Popular Post Benjamin McGuire Posted February 1 Popular Post Posted February 1 About a week ago, @smac97 asked if I was an advocate for open borders. My answer is yes. I think that open borders are more moral and ethical than closed borders. Part of this is rooted in the Gospel. The Old Testament asserts that we should treat the alien in our country as if he were a part of our society. The New Testament goes further and suggests that the way that we treat the alien in our country should be understand as the way that we are treating the Lord. That is the point of Matthew 25:31-46 - and it is quite clear (at least to me): Quote When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger [immigrant], and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger [immigrant], and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger [immigrant], and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. It's not a difficult proposition here. There are a couple of things that I think are important - other than the fact that Jesus specifically points to immigrants as a class of people that deserve to be treated with respect and kindness. Another is that He identifies these immigrants as His immediate family (the meaning of the Greek in verse 40 that is translated "my brethren" indicates siblings). The message that Jesus offers is that if we fail to treat these immigrants as family, we risk exaltation in the Kingdom of God. There is no such statement made in the Gospels about political laws (that are subject to change). Theologically, there isn't much value in trying to weigh keeping a bad law against this sort of Gospel principle/necessity. The idea of legal and illegal in this case isn't particularly morally or ethically solid to begin with (it may not be immoral or unethical - just that there is no moral or ethical demand to have such laws (as opposed to laws that have significant moral and ethical content). And we can list a number of reasons why significant immigration (and even open border policies) can be beneficial. So to answer the question that was raised, I am an advocate for open borders. And I think that those who are engaged in efforts to make the lives of immigrants in this country miserable will discover that they are the goats that Jesus speaks of. And finally, I believe (and I don't feel the need to hold others to this standard) that we have a responsibility as Latter-day Saints to advocate for more moral and ethical laws dealing with immigrants. 8
Benjamin McGuire Posted February 1 Author Posted February 1 19 minutes ago, Potter said: Should every country throw open its doors, or is it just a VIP pass for the USA? I think its good for every country. Why would I want to limit it? 20 minutes ago, Potter said: As a sleuth delving into the mysteries of Mormonism, I have a question. If you think an open border is the pinnacle of morality and ethics, then why are Mormon temples closed to ninety-nine percent of God's kids? I don't think its the pinnacle. What I said was that I think that open borders are more ethical and moral than closed borders. The pinnacle of morality and ethics is to follow the commandments of Jesus in loving God and loving your neighbor as yourself. Those two things carry with them, I think, the rest of Christian morality and ethics. As far as Mormon temples go - it's a complex issue that's a bit out of place in this thread. But I will say (as a simple answer) that in Mormon theology, only the tiniest fraction of people that enter the Celestial Kingdom will have ever set foot in a Mormon temple. The primary role of the temple in Mormon theology is as a place where covenants are made - and those covenants are not particularly helpful or useful to those that are not prepared to receive them. A person is far better off in LDS thought in not making covenants with God if they don't understand them and are not prepared to keep them. 4
Rain Posted February 1 Posted February 1 (edited) It wasn't till that thread that I learned about not having borders in general. It wasn't till a year or so ago when I read a book that I learned borders in the US was a fairly new thing and how they came about wasn't the greatest thing. I wish I could remember the details or what the book was called because I've wanted to go back to it so many times. I still have not made a decision on open borders aa I've always felt I didn't have enough info or intellect to understand it well enough to make a choice on it. In trying to work with state legislators on refugee work I have see them make decisions on laws with info that was outright wrong so I always wonder how I could make a choice on a closed border. But if I really look at myself this morning I'm finding more than knowledge and intellect, the fact that I don't want to argue with people about it keeps me from making a choice. I fear being on the other side of both people Here is the thing that has always confused me - the church teaches we are all brothers and sisters, yet so often its members treat others as enemies. That's understandable as that is human nature and we live in a world where sometimes people are trying to hurt and kill us and other times people do hurt us when they are not trying to. But that doesn't give people a pass. And they are still brothers and sisters. The big thing about open borders is fear. Fear of not having a job. Fear or our resources not being able to take care of us. Fear for our safety. Fear for the safety of others. When I first started in refugee work one of my orgnizations founds said we would come across people who were angry. She told me something like, "They are afraid and what they feel is real. Don't argue with them. Just love them." And you know what? When I listen to them and acknowledge their fear things go so much better. But we have also been taught when we prepare we don't need to fear. There is so much in the bible about the stranger. I do things with a christian refugee organization who have taught me of so many of those scriptures. I'm currently reading a book called "Essentialism". In it, one of the things author says is if we don't decide what to do with our time, others will decide for you. I appreciate your thread Benjamin because it's time for me to decide where I stand on it. Edited February 1 by Rain 3
CV75 Posted February 1 Posted February 1 2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said: About a week ago, @smac97 asked if I was an advocate for open borders. My answer is yes. I think that open borders are more moral and ethical than closed borders. Part of this is rooted in the Gospel. The Old Testament asserts that we should treat the alien in our country as if he were a part of our society. The New Testament goes further and suggests that the way that we treat the alien in our country should be understand as the way that we are treating the Lord. That is the point of Matthew 25:31-46 - and it is quite clear (at least to me): It's not a difficult proposition here. There are a couple of things that I think are important - other than the fact that Jesus specifically points to immigrants as a class of people that deserve to be treated with respect and kindness. Another is that He identifies these immigrants as His immediate family (the meaning of the Greek in verse 40 that is translated "my brethren" indicates siblings). The message that Jesus offers is that if we fail to treat these immigrants as family, we risk exaltation in the Kingdom of God. There is no such statement made in the Gospels about political laws (that are subject to change). Theologically, there isn't much value in trying to weigh keeping a bad law against this sort of Gospel principle/necessity. The idea of legal and illegal in this case isn't particularly morally or ethically solid to begin with (it may not be immoral or unethical - just that there is no moral or ethical demand to have such laws (as opposed to laws that have significant moral and ethical content). And we can list a number of reasons why significant immigration (and even open border policies) can be beneficial. So to answer the question that was raised, I am an advocate for open borders. And I think that those who are engaged in efforts to make the lives of immigrants in this country miserable will discover that they are the goats that Jesus speaks of. And finally, I believe (and I don't feel the need to hold others to this standard) that we have a responsibility as Latter-day Saints to advocate for more moral and ethical laws dealing with immigrants. I wouldn’t say open borders are rooted in the Gospel so much as the Gospel can be used to justify them, along with other border management expediencies, philosophies and mechanisms. God created the whole earth – no borders – and at the same time “hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation…” (Acts 17: 24 - 28). The Book of Mormon provides some nice examples of border management in times of Gospel-influenced peace (Helaman 6: 7-8). I think most saints would agree that border management, however that gets done, is ideally accomplished in a Christlike way (with charity and through functional councils). But in a practical sense, the bottom line seems to be persuasive communication, which must proceed with or without Gospel justification. 1
teddyaware Posted February 1 Posted February 1 (edited) 2 hours ago, Potter said: Should every country throw open its doors, or is it just a VIP pass for the USA? As a sleuth delving into the mysteries of Mormonism, I have a question. If you think an open border is the pinnacle of morality and ethics, then why are Mormon temples closed to ninety-nine percent of God's kids? As I opined on this board the other day, some on this site have enthroned “compassion” and mercy to the overpowerment of justice, wisdom and reason. What these folks fail to realize is that their unwise idealistic zeal blinds them to the fact that they’re advocating for an imbalance between justice and mercy that not only destroys justice but also ends up destroying the very mercy they claim to own. Why? Because there can be no effectual and enduring application of mercy unless the immutable law of divine justice has been fully satisfied. What you’re witnessing here is a regression into the kind of uninformed and unrealistic adolescent thinking that ignited the war in heaven, because some insisted that God’s realistic and pragmatic plan of mercy, that lays the effectual groundwork for overcoming the world and glorious celestial exaltation, is “just too hard!” It’s a childishness that will hopefully be grown out of in time. Edited February 1 by teddyaware
CV75 Posted February 1 Posted February 1 (edited) 2 hours ago, Potter said: Should every country throw open its doors, or is it just a VIP pass for the USA? As a sleuth delving into the mysteries of Mormonism, I have a question. If you think an open border is the pinnacle of morality and ethics, then why are Mormon temples closed to ninety-nine percent of God's kids? I think there is a big difference between borders (nations and property) and boundaries (temples). Ideally, everyone has all things in common while everyone worships in the temple. Yes, ideally, every nation would have the conditions described in Helaman 6 that would sustain open border policies. Edited February 1 by CV75
CV75 Posted February 1 Posted February 1 4 minutes ago, teddyaware said: As I opined on this board the other day, some on this site have enthroned “compassion” and mercy to the overpowerment of justice, wisdom and reason. What these folks fail to realize is that their unwise idealistic zeal blinds them to the fact that they’re advocating for an imbalance between justice and mercy that not only destroys justice but also ends up destroying the very mercy they claim to own. Why? Because there can be no effectual and enduring application of mercy unless the immutable law of divine justice has been fully satisfied. What you’re witnessing here is a regression into the kind of uninformed and unrealistic adolescent thinking that ignited the war in heaven, because some insisted that God’s realistic and pragmatic plan of mercy, that lays the effectual groundwork for overcoming the world and glorious celestial exaltation, is “just too hard!” Is your position that open border policy, such as that suggested in Helaman 6, is immoral? 1
SkyRock Posted February 1 Posted February 1 1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said: I think its good for every country. Why would I want to limit it? I don't think its the pinnacle. What I said was that I think that open borders are more ethical and moral than closed borders. Why is it good for every country? Why are open borders more ethical and moral than closed borders? Should any country be allowed to control its borders? Do you have open borders on your house and car and bank account? 1
Benjamin McGuire Posted February 1 Author Posted February 1 19 minutes ago, teddyaware said: As I opined on this board the other day, some on this site have enthroned “compassion” and mercy to the overpowerment of justice, wisdom and reason. What these folks fail to realize is that their unwise idealistic zeal blinds them to the fact that they’re advocating for an imbalance between justice and mercy that not only destroys justice but also ends up destroying the very mercy they claim to own. Why? Because there can be no effectual and enduring application of mercy unless the immutable law of divine justice has been fully satisfied. What you’re witnessing here is a regression into the kind of uninformed and unrealistic adolescent thinking that ignited the war in heaven, because some insisted that God’s realistic and pragmatic plan of mercy, that lays the effectual groundwork for overcoming the world and glorious celestial exaltation, is “just too hard!” It’s a childishness that will hopefully be grown out of in time. What did Abinadi teach in the Book of Mormon? Mosiah 15:8-9 - Quote And thus God breaketh the bands of death, having gained the victory over death; giving the Son power to make intercession for the children of men— Having ascended into heaven, having the bowels of mercy; being filled with compassion towards the children of men; standing betwixt them and justice; having broken the bands of death, taken upon himself their iniquity and their transgressions, having redeemed them, and satisfied the demands of justice. The immutable law of divine justice (whatever you mean by that) has been satisfied. God doesn't tell us that we need to forgive those for whom that divine law of justice has been satisfied. He reserves that entirely to Himself. What He does tell us in D&C 64:10 is this: Quote I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men. So we aren't elevating mercy. Mercy is something we are required to have for our fellow men. And mercy doesn't overpower reason or wisdom. It comes as a result of those things. This sort of insistence that somehow we can use reason to decide when and how that mercy is best applied is our taking it upon ourselves to be the judges of other men is anathema to the gospel of Jesus Christ. God's mercy isn't limited by pragmatism. It seems that in this situation, it is those who do not want to be merciful who are claiming that it is too hard. That if we accept too many immigrants into our population that it will harm us. That we must insist that only those immigrants who are deserving of our help (however we define it) are those that we should help. When we do this, we become like the Jew who (Like 10:29) "willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?" And as for growing out of childishness? Perhaps the best response to this is what Jesus says in Matthew 18:3 - Quote And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Perhaps a little childishness is something that is necessary for us to be faithful followers of the Master. 3
Rain Posted February 1 Posted February 1 (edited) 7 hours ago, teddyaware said: As I opined on this board the other day, some on this site have enthroned “compassion” and mercy to the overpowerment of justice, wisdom and reason. What these folks fail to realize is that their unwise idealistic zeal blinds them to the fact that they’re advocating for an imbalance between justice and mercy that not only destroys justice but also ends up destroying the very mercy they claim to own. I've seen no one who doesn't find a balance of judgment and mercy good. One difference is that you think the balance point is at one spot and others think it is at another spot. Another difference is the spot some feel people should be balancing it and others find where God should be the balanced. 7 hours ago, teddyaware said: Why? Because there can be no effectual and enduring application of mercy unless the immutable law of divine justice has been fully satisfied. What you’re witnessing here is a regression into the kind of uninformed and unrealistic adolescent thinking that ignited the war in heaven, because some insisted that God’s realistic and pragmatic plan of mercy, that lays the effectual groundwork for overcoming the world and glorious celestial exaltation, is “just too hard!” It’s a childishness that will hopefully be grown out of in time. What is being witnessed is a difference of opinions as to how the Lord wants and does the balancing. Edited February 2 by Rain 4
smac97 Posted February 1 Posted February 1 (edited) 4 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said: About a week ago, @smac97 asked if I was an advocate for open borders. My answer is yes. Thank you for your response. Four further questions: 1. How prevalent do you think this "open border" position is in the U.S.? How many people are in favor of it? 2. Do you think, as I do, that some - perhaps many - of the people who support open borders hide or obfuscate their support for this position? 3. Why do you think that an "open borders" policy is superior to a "controlled borders" policy? From ChatGPT: Quote Difference Between "Open Borders" and "Controlled Borders" Policy ✅ Open Borders Allows unrestricted movement of people across national borders. No immigration enforcement, visa requirements, or restrictions on entry. Anyone can enter, live, and work in the country without needing government approval. Examples: The Schengen Zone in Europe (for member states). ✅ Controlled Borders Allows regulated immigration with legal entry requirements (visas, background checks, etc.). Law enforcement agencies monitor entry and exit to ensure compliance. Governments set limits on immigration based on security, economic, and social factors. Examples: The U.S., Canada, Australia, which have legal immigration pathways but enforce border security. 🔹 Key Difference: Open borders remove all restrictions on entry, while controlled borders regulate and enforce immigration laws to balance security, economy, and public resources. 4. How do you propose to address the downsides of an "open borders" policy? From ChatGPT: Quote Extensive List of Arguments Against Open Borders as a U.S. Policy The concept of open borders—allowing unrestricted movement of people across national boundaries—has been debated extensively. Critics argue that such a policy would have economic, social, political, security, and cultural consequences. Below is a comprehensive list of arguments against open borders as a policy for the United States. 1. National Security & Public Safety Concerns 🔹 Increased Risk of Crime & Terrorism Unvetted individuals could enter the country, including violent criminals, drug traffickers, and terrorists. Human trafficking networks could expand with greater ease. Cartels and organized crime groups could take advantage of a lack of enforcement. 🔹 Loss of Border Control Law enforcement agencies (e.g., Border Patrol, ICE) would be unable to monitor or stop illicit activities. Increased fentanyl and drug trafficking, worsening the opioid crisis. Dangerous gangs (e.g., MS-13) could move freely across the border. 🔹 Disease Transmission & Public Health Risks Unregulated migration could increase exposure to tuberculosis, measles, COVID-19, and other infectious diseases. Healthcare infrastructure could be overwhelmed, affecting American citizens' access to care. 2. Economic & Labor Market Disruptions 🔹 Wage Suppression for Low-Income Workers A mass influx of low-skilled workers could lead to lower wages for American workers in fields such as construction, hospitality, and agriculture. Supply of labor would outstrip demand, reducing bargaining power for lower-wage employees. 🔹 Increased Competition for Jobs Open borders could flood the U.S. job market with millions of job seekers, increasing unemployment among native-born and legal immigrant workers. Working-class Americans (especially minorities) would face higher job competition. 🔹 Strain on Social Services & Welfare Programs More non-taxpaying residents would increase demand for housing, healthcare, food assistance, and education. Programs like Social Security, Medicaid, and public housing would become unsustainable. 🔹 Housing Shortages & Cost Increases A massive influx of people would increase demand for housing, driving rents and home prices up. Major cities would face affordable housing crises similar to those in New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. 3. Cultural & Social Integration Issues 🔹 Breakdown of Social Cohesion A sudden mass migration event could cause cultural clashes, particularly in areas with different legal, political, or social traditions. Difficulties in assimilation could lead to ethnic enclaves and increased segregation rather than integration. 🔹 Language Barriers A sharp increase in non-English-speaking immigrants could place a strain on schools, workplaces, and local governments. Public services would need expanded multilingual support, creating additional costs. 🔹 Erosion of National Identity Civic values and social trust could weaken if too many newcomers arrive without integrating into American culture. Unrestricted migration could disrupt traditional American values and legal norms. 4. Political & Legal Implications 🔹 Voter Fraud & Election Integrity Concerns Open borders could blur citizenship distinctions, making it easier for non-citizens to vote illegally. Increased pressure to grant voting rights to long-term undocumented residents. 🔹 Undermining Rule of Law Open borders would eliminate legal distinctions between citizens and non-citizens, leading to diminished respect for immigration laws. Creates unfairness for legal immigrants who follow the proper process. 🔹 Shift in Political Power An influx of millions of new residents could shift political demographics, leading to major policy changes that current citizens did not vote for. State and local governments would struggle with sudden population surges. 5. Overburdening Infrastructure 🔹 Collapse of Public Schools Already strained school systems would struggle to accommodate millions of new students. Taxpayer burden increases to expand classrooms, hire teachers, and provide additional resources for ESL (English as a Second Language) programs. 🔹 Traffic & Transportation Gridlock Major metropolitan areas would see massive population increases, worsening congestion, pollution, and infrastructure wear. Public transit systems in cities like New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles would be overwhelmed. 🔹 Healthcare System Overload Emergency rooms would become overcrowded, leading to longer wait times for U.S. citizens. Hospitals, especially in border states like Texas and Arizona, would see rising uncompensated care costs. 6. International Relations & Global Incentives 🔹 Encouraging Mass Migration & Humanitarian Crises Open borders would incentivize millions of people from poverty-stricken nations to migrate immediately. Struggling countries could use the U.S. as an "escape valve", avoiding their own economic and political reforms. 🔹 Increased Diplomatic Strain U.S. border policy would conflict with international agreements requiring immigration enforcement. Other nations might lose trust in U.S. sovereignty if borders are not maintained. 7. National Debt & Fiscal Sustainability 🔹 Federal Deficit Impact Mass migration without legal controls would force the government to increase spending on social programs, worsening the national debt. Taxpayer burden would skyrocket, requiring higher taxes to cover new expenditures. 🔹 Decline in Military Readiness The Pentagon relies on structured legal immigration for recruitment. Open borders could destabilize selective service programs and defense strategies. 8. Historical Precedents & Lessons 🔹 Failed Open Border Experiments The Roman Empire saw uncontrolled migration contribute to its decline. European nations facing mass migration crises (e.g., Sweden, Germany) have struggled with crime and integration issues. Lebanon faced economic collapse in part due to an unmanageable refugee crisis. 🔹 Lessons from Past U.S. Immigration Policies The U.S. has historically regulated immigration to preserve national security and economic stability (e.g., Chinese Exclusion Act, Immigration Act of 1924). Ellis Island immigration policies ensured that newcomers were vetted, healthy, and self-sufficient. Conclusion Opposition to open borders is based on a combination of economic, security, cultural, political, and historical concerns. While immigration is an essential part of American history, unrestricted migration poses serious risks to national security, economic stability, and public resources. Instead, most opponents advocate for strong border enforcement, merit-based immigration, and controlled legal pathways to ensure sustainable population growth and national cohesion. 4 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said: I think that open borders are more moral and ethical than closed borders. Part of this is rooted in the Gospel. The Old Testament asserts that we should treat the alien in our country as if he were a part of our society. The New Testament goes further and suggests that the way that we treat the alien in our country should be understand as the way that we are treating the Lord. That is the point of Matthew 25:31-46 - and it is quite clear (at least to me): How do you square these sentiments with A) the "render unto Caesar" admonition in the New Testament, and B) the Church's long-held position on illegal immigration? https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/official-statement/immigration Quote 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. https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/immigration-church-issues-new-statement Quote 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. As a matter of policy, 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. ... In furtherance of needed immigration reform in the United States, 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. I can see how adopting "open borders" as a policy would comport with the Church's position discouraging illegal border crossings (since "open borders" would negate the illegality of it), but the Church seems to recognize the natural and foreseeable, and very serious, adverse consequences of large-scale immigration (which would become markedly worse under an "open borders" regime) : "Unchecked and unregulated, such a flow may destabilize society and ultimately become unsustainable." 4 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said: It's not a difficult proposition here. Open borders is "not a difficult proposition"? You don't see any risks or downsides or harmful consequences arising from it? 4 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said: There are a couple of things that I think are important - other than the fact that Jesus specifically points to immigrants as a class of people that deserve to be treated with respect and kindness. So treating others with "respect and kindness" is co-extensive with "open borders"? Are we obligated to remove all legal restrictions against theft, in the name of "respect and kindness" for "the hungry"? Are we obligated to remove all legal restrictions against squatting, in the name of "respect and kindness" for "the homeless"? Are there any limiting principles to your position here? 4 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said: So to answer the question that was raised, I am an advocate for open borders. I appreciate the candor. 4 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said: And I think that those who are engaged in efforts to make the lives of immigrants in this country miserable will discover that they are the goats that Jesus speaks of. Are efforts at border security and enforcement of immigration laws fairly described as "efforts to make the lives of immigrants in this country miserable"? 4 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said: And finally, I believe (and I don't feel the need to hold others to this standard) that we have a responsibility as Latter-day Saints to advocate for more moral and ethical laws dealing with immigrants. Certainly. Do you find anything immoral and unethical with advocating for "open borders"? I see all sorts of immoral/ethical issues with this concept. I support the Church's stated position. I find it reasonable and sensible and compassionate. It accounts for the Lord's admonitions about how we treat each other, and at the same time acknowledges the need for the rule of law. In Matthew 10, the Lord told His disciples to be "be {} therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." I think "open borders" contravenes this principle, as open borders would destroy the United States. I don't think the Lord wants that. The problems with "open borders" policy are legion, which is why I think its advocates are prone to obscure their support of the concept. Unvetted individuals could enter the country, including violent criminals, drug traffickers, and terrorists. Human trafficking networks could expand with greater ease. Cartels and organized crime groups could take advantage of a lack of enforcement. Law enforcement agencies (e.g., Border Patrol, ICE) would be unable to monitor or stop illicit activities. Increased fentanyl and drug trafficking, worsening the opioid crisis. Dangerous gangs (e.g., MS-13) could move freely across the border. Unregulated migration could increase exposure to tuberculosis, measles, COVID-19, and other infectious diseases. Healthcare infrastructure could be overwhelmed, affecting American citizens' access to care. A mass influx of low-skilled workers could lead to lower wages for American workers in fields such as construction, hospitality, and agriculture. Supply of labor would outstrip demand, reducing bargaining power for lower-wage employees. Open borders could flood the U.S. job market with millions of job seekers, increasing unemployment among native-born and legal immigrant workers. Working-class Americans (especially minorities) would face higher job competition. More non-taxpaying residents would increase demand for housing, healthcare, food assistance, and education. Programs like Social Security, Medicaid, and public housing would become unsustainable. A massive influx of people would increase demand for housing, driving rents and home prices up. Major cities would face affordable housing crises similar to those in New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. A sudden mass migration event could cause cultural clashes, particularly in areas with different legal, political, or social traditions. Difficulties in assimilation could lead to ethnic enclaves and increased segregation rather than integration. A sharp increase in non-English-speaking immigrants could place a strain on schools, workplaces, and local governments. Public services would need expanded multilingual support, creating additional costs. Civic values and social trust could weaken if too many newcomers arrive without integrating into American culture. Unrestricted migration could disrupt traditional American values and legal norms. Open borders could blur citizenship distinctions, making it easier for non-citizens to vote illegally. Increased pressure to grant voting rights to long-term undocumented residents. Open borders would eliminate legal distinctions between citizens and non-citizens, leading to diminished respect for immigration laws. Creates unfairness for legal immigrants who follow the proper process. An influx of millions of new residents could shift political demographics, leading to major policy changes that current citizens did not vote for. State and local governments would struggle with sudden population surges. Already strained school systems would struggle to accommodate millions of new students. Taxpayer burden increases to expand classrooms, hire teachers, and provide additional resources for ESL (English as a Second Language) programs. Major metropolitan areas would see massive population increases, worsening congestion, pollution, and infrastructure wear. Public transit systems in cities like New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles would be overwhelmed. Emergency rooms would become overcrowded, leading to longer wait times for U.S. citizens. Hospitals, especially in border states like Texas and Arizona, would see rising uncompensated care costs. Open borders would incentivize millions of people from poverty-stricken nations to migrate immediately. Struggling countries could use the U.S. as an "escape valve", avoiding their own economic and political reforms. U.S. border policy would conflict with international agreements requiring immigration enforcement. Other nations might lose trust in U.S. sovereignty if borders are not maintained. Mass migration without legal controls would force the government to increase spending on social programs, worsening the national debt. Taxpayer burden would skyrocket, requiring higher taxes to cover new expenditures. The Pentagon relies on structured legal immigration for recruitment. Open borders could destabilize selective service programs and defense strategies. The Roman Empire saw uncontrolled migration contribute to its decline. European nations facing mass migration crises (e.g., Sweden, Germany) have struggled with crime and integration issues. Lebanon faced economic collapse in part due to an unmanageable refugee crisis. The U.S. has historically regulated immigration to preserve national security and economic stability (e.g., Chinese Exclusion Act, Immigration Act of 1924). Ellis Island immigration policies ensured that newcomers were vetted, healthy, and self-sufficient. Some of these advocates are simply speaking in ignorance of these massive problems, and are instead focused on virtue-signaling and pie-in-the-sky, rainbows-and-unicorns sentiments. Others of these advocates are speaking from indifference as to these massive problems. I have a hard time understanding the motives of these folks. Still others of these advocates are speaking from malice as to these massive problems. They hate America, and want it to fail, and so endorse "open borders" precisely because of the catastrophic harm it would do to this country. There could be no better manifestation of "The Long March Through the Institutions" than to have Americans persuade themselves to advocate for open borders. Significantly, one trait the "open borders" crowd has in common is a generalized and strident refusal to even acknowledge, let alone address or propose solutions or mitigating measures for, the massive negative consequences that would arise from implementing open borders. I think Thomas Sowell makes some interesting observations here: A partial transcript: Quote Man is flawed from Day One, and there are no solutions, only trade-offs. And whatever you do to deal with one of man’s flaws, it creates another problem. But you try to get the best trade-off you can get, and that’s all you can hope for. I've often said that there are 3 questions that would destroy most of the arguments on the left: • Compared to What? • At What Cost? • What Hard Evidence Do You Have? There are very few ideas on the left that can pass these 3 questions. I think the above three questions, applied to "open borders," decimate it as an idea. While America certainly has a substantial number of flaws and problems, I think it needs to survive and endure. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has an important mandate in these latter days. It can only fulfill these mandates if it is headquartered in, and protected under the laws of, The United States of America. Open borders would destroy the United States in every material respect: as a sovereign, self-determining state, as a country of laws, financially, socially, and so on. Thanks, -Smac Edited February 1 by smac97 2
smac97 Posted February 1 Posted February 1 35 minutes ago, SkyRock said: Why is it good for every country? Why are open borders more ethical and moral than closed borders? Or controlled borders, as the U.S. has. Thanks, -Smac
Dario_M Posted February 1 Posted February 1 (edited) I know that the Netherlands has open borders. And it doesn't work at all. I don't even wanna know how much illegal immigrants we do have in here. It's absolutely not good for safety purposes. Edited February 1 by Dario_M
smac97 Posted February 1 Posted February 1 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Dario_M said: I know that the Netherlands has open borders. And it doesn't work at all. I don't even wanna know how much illegal immigrants we do have in here. It's absolutely not good for safety purposes. From ChatGPT: Quote Has "Open Borders" Ever Been Demonstrated to Be an Effective and Reasonable Policy for a Modern Nation? The effectiveness and reasonableness of open borders as a policy depend on historical context, economic conditions, and national security considerations. No major modern nation currently maintains completely open borders, but there are examples of relatively free migration systems that have been tested in different ways. Below is an analysis of relevant cases. 1. Historical & Theoretical Support for Open Borders Some economists and scholars argue that open borders could boost global GDP by allowing labor to move freely to where it is most needed, reducing global inequality. However, practical applications have been limited. 🔹 Early U.S. Immigration (Pre-1882) The U.S. had de facto open borders before the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. Immigration was largely unregulated, and millions arrived without formal vetting. However, the economy was expanding rapidly, requiring labor for industrialization and westward expansion. Key Difference: Unlike today, social services, welfare programs, and national security concerns were minimal. 🔹 The European Union’s Schengen Agreement (1985 - Present) Schengen Zone allows passport-free movement among 27 European countries. Effectiveness: Beneficial for economic integration, trade, and travel. Challenges: Increased illegal immigration, crime, and security concerns, leading some nations to reintroduce border checks. 🔹 Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Countries Countries like Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar allow relatively free labor migration for workers from South Asia and Africa. Difference: Migrants have restricted rights (no pathway to citizenship, few social benefits). 2. Cases Where Open Borders Have Led to Problems 🔹 Lebanon’s Refugee Crisis Lebanon admitted over 1.5 million Syrian refugees (almost 25% of its population) without strict regulation. Outcome: Economic collapse, strain on infrastructure, and rising tensions. 🔹 Germany’s Refugee Policy (2015) Chancellor Angela Merkel admitted over 1 million refugees in 2015. Outcome: Social and political backlash, rise of nationalist parties, and long-term integration difficulties. 🔹 Venezuela-Colombia Border Crisis As Venezuela’s economy collapsed, millions fled into Colombia and other Latin American nations. Outcome: Humanitarian challenges, overwhelmed public services, and increased crime. 3. Why No Modern Nation Uses Open Borders Key Challenges of Open Borders in a Modern State: National Security Risks – No vetting for criminals, terrorists, or traffickers. Strain on Social Services – Welfare programs, education, and healthcare could be overwhelmed. Political Instability – Rapid demographic shifts could lead to civil unrest. Economic Disruptions – Labor markets could become unstable, lowering wages for low-skilled workers. Housing & Infrastructure Issues – Cities could face overcrowding and rising housing costs. 4. Conclusion: Open Borders Is Theoretically Appealing but Practically Unviable 🚫 No modern developed nation has successfully implemented a fully open border policy while maintaining economic stability, national security, and social cohesion. Controlled borders—where legal immigration is allowed, but with enforcement—have proven to be the most effective model for balancing economic needs with national interests. "No modern developed nation has successfully implemented a fully open border policy while maintaining economic stability, national security, and social cohesion." @Benjamin McGuire, do you dispute the foregoing statement? If so, could you point to a modern developed nation that has "successfully implemented a fully open border policy while maintaining economic stability, national security, and social cohesion"? "Controlled borders—where legal immigration is allowed, but with enforcement—have proven to be the most effective model for balancing economic needs with national interests." That sounds about right. "Open borders," like Socialism, is an idea that sounds great in theory, but which becomes pretty disastrous when put into practice. So the "Yeah, but this time we'll get it right" crowd have some real heavy lifting to do. Thanks, -Smac Edited February 1 by smac97 2
Benjamin McGuire Posted February 1 Author Posted February 1 15 minutes ago, SkyRock said: Why is it good for every country? Why are open borders more ethical and moral than closed borders? Should any country be allowed to control its borders? Do you have open borders on your house and car and bank account? I think it might be easier to start with this last question first. We could just as easily ask why it is, in LDS temples, that the changing rooms come with lockers that all have locks. Are we afraid that these temple-recommend holders cannot be trusted? We generally hold to the idea that we have rights in our liberal society (using the term liberal within its political-philosophical context and not as representative of a particular political party). Among them is the right to own property. And we routinely allow access to our property. If you are a homeowner, you almost certainly have one or more easements on that property. You allow the postman to deliver mail. The meter-man to check your electrical meter. You cannot deny entrance to a law-enforcement agent with a warrant. But you can certainly fence in your home. Lock the gate. And prevent the unauthorized from access. I am not denying that people (or countries - to expand this to the rest of your question) have the right to control borders. That is a political argument and I am not interested in the politics in this particular discussion. There is no question that in the parable in Matthew 25, the individuals Jesus is talking to have the right to turn away the strangers, and the poor, and the naked, and the hungry. And these individuals exercise their rights in different ways. Effectively, what Jesus tells us is that when we look at the Kingdom of God, we will be strangers there. It will not be our place - it will be God's place. And whether God allows us in - and allows us to make that place our home will in part be dependent on how we treated those in need that we have every right to ignore. That is the issue. Now do I think that immigration is good thing more broadly - yes. I do. And I think you can make valid arguments about why we should have much more open borders than we do now - and why we should be much more open to providing pathways to citizenship here in the United States for those who want to come and be a part of our society. But that's not really the topic of this thread. If there is a moral and ethical basis for welcoming immigrants, that basis is applicable across the board. 4
Popular Post Benjamin McGuire Posted February 1 Author Popular Post Posted February 1 25 minutes ago, smac97 said: 1. How prevalent do you think this "open border" position is in the U.S.? How many people are in favor of it? I have zero interest, Spencer, in the political aspects of this discussion that you love. For the record, I generally won't respond to these questions. So ask them if you want, just don't expect a response. If you want to discuss the moral implications of your policy suggestions in light of the theology of the New Testament and other LDS scriptures, I am more than willing to engage. I will say one thing though about the sort of cost analysis that you offer. I want to contrast this with what @teddyaware wrote about it being “just too hard!” Clearly there is a disconnect. What is the worth of a human soul? I have absolutely no belief that a significantly more open border would destroy this country any more than it did for the first 130 years of its existence. 6
Steve J Posted February 1 Posted February 1 4 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said: About a week ago, @smac97 asked if I was an advocate for open borders. My answer is yes. I think that open borders are more moral and ethical than closed borders. Part of this is rooted in the Gospel. The Old Testament asserts that we should treat the alien in our country as if he were a part of our society. The New Testament goes further and suggests that the way that we treat the alien in our country should be understand as the way that we are treating the Lord. That is the point of Matthew 25:31-46 - and it is quite clear (at least to me): It's not a difficult proposition here. There are a couple of things that I think are important - other than the fact that Jesus specifically points to immigrants as a class of people that deserve to be treated with respect and kindness. Another is that He identifies these immigrants as His immediate family (the meaning of the Greek in verse 40 that is translated "my brethren" indicates siblings). The message that Jesus offers is that if we fail to treat these immigrants as family, we risk exaltation in the Kingdom of God. There is no such statement made in the Gospels about political laws (that are subject to change). Theologically, there isn't much value in trying to weigh keeping a bad law against this sort of Gospel principle/necessity. The idea of legal and illegal in this case isn't particularly morally or ethically solid to begin with (it may not be immoral or unethical - just that there is no moral or ethical demand to have such laws (as opposed to laws that have significant moral and ethical content). And we can list a number of reasons why significant immigration (and even open border policies) can be beneficial. So to answer the question that was raised, I am an advocate for open borders. And I think that those who are engaged in efforts to make the lives of immigrants in this country miserable will discover that they are the goats that Jesus speaks of. And finally, I believe (and I don't feel the need to hold others to this standard) that we have a responsibility as Latter-day Saints to advocate for more moral and ethical laws dealing with immigrants. Are you in favor of a welfare state? (This isn’t suppose to have a negative connotation, but just that the government says that it will provide certain goods up to a point), and how do you make that economically work with open borders?
Benjamin McGuire Posted February 1 Author Posted February 1 1 minute ago, Steve J said: Are you in favor of a welfare state? (This isn’t suppose to have a negative connotation, but just that the government says that it will provide certain goods up to a point), and how do you make that economically work with open borders? I would really like to keep this thread away from the politics. This thread is about the morality and ethics of open and closed borders. Do we, as followers of Jesus Christ, have an obligation to try and help those who are strangers here? And what do we think are the limits of those obligations? If you want, we can certainly open a different discussion on another thread about the welfare state and the impact of immigrant populations on that welfare state. 1
Benjamin McGuire Posted February 1 Author Posted February 1 5 minutes ago, Potter said: In an ideal universe, I’d be right there with you, but alas, we find ourselves in a less than perfect reality, where borders are the unsung heroes of order and security. So, are you suggesting we ditch the borders and go for a one size fits all government? If there are no borders, one might wonder, what’s the point of a military? Who exactly are they guarding against? No, and I think this comes close to a deliberate misreading of my comments. Open borders isn't the elimination of borders - it is a term used to describe the free movement of people across a border. And my OP doesn't suggest that open borders are best - merely that an open border is more moral and ethical than a closed one. This is not an argument for no borders at all. Does God's heavenly kingdom have borders? Obviously religion and politics generally have very different goals. The issue raised here is about how we deal with the religious requirements. At what point do you think that the political needs outweigh our religious convictions? 9 minutes ago, Potter said: If you're skeptical about the importance of borders, then why does the Almighty seem to favor them when it comes to dividing the Celestial Kingdom from the Terrestrial and the telestial? That's part of the complication of the topic. Mormon's have different views on this - there isn't a consensus. I adopt a view provided by past leaders of the church that allows for eternal progression and upward mobility between kingdoms in the hereafter. The divisions become temporary in that context (and eternity is a very, very long time). 11 minutes ago, Potter said: In a flawless universe, we’d all leave our doors wide open, but alas, reality calls for a little more caution. We fortify our homes like castles, locking up tight, especially at night, to keep our loved ones safe from the lurking shadows. Do you lock up your house to protect your love ones? No. I generally only lock my house when there will be no one there for an extended period of time. It probably has something to do with where I live. 12 minutes ago, Potter said: Could you clarify how we can keep the peace in a world that's anything but perfect and has no borders? Are you suggesting we should all just rally behind a one world government? Again, you need to stop misconstruing what I said ... I am not advocating for the removal of borders. 3
smac97 Posted February 1 Posted February 1 1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said: Quote How prevalent do you think this "open border" position is in the U.S.? How many people are in favor of it? I have zero interest, Spencer, in the political aspects of this discussion that you love. For the record, I generally won't respond to these questions. So ask them if you want, just don't expect a response. If you want to discuss the moral implications of your policy suggestions in light of the theology of the New Testament and other LDS scriptures, I am more than willing to engage. I will say one thing though about the sort of cost analysis that you offer. I want to contrast this with what @teddyaware wrote about it being “just too hard!” Clearly there is a disconnect. What is the worth of a human soul? I have absolutely no belief that a significantly more open border would destroy this country any more than it did for the first 130 years of its existence. You are speaking of issues that have profound legal, social and political dimensions. I don't think we can have a meaningful conversation about immigration without acknowledging and addressing those dimensions. As I noted previously: "Significantly, one trait the 'open borders' crowd has in common is a generalized and strident refusal to even acknowledge, let alone address or propose solutions or mitigating measures for, the massive negative consequences that would arise from implementing open borders." I think you are doing this by describing these "massive negative consequences" as "political aspects," and then refusing to address them as such. You have every right to refuse to address these issues. Free Speech and all that. But your inability/refusal to address these issues only corroborates my previous assessment: "'Open borders, like Socialism, is an idea that sounds great in theory, but which becomes pretty disastrous when put into practice. So the 'Yeah, but this time we'll get it right' crowd have some real heavy lifting to do." As between being a Latter-day Saint and an attorney, the former is far more cherished and valued to me. As it happens, though, being an attorney can often help me with being clear-eyed in how the Gospel can and must work in the real world. "Realpolitik" is "a system of politics or principles based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations" (emphasis added). Because it seemingly juxtaposes one approach ("practical") to the exclusion of the other ("rather than moral or ideological"), I find it realpolitik to be an inappropriate lens through which I, as a Latter-day Saint, should view immigration policy. Consequently, I tend to prefer a concept some have called "principled pragmatism." From ChatGPT: Quote A concept that embraces a balance between practical and moral/ideological considerations—rather than choosing one at the exclusion of the other—might be called "Principled Pragmatism." 1. Definitions & Conceptual Framing Realpolitik – Focuses purely on practicality, often at the expense of ethics or ideology. Principled Pragmatism – Seeks to balance moral principles and practical necessity, ensuring that decisions are both effective and ethically sound. 2. Related Terms & Concepts 🔹 Pragmatic Idealism – Combines a commitment to moral principles with a realistic approach to achieving them. 🔹 Ethical Realism – Recognizes power and interests but insists on moral responsibility in political decisions. 🔹 Responsible Statecraft – Prioritizes national interest while also upholding ethical considerations. 🔹 Practical Morality – Emphasizes moral goals but adapts to real-world constraints in their implementation. 3. Application in Politics & Governance Leaders who embody Principled Pragmatism: ✅ Abraham Lincoln – Advocated abolition but waited for the right political moment to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. ✅ Theodore Roosevelt – Promoted progressive reforms while ensuring economic and military strength. ✅ Nelson Mandela – Balanced justice and reconciliation with political stability after apartheid. 4. Conclusion While Realpolitik prioritizes raw power and expediency, Principled Pragmatism or Pragmatic Idealism acknowledges moral imperatives while adapting to practical realities—offering a more holistic and sustainable approach to governance and diplomacy. Respectfully, Ben, I think Open Borders is a "The {Moral} Ends Justify the {Immoral} Means"-style mode of thinking. See, e.g., this 2012 article: Quote When faced with an idea or choice one of the first questions most people ask themselves is- “Is this practical?” but few back up and ask, “Is this even right?” The first question deals with pragmatism (or with what works) while the second question deals with principle (or a fundamental truth, a foundation on which to base all other reasoning and behavior). If we ignore principle and merely look at what will “work”, we often fall victims to silly, expensive, addictive, and/or dangerous ideas and behaviors. I think Open Borders is one of whose "silly, expensive, addictive, and/or dangerous ideas and behaviors." Quote We suffer the consequences of our ignorance and moral decadence. We would be better off if we filtered ideas and choices through principle first, practicality second. If an idea doesn’t pass the first test then there is no sense in even contemplating how to execute it. If it does pass the first test then we can contemplate the practicalities of execution. This is principled pragmatism. I think your presentation of Open Borders only filters it through the first test (principle), but studiously avoids the second (practicality). And I think this because advocates of Open Borders know, but do not want to acknowledge, that the concept is manifestly not practical. Quote The term principled pragmatism is actually a redundancy since true principles are indeed pragmatic. It isn’t always obvious (in fact many times it is paradoxical) but when we base our decisions and convictions on truth- it always works out in the end. Isaiah Messianically wrote: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8-9). For many sincere individuals, experience and revelation have proven that the Lord’s ways are higher and more practical than ours. Though we may be tempted to believe that our “pragmatism” is more expedient than principle the Lord also taught “lean not unto your own understanding” (Proverbs 3:5), “yield to the persuasions of men no more” (D&C 5:21), and “keep all my commandments” (D&C 43:35). It’s been wisely said that, “When someone bases his life on principle, 99 percent of his decisions are already made.” Having made these decisions based on gospel principles beforehand helps alleviate the temptations to make bad decisions when those choices arise. The pseudo-pragmatism that many subscribe to might be best termed shortsightedness. The pseudo-pragmatist looks at what works here and now but since he failed to consider the principle, there will likely be unintended and/or unforeseen negative consequences eventually—whether in this life or the next. "The pseudo-pragmatist looks at what works here and now but since he failed to consider the principle, there will likely be unintended and/or unforeseen negative consequences eventually." A pretty good description for Open Borders, that. Quote Look at excessive debt as an example. A father of four on a $40,000/year income who goes into debt for a $70,000 BMW was being a pseudo-pragmatist. He saw something he wanted, asked himself how he could get it, and he went out and executed that plan. If only he had stopped to ask the questions- “Is this even right? Am I being responsible? What risk am I putting my self and family at?” But because of his “pragmatism” he did what “worked” and got what he wanted. Eventually his bills will come due. Hunger, loss of freedom/opportunities, embarrassment, marital issues, and/or bankruptcy will likely afflict him and his family. And Open Borders will likewise afflict America will untold terrible consequences, eventually. But the "pseuco-pragmatist" Open Borders crowd have their minds and hearts set on the Beemer, so... Quote Unnecessary spending applies to individuals the same way it applies to families (unaffordable vacations), businesses (lavish executive dinners/bonuses), governments (bailouts, imperialism, welfarism, etc) and other institutions. When spending exceeds revenue (debt, inflation, and taxes) government agents hardly ever consider serious spending cuts (a responsible direction) but instead look for ways to raise revenue (enslave). It seems as though much of the things being considered by agents of government are pseudo-pragmatic. Some could make a strong case that taxes are a form of pseudo-pragmatism since it is using force to take someone else’s property. But what correct principle is thievery or legal plunder being based on? A long list could be compiled of things we do through government that defy principle but are done because it’s “practical”. A few might include: Unwarranted searches/seizures and spying on innocent civilians to prevent crime Pre-emptive war because striking them first gives us the advantage Total War- destroying the moral, lives, and property of innocent people in order to “win” war Economic sanctions because causing a nation’s civilians to suffer usually causes their government to bend our way Torture- using pain, or disfigurement apparently gets our enemies to talk Protectionist regulations and licensure which favors one sector over others because it raises power/gain for government and gets rid of competition for certain industries Bailing out big banks and businesses because it would be economic disaster otherwise Welfarism (robbing Peter to pay Paul) because people will suffer/die if we don’t redistribute the wealth Enforcing social justice because certain groups of people with less opportunities deserve more- even if it’s at the expense of the right and control of property for individuals Inflating the currency because it’s a good way to reduce the national debt and pay for warfare and welfare Maintaining the American Empire because we want to enjoy our standard of living and we don’t want any “bad guys” to become a world superpower Look at each of these things and notice how immoral and shortsighted they are. And add Open Borders to the list, 'cuz that's about as "immoral and shortsighted" a concept as any of the others. Quote Also notice that fear is at the root of all of them. Many excuse or attempt to justify these things because they don’t see any other “practical” alternatives. Though choosing the right may not have immediate/obvious results Joseph F. Smith taught us: “That through [Christ’s] atonement, and by obedience to the principles of the gospel, mankind might be saved (D&C 138:4).” Unprincipled pragmatism is a form of focusing on ends at the expense of means. As explained here, worthy ends do not justify immoral means. This is what Open Borders does. Quote Paul had to debunk the false idea attributed to him— “Let us do evil that good may come” (Romans 3:8). Elder F. Burton Howard also taught: “The war in heaven was essentially about the means by which the plan of salvation would be implemented. It forever established the principle that even for the greatest of all ends, eternal life, the means are critical. It should be obvious to all thinking Latter-day Saints that the wrong means can never attain that objective.” (Repentance) So does something being “practical” automatically make it right? Do the principles “Thou shalt not steal, lie, or murder” take a back seat to Machiavellian statism because fear and aggression seem to work better than love and persuasion? Lest someone assume that this is condoning anarchism then please read the story of King Benjamin (Mosiah 2:14). Did he, an agent of the people, rule by fear and aggression or did he serve by love and persuasion? Government can exist in a proper frame when its role is based on correct principles—not pseudo-pragmatic ones. Open Borders is a "pseudo-pragmatic" principle. It would be perhaps the main ingredient of a recipe for anarchy in the United States. Quote Our lives can also exist to their fullest extent and maximum happiness when they are based on correct principles. “Once they are driven off the high ground of principle, so many people then settle for being “practical.” But immorality is so impractical! Provisional morality always emerges once people desert a basic truth. Such individuals are forever falling back trying to develop substitute rationales, drawing new lines beyond which they vow they will not be driven, only to abandon these also under the pressure of growing evils… Moral uncertainty always leads to behavioral absurdity. Prescriptions which are value-free always prove to be so costly. Unprincipled pragmatism is like advising someone who is hopelessly mired in quicksand not to struggle—so that he will merely sink more slowly!” –Neal A Maxwell (The Stern but Sweet Seventh Commandment) Open Borders is unprincipled pragmatism. In contrast, I think the Church's position is rather firmly rooted in principled pragmatism, which is why I have modeled my position on it rather than on facially implausible and foreseeably destructive and harmful notions like Open Borders. Thanks, -Smac 2
Danzo Posted February 1 Posted February 1 (edited) 16 minutes ago, smac97 said: "'Open borders, like Socialism, is an idea that sounds great in theory, but which becomes pretty disastrous when put into practice. So the 'Yeah, but this time we'll get it right' crowd have some real heavy lifting to do. I think the US survived open borders for a very long time. When the US decided to start closing its borders, it wasn't because immigration was disastrous. 16 minutes ago, smac97 said: 'Open borders, like Socialism, is an idea that sounds great in theory, but which becomes pretty disastrous when put into practice. If you were truly against socialism, you would support the idea that markets, not governments should control commerce. Free markets have always worked better than command economies Socialism is the idea that government should control the economy, rather than markets I believe you are a socialist. You have embraced socialism The fact that you cannot see that you are advocating socialism would be funny if the consequences weren't so tragic. Edited February 1 by Danzo
marineland Posted February 1 Posted February 1 6 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said: I think that open borders are more moral and ethical than closed borders. Open borders combined with legal immigration. 1
manol Posted February 1 Posted February 1 (edited) 8 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said: Jesus specifically points to immigrants as a class of people that deserve to be treated with respect and kindness. Another is that He identifies these immigrants as His immediate family (the meaning of the Greek in verse 40 that is translated "my brethren" indicates siblings). The message that Jesus offers is that if we fail to treat these immigrants as family, we risk exaltation in the Kingdom of God. 7 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said: What I said was that I think that open borders are more ethical and moral than closed borders. The pinnacle of morality and ethics is to follow the commandments of Jesus in loving God and loving your neighbor as yourself. Those two things carry with them, I think, the rest of Christian morality and ethics. 5 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said: This sort of insistence that somehow we can use reason to decide when and how that mercy is best applied is our taking it upon ourselves to be the judges of other men [and] is anathema to the gospel of Jesus Christ. 5 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said: God's mercy isn't limited by pragmatism. 4 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said: There is no question that in the parable in Matthew 25, the individuals Jesus is talking to have the right to turn away the strangers, and the poor, and the naked, and the hungry... whether God allows us in - and allows us to make that place [the Kingdom of Heaven] our home will in part be dependent on how we treated those in need that we have every right to ignore. 4 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said: What is the worth of a human soul? I quoted all of these because I think they are worth seeing again. Imo the parable you refer to implies that the King is literally in disguise as (or among) "the least of these". Or at a minimum, that we should behave as if he is... despite all the excuses we might come up with for not doing so. It will take a paradigm shift. Paradigm shifts happen one person at a time. Edited February 1 by manol 1
smac97 Posted February 1 Posted February 1 29 minutes ago, Danzo said: I think the US survived open borders for a very long time. Yes, 150 or so years ago. Things have changes a lot since then. From ChatGPT: Quote 1. Historical & Theoretical Support for Open Borders Some economists and scholars argue that open borders could boost global GDP by allowing labor to move freely to where it is most needed, reducing global inequality. However, practical applications have been limited. 🔹 Early U.S. Immigration (Pre-1882) The U.S. had de facto open borders before the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. Immigration was largely unregulated, and millions arrived without formal vetting. However, the economy was expanding rapidly, requiring labor for industrialization and westward expansion. Key Difference: Unlike today, social services, welfare programs, and national security concerns were minimal. "Key Difference: Unlike today, social services, welfare programs, and national security concerns were minimal." What are your thoughts on this? 29 minutes ago, Danzo said: When the US decided to start closing its borders, it wasn't because immigration was disastrous. Regardless, not having secured/controlled borders now is a pretty "disastrous" idea. Thanks, -Smac
Danzo Posted February 1 Posted February 1 (edited) 28 minutes ago, smac97 said: Yes, 150 or so years ago. Things have changes a lot since then. From ChatGPT: "Key Difference: Unlike today, social services, welfare programs, and national security concerns were minimal." What are your thoughts on this? Regardless, not having secured/controlled borders now is a pretty "disastrous" idea. Thanks, -Smac You are a socialist, because you want the government to control the labor market. Markets are messy, which is why they make people like you uncomfortable, businesses fail, people are laid off, some people get more money than other people, winners and losers can be unpredictable. This is why people turn to socialism, because they crave the security and certainty government control promises. It turns out that the government is actually not very good at controlling the economy, which is why market systems produce more wealth than socialist economies. Also, the invisible hand of supply and demand creates black markets and the dangers associated with it. The US immigration law is a perfect example of why socialism is such a bad idea. US law set the number of immigrants to 675,000 in 1995. And it hasn't changed since then. That number hasn't been changed or updated in thirty years. Even the soviet union used used five year plans. Has the US labor market changed at all in those thirty years? is congress even capable of making even a yearly change to that number? What is that number even based on? The labor market changes daily, not every three decades. Because the number is an arbitrary number that does not change with economic conditions, guess what happens? The same thing that happens to every market that is irrationally regulated. A black market is created. Government Regulation and restrictions on the immigrant labor market is just another example of Big Government Socialism. Edited February 1 by Danzo 2
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now