity to understand the current law, and its effects. 

I do.  I have reached different conclusions, it seems, than you have.  To disagree with you on a controversial and difficult sociopolitical issue is not to hate whole categories of our brothers and sisters based on their skin color.  Yet that is what you have publicly accused me of in this thread.

26 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Look for and advocate changes to the current law so that the law can treat immigrants better, and help you feel safe.  Look for ways that the law can incorporate  gospel principles like forgiveness and mercy, and repentence not only justice.  

Okay.

Meanwhile, I hope you refrain from baselessly accusing people who disagree with you of racial hatred.  This sort of corrosive rhetoric and reaction is a big part of why we are so divided, why discussions of these issues become acrimonious, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

[let’s roll]

I don’t think there’s been much new news on this thread since about page 3, lots of talking past each other.  Immigration tends to be an emotionally charged subject, but if we look at it objectively, I think there should be consensus around a few core principles.

1. Government has the responsibility to enact, and enforce even-handedly, an immigration policy that recognizes the country’s need and desire for immigration for both economic and humanitarian reasons.  The unsynchronized policies that are in place have been poorly communicated and, to put it mildly, unevenly enforced.  Thus the government has lost its moral authority regarding immigration.  That can be regained only by a reboot—enact new policy, explain it clearly and enforce it even-handedly, including deportation of anyone immigrating outside of the policy

2.  I say this as one who has taken a refugee family into my home (for seven years), represented (pro bono) a family seeking political asylum, and also teaches English classes for refugees:  there is no incongruity in helping refugees while supporting a responsible border policy, even if means having to encourage all immigrants to act within the current law as we serve them, while working towards a better policy/system.

3.  No harm in civil discourse on this issue but, as with most things, our time is best spent doing rather than talking.

Happy New Year to all.

[Danzo]

56 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, no.  Whether an immigrant is "legal or illegal" is determined by how he entered the country, whether he overstayed his visa, etc.

Again this shows you don't know how the law works.

There are many people who are here legally that entered the country illegally.  It is very arbitrary.

58 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Or for logical and reasonable reasons.

Or for illogical and unreasonable reasons.  Again we are discussing the current law not your fantasy version of the law. 

 

 

[Danzo]

41 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Actually, I have wanted to discuss the topic as free from "politics" as possible.  I have not quoted politicians, and have instead quoted the Church's position and statements, several times over.

why did you bring up Soros?