Matthew 25 and Immigration Policy

[Benjamin McGuire]

Just now, smac97 said:

1. Your comments appear to indict the Church's position:

And, I am okay with my comments indicting what you believe is the Church's position. What fascinates me from the link that you provided is this part of the Church's statement:

Quote

Public officials should create and administer laws that reflect the best of our aspirations as a just and caring society. Such laws will properly balance love for neighbors, family cohesion, and the observance of just and enforceable laws.

I have yet to see in any of your comments on immigration anything that presents itself as an effort to recognize the ethical and moral component of our accepting immigrants. It's just not there. Just veiled bigotry and an oversized emphasis on concerns for national sovereignty.

Just now, smac97 said:

Your refusal to acknowledge the huge problems arising from Open Borders is a strong indicator of pie-in-the-sky, rainbows-and-unicorns thinking about immigration policy.

And your unwillingness to recognize the ethical and moral dimensions of the question make you into one of Matthew's goats ...

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Open borders will massively harm, likely even destroy, the United States.

And I disagree. But since neither of us have evidence ... whatever.

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

You are, it seems, comparing Open Borders with Closed Borders.  I think that is very inaccurate, as I have never advocated for closed borders, but rather controlled borders.

My thread is not directly pointed at you. And I am not saying that controlled borders is wrong - we certainly have very different perspectives on what that actually means in practice. We can control the borders by allowing most immigrants to come in legally, couldn't we. The challenge is that the definition of control may mean very different things to the two of us.

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You are not addressing these. 

And I don't intend to. That is a political discussion. You can take it elsewhere.

[smac97]

There is an aspect of the current discussion/debate about immigration policy that I think does not get enough attention, namely, the financial incentives involved.  If money, huge amounts of it, were not involved in ushering in hundreds of thousands, even millions, of people into the United States via illegal means, and if we were instead speaking about the matter in purely humanitarian terms, then I think advocacy for Open Borders might have a little more purchase (but not much, since it is still a hugely harmful idea).

As it is, though, huge amounts of money are in play in this context, and with that money comes incentives to to usher in as many illegal aliens as possible.  Moreover, that money seems to be cropping up in some interesting places. 

See, for example, this article about Bishop Budde: Episcopal bishop lectures Trump while earning taxpayer millions to bring migrants into US

Some excerpts:

Quote

Episcopal Bishop Mariann Budde’s sermon to President Trump during an inaugural prayer service, coupled with her church’s advocacy for humanitarian immigration programs, reveals a striking hypocrisy — one that could be seen as self-serving and even a conflict of interest.

That’s because the federal contracting arm of the church, Episcopal Migration Ministry (EMM), is paid to bring in people on resettlement programs that Trump has temporarily paused and targeted for re-evaluation.

EMM budget figures for 2024 are not available yet, but in 2023 it earned $53 million from various taxpayer-funded government programs to resettle 3,600 individuals.

Wow.  That works out to nearly $15,000 per individual ($14,722.22).  To the tune of $53 million dollars per year.  That's quite a gravy train of taxpayer money going to the Episcopal Church. 

Was keeping this gravy train going part of Bishop Budde's calculus when she was writing her "sermon to President Trump," whose administration she likely - and correctly - surmised might scrutinize government expenditures, including the one paying tens of millions of dollars to the Episcopal Church?

Was any part of Bishop Budde's call for "mercy" influenced by the financial self interest considerations of the Episcopal Church?

Quote

EMM “sponsored” 6,400 individuals from 48 countries in 2024. The leading nationalities were Afghans under a special humanitarian program, refugees from the Democratic Republic of Congo, and others in smaller numbers from seven distinct special resettlement programs.

Let's see, at $14,722.22 per head, that works out to around $94,222.22 of taxpayer money going into the coffers of the Episcopal Church.

I wonder how much, if any, of that money is not spent on "taxpayer-funded government programs" and instead is used to subsidize other financial needs of the Episcopal Church, which, like so many others, has been in substantial decline for a while now (see, e.g., here).  

Quote

Unlike everyday immigrants, these new arrivals receive government assistance and, most importantly, are immediately eligible for all forms of welfare, such as Medicaid and cash assistance, on the same basis as a US citizen.

Further, they can immediately sponsor friends and relatives under a recent Biden expansion of the refugee resettlement program.

The Office of Refugee Resettlement was projecting 656,500 new arrivals in 2025, who would fall under its care. Clearly this is a program wildly out of control.

In an wild understatement, a 2012 Government Accountability Office report quotes an official noting that “funding is based on the number of refugees they serve, so affiliates have an incentive to maintain or increase the number of refugees they resettle each year rather than allowing the number to decrease.”

"{A}ffiliates," such as the Episcopal Church, "have an incentive to maintain or increase the number of refugees they resettle each year rather than allowing the number to decrease."

That "incentive" is, it seems, a financial one.

Quote

Since EMM’s ability to lobby is restricted, the Episcopal Church itself, being a separate legal entity from EMM, lobbies in D.C. for more programs that benefit EMM.

Huh.  So what Bishop Budde's sermon a lobbying effort?

I don't know that I have a particularized objection to religious groups having the ability to "lobby" in D.C., except to the extent such lobbying includes efforts along the lines of "Hey, Federal Government, please give us more taxpayer money."

Quote

EMM brings in LGBTQ refugees and asylees in a special federal refugee program started during the Obama administration called “Preferred Communities.”

This program pays a premium over standard refugee resettlement for contractors that resettle “refugees experiencing social or psychological difficulties, including emotional trauma resulting from war and/or sexual or gender-based violence; survivors of torture; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) refugees; refugees who are HIV positive; populations with physical disabilities or other medical conditions.”

Then there is the public-private partnership program misnamed “Matching Grant.”

To get $1 of Department of Health and Human Services money, EMM must contribute just 10 cents, along with 90 cents worth of used cars, furniture, and monetized volunteer time.

When the program started out, it really was almost a true match of $1 of grant money for each dollar contributed by the contractor, but no longer. So much for attempting to incentivize private charity; public money has pretty much driven out private money in all resettlement programs.

"{P}ublic money has pretty much driven out private money in all resettlement programs."

I wonder if this is accurate.

Quote

The Episcopal Church also earns a commission for collecting on travel loans made to refugees resettled by EMM.

Here’s how it works: The U.S. taxpayer funds the International Organization for Migration, which loans money for airfare for the refugee’s flight to America. If the refugee pays the interest-free loan back, the church (not EMM) pockets 25% of the money. If the loan is not paid back, no one is the worse off, except the taxpayer.

I wonder how much money the Episcopal Church has made off of these programs.

Quote

According to its own financial reporting, the Episcopal Church has at least one “government-funded position.” E-mailed questions about the responsibilities of this position were not answered.

Of course, it is not fair to question the Episcopalians alone on this.

Their resettlement contractor is the second smallest of the 10 contractors in the industry. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) dwarfs EMM.

Forbes reported that USCCB affiliate Catholic Charities USA, which has its hand in all aspects of immigration and seems to get money from every government agency except NASA, received $1.4 billion in taxpayer dollars in 2021. That’s 68 times more than EMM got that year.

It was never intended that the sponsoring organizations, formerly known as “Voluntary Agencies,” would be purely federal contractors, with all the behavior, untoward incentives, money, and influence-peddling that this brings, not to mention questions of church-state relations which are never raised in this context.

I am curious as to how the irreligious/secular folks on this board feel about the foregoing.  It seems like there is a lot of public money flowing into the coffers of religious groups, under the auspices of "immigration."

Quote

Any re-tooling of our humanitarian immigration programs must put the bulk of responsibility back on the “sponsoring” entity and limit new arrivals’ access to welfare.

As for encouraging the church to practice true sacrificial charity, Bishop Budde may have put it best when she said in an interview with Rachel Maddow, “the first and primary role that we have is [to lead] by example.”

Interesting stuff.

Reading the above article made me curious as to whether The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints receives any federal funding for any of its humanitarian/philanthropic work.  AFAICS, the answer appears to be "No."

See, e.g., here: LDS Charities and Faith-Based Humanitarian Aid (published in The Yale Review of International Studies)

Quote

Accountability and Transparency

Accountability and transparency are issues throughout the humanitarian field. As non-governmental organizations, FBOs in particular are not accountable to taxpayers. If they take no public money, they are not accountable to governments, either. They can often be held accountable by major donors, although depending on the interests of the donors involved, this may be problematic in and of itself. To measure accountability, I will use public records to determine whether or not LDS Charities is regularly audited (if so, by whom) and whether or not donors exercise decision-making control (and if so, how much).

LDS Charities lacks a specific avenue through which they can be held accountable for the success of their projects and their financial well-being. It appears that LDS Charities does not accept public money, and governments cannot ask for regular updates on their work – updates which would likely be made public as well. 

If anyone has further information on this, I would like to see it.  

I suspect that in coming days we are going to see a lot of information come out about public money being used to fund supposedly "humanitarian" projects, but which have really has been being used to fund things other than humanitarian projects.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

And, I am okay with my comments indicting what you believe is the Church's position. What fascinates me from the link that you provided is this part of the Church's statement:

I have yet to see in any of your comments on immigration anything that presents itself as an effort to recognize the ethical and moral component of our accepting immigrants. It's just not there. Just veiled bigotry and an oversized emphasis on concerns for national sovereignty.

And your unwillingness to recognize the ethical and moral dimensions of the question make you into one of Matthew's goats ...

And I disagree. But since neither of us have evidence ... whatever.

My thread is not directly pointed at you. And I am not saying that controlled borders is wrong - we certainly have very different perspectives on what that actually means in practice. We can control the borders by allowing most immigrants to come in legally, couldn't we. The challenge is that the definition of control may mean very different things to the two of us.

And I don't intend to. That is a political discussion. You can take it elsewhere.

 

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There is an aspect of the current discussion/debate about immigration policy that I think does not get enough attention, namely, the financial incentives involved.  If money, huge amounts of it, were not involved in ushering in hundreds of thousands, even millions, of people into the United States via illegal means, and if we were instead speaking about the matter in purely humanitarian terms, then I think advocacy for Open Borders might have a little more purchase (but not much, since it is still a hugely harmful idea).

As it is, though, huge amounts of money are in play in this context, and with that money comes incentives to to usher in as many illegal aliens as possible.  Moreover, that money seems to be cropping up in some interesting places. 

See, for example, this article about Bishop Budde: Episcopal bishop lectures Trump while earning taxpayer millions to bring migrants into US

Some excerpts:

Wow.  That works out to nearly $15,000 per individual ($14,722.22).  To the tune of $53 million dollars per year.  That's quite a gravy train of taxpayer money going to the Episcopal Church. 

Was keeping this gravy train going part of Bishop Budde's calculus when she was writing her "sermon to President Trump," whose administration she likely - and correctly - surmised might scrutinize government expenditures, including the one paying tens of millions of dollars to the Episcopal Church?

Was any part of Bishop Budde's call for "mercy" influenced by the financial self interest considerations of the Episcopal Church?

Let's see, at $14,722.22 per head, that works out to around $94,222.22 of taxpayer money going into the coffers of the Episcopal Church.

I wonder how much, if any, of that money is not spent on "taxpayer-funded government programs" and instead is used to subsidize other financial needs of the Episcopal Church, which, like so many others, has been in substantial decline for a while now (see, e.g., here).  

"{A}ffiliates," such as the Episcopal Church, "have an incentive to maintain or increase the number of refugees they resettle each year rather than allowing the number to decrease."

That "incentive" is, it seems, a financial one.

Huh.  So what Bishop Budde's sermon a lobbying effort?

I don't know that I have a particularized objection to religious groups having the ability to "lobby" in D.C., except to the extent such lobbying includes efforts along the lines of "Hey, Federal Government, please give us more taxpayer money."

"{P}ublic money has pretty much driven out private money in all resettlement programs."

I wonder if this is accurate.

I wonder how much money the Episcopal Church has made off of these programs.

I am curious as to how the irreligious/secular folks on this board feel about the foregoing.  It seems like there is a lot of public money flowing into the coffers of religious groups, under the auspices of "immigration."

Interesting stuff.

Reading the above article made me curious as to whether The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints receives any federal funding for any of its humanitarian/philanthropic work.  AFAICS, the answer appears to be "No."

See, e.g., here: LDS Charities and Faith-Based Humanitarian Aid (published in The Yale Review of International Studies)

If anyone has further information on this, I would like to see it.  

I suspect that in coming days we are going to see a lot of information come out about public money being used to fund supposedly "humanitarian" projects, but which have really has been being used to fund things other than humanitarian projects.

Thanks,

-Smac

I find the exchange between you two a very good demonstration of Moral Foundations Theory dynamics in religious people discussing their experience and interpretation of the same event (see https://moralfoundations.org/), in this case border and immigration policy. This MFT offers a social psychology explanation of how people reason morally, and by extension how they might do so in a constructive fashion to resolve moral (and other) issues of common concern. It posits that our sense of morality is built on five innate foundations that are the same across cultures, but as with any personality profile, different people have different modules in different balance: no one combination is right or wrong, and they can be measured much like the Meyers Briggs and other personality assessment tools.

I ran a ChapGPT based on Benjamin's prompt, but reversing the comparison to: How are closed borders more moral and ethical than open borders? I got as thorough and qualified reply:

The debate over closed versus open borders often hinges on a variety of philosophical, ethical, and practical considerations. Advocates for closed borders might argue that they are more moral or ethical for several reasons:

National Sovereignty: Closed borders can be seen as a way to uphold the sovereignty of a nation. Proponents argue that countries have the right to control their own borders and make decisions about who enters their territory, ensuring the integrity of national culture and identity.

Public Safety: Supporters may argue that closed borders can enhance public safety by allowing governments to better regulate who enters the country. This could include screening for potential threats, such as criminal activity or terrorism, which proponents believe is a moral imperative to protect citizens.

Economic Protection: Advocates might contend that closed borders can protect local jobs and economic stability. By limiting immigration, they argue, countries can prioritize their own citizens' employment and wage levels, which they see as a moral responsibility.

Resource Allocation: Some suggest that closed borders can lead to more responsible management of resources. They argue that open borders can strain social services, healthcare, and education, especially in countries that might not have the capacity to support a sudden influx of immigrants.

Social Cohesion: From this perspective, closed borders can foster social cohesion and integration, preventing cultural clashes. Advocates believe that allowing a controlled number of immigrants can make it easier to assimilate newcomers into society, thereby promoting harmony.

Preventing Exploitation: Some argue that open borders can lead to the exploitation of migrants, as they might face poorer working conditions and lower wages. By controlling immigration, proponents believe countries can create better conditions for workers and protect vulnerable populations.

Duty to Fellow Citizens: Supporters may argue that the primary moral obligation of a government is to its own citizens. They contend that it is ethical for a state to prioritize the welfare and rights of its own residents over those of non-citizens.

While these arguments can frame closed borders as more moral or ethical, it's essential to note that the debate is highly complex, and many people argue for the moral necessity of open borders based on principles of human rights, equality, and compassion. Each perspective involves weighing different ethical principles and consequences, leading to diverse conclusions about what is considered moral or ethical.

ChatGPT is very MFT-fluid! I think the Lord is also very flexible in how His doctrines are progressively better understood and applied by His children in mortality (maybe beyond?), especially when done with an eye toward good faith and charity. This is why I think councils are such a valuable means in bringing about a meeting of the minds, if not a unification.

[smac97]

57 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

And, I am okay with my comments indicting what you believe is the Church's position.

I have not posted what I believe to be the Church's position.  I have instead quoted it (the Church's position) verbatim.  And you seem to be indicting it.

57 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

What fascinates me from the link that you provided is this part of the Church's statement:

I have yet to see in any of your comments on immigration anything that presents itself as an effort to recognize the ethical and moral component of our accepting immigrants. It's just not there.  

Again, 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.  

Did you notice the parts about "compassionate accommodations where at all possible" and "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"?

Quote

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).

I have also repeatedly pointed, quoted verbatim, and endorsed the Church's published statements.  See here:

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.

And here:

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.
...

What to do with the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants now residing in various states within the United States is the biggest challenge in the immigration debate.  The bedrock moral issue for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is how we treat each other as children of God.  

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. 

As those on all sides of the immigration debate in the United States have noted, this issue is one that must ultimately be resolved by the federal government.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is concerned that any state legislation that only contains enforcement provisions is likely to fall short of the high moral standard of treating each other as children of God. 

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. 

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.

Citing the above, I have said:

Quote

Having quoted this, I have said: "I like this.  A lot.  A lot."

My position is based on A) my own assessment, and B) the Church's counsel.  

I think securing our border is a great idea.  I would be in support of this regardless of which politicians say what.

I have also, in various ways, acknowledged the "boots-on-the-ground reality of years and years of American politicians of various stripes being either grossly negligent or intentional in their dereliction of duties re: enforcement of border security and immigration law," and that we "have implicitly invited the large scale violation of our borders and immigration laws, and in the process many fine and hard-working and otherwise-law-abiding people have created deep roots in the United States," and that "we need to make some accommodations for these folks (though not including citizenship)."

 

57 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Just veiled bigotry

Sigh.

Stuff like this is why the Orange Man is in the White House.  Again, from my various prior posts:

• "compassionate accommodations  {for illegal aliens} where at all possible"
• "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"
• "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."
• "I grant the point that some accommodation may be appropriate for some who came here unlawfully under the wink-wink-nudge-nudge system."
• "I am open to some limited amnesty provisions at the outset to accommodate these folks {}.  I am also open to substantially revising and expanding Green Card entry into the U.S."
• "{W}e 'have implicitly invited the large scale violation of our borders and immigration laws, and in the process many fine and hard-working and otherwise-law-abiding people have created deep roots in the United States' ... '{W}e need to make some accommodations for these folks (though not including citizenship).'"

I don't see any "bigotry," veiled or otherwise, in these statements.

57 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

and an oversized emphasis on concerns for national sovereignty.

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.

You are not addressing these.  At all.  Instead, all we are getting are unexplained and unearned and self-declared virtue-signaling plaudits about open borders are "ethical and moral," and pie-in-the-sky, rainbows-and-unicorns sentiments.

57 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

And your unwillingness to recognize the ethical and moral dimensions of the question make you into one of Matthew's goats ...

And more ad hominem.

I am happy to discuss ethical and moral dimensions.  I think evaluating the Church's published statements is a good starting place.

57 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Quote

Open borders will massively harm, likely even destroy, the United States.

And I disagree. But since neither of us have evidence ... whatever.

I think we have plenty of evidence.

First, we have the common-sense counsel from the Church from 2011: 

Quote

Unchecked and unregulated, such a flow {of undocumented immigrants} may destabilize society and ultimately become unsustainable.

I sure would like to see you address this.

Second, we can look at recent instances of unregulated mass migration and see some pretty huge problems with it.  Lebanon.  Germany.  The U.K.  Sweden.  Italy.  Greece.  

Again, from ChatGPT: "No modern developed nation has successfully implemented a fully open border policy while maintaining economic stability, national security, and social cohesion."  If you have evidence to the contrary, i would like to see it.

57 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

My thread is not directly pointed at you.

He said, having began the thread by acknowledging it as a response to my prior inquiry about your support of Open Borders.

57 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

And I am not saying that controlled borders is wrong - we certainly have very different perspectives on what that actually means in practice. We can control the borders by allowing most immigrants to come in legally, couldn't we.

Ben: "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."

(For the umpteenth time, I have never advocated for "closed borders").

Also Ben: "And I am not saying that controlled borders is wrong."

So which is it?  Open Borders or Controlled Borders?  Which is better in your view?

57 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The challenge is that the definition of control may mean very different things to the two of us.

Then perhaps we could have that discussion, instead of you resorting to ad hominem slurs.

57 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

And I don't intend to. That is a political discussion. You can take it elsewhere.

He said, after calling me a bigot, and after advocating for Open Borders.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, CV75 said:

 

I find the exchange between you two a very good demonstration of Moral Foundations Theory dynamics in religious people discussing their experience and interpretation of the same event (see https://moralfoundations.org/), in this case border and immigration policy. This MFT offers a social psychology explanation of how people reason morally, and by extension how they might do so in a constructive fashion to resolve moral (and other) issues of common concern. It posits that our sense of morality is built on five innate foundations that are the same across cultures, but as with any personality profile, different people have different modules in different balance: no one combination is right or wrong, and they can be measured much like the Meyers Briggs and other personality assessment tools.

I ran a ChapGPT based on Benjamin's prompt, but reversing the comparison to: How are closed borders more moral and ethical than open borders?

I think a better question would be to compare "open borders" to "controlled borders."  There are substantial differences between "controlled" and "closed" borders.

Thanks,

-Smac

[longview]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I suspect that in coming days we are going to see a lot of information come out about public money being used to fund supposedly "humanitarian" projects, but which have really has been being used to fund things other than humanitarian projects.

This smacks (pun intended) of a massive money-laundering racket. Everyone is fully aware of how humongous caravans were organized and conveyed thru the Darien Gap (see description below). This had to be heavily funded.

Mexico had minimal problems accommodating them as they traveled to the Rio Grande. It appears the cartels were willing accomplices. Maybe they benefitted by being able to insert their drug mules into the caravans. Even to add "unaccompanied" child sex slaves. They did not need to pay "coyotes" that formerly were needed to make a stealth entry.

Then they were escorted by CBP agents (see second desc below) to waiting luxury busses. At no point did the invaders lack for food and water and tents/shelters. The busses were sent to all states and most cities. The game of pin-ball ricochet ensued by various municipalities desperately trying to off-load their burdens. The most hilarious example being the super wealthy Martha's Vineyard's refusal to give accommodations to caravan busses. Even though they had designated themselves to be a sanctuary city.

It seems McGuire is being intentionally dense by claiming the border is "closed." Texas tried several times to impede the invaders but CBP agents interfered by removing razor wires and pontoons away from the Rio Grande. CBP was "radically" repurposed from border interdiction to facilitating the in-flow. So instead of the border being "closed" it has been a deluge of unwanted welfare grifts.

What is the Darién Gap?

• A 60-mile stretch of rainforest that crosses the border of Colombia and Panama 
• The only land bridge between the two continents 
• Part of the Pan-American Highway, a network of roads that runs from Alaska to Argentina 
• A region of dense rainforest, mountains, swamps, and rivers 
• Known for being inhospitable, dangerous, and difficult to navigate 

CBP, which stands for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, plays a crucial role in border security by managing and controlling the nation's borders, including preventing illegal entry of people and contraband, safeguarding against potential threats like terrorism, and facilitating lawful international travel and trade at ports of entry, all while upholding customs and immigration laws; essentially acting as the first line of defense at the US borders. 

Key aspects of CBP's border security role:

• Apprehending illegal entrants:
• CBP officers and agents are responsible for identifying and detaining individuals attempting to enter the US illegally. 
• Drug and contraband interception:
• They work to detect and seize illegal drugs, weapons, and other contraband being smuggled across the border. 
• Agricultural protection:
• CBP also monitors for potential agricultural threats like pests and diseases entering the country through imported goods. 
• Port of entry inspections:
• At airports, seaports, and land crossings, CBP officers inspect travelers and cargo to ensure compliance with customs regulations. 
• Border Patrol operations:
• CBP's Border Patrol agents patrol areas between ports of entry to prevent illegal crossings and apprehend individuals attempting to enter the country illegally. 
• Air and Marine Operations:
• CBP utilizes aircraft and marine vessels to monitor and patrol remote areas of the border. 

It's mission was radically changed in 2021 to fully accommodate the illegal invasion. This despite laws on the books that were intended to secure the border.

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, longview said:

This smacks (pun intended) of a massive money-laundering racket. Everyone is fully aware of how humongous caravans were organized and conveyed thru the Darien Gap (see description below). This had to be heavily funded.

You know, I'm not sure everyone is "fully aware" that this stuff is going on.  Funded by whom?  To whom?  Which entities?  Using funds under what pretenses?  To do what?  How much of money earmarked for "humanitarian" purposes is actually used for such purposes (as opposed to being gobbled up or diverted as "administrative" and other expenditures)?

12 minutes ago, longview said:

Mexico had minimal problems accommodating them as they traveled to the Rio Grande. It appears the cartels were willing accomplices. Maybe they benefitted by being able to insert their drug mules into the caravans. Even to add "unaccompanied" child sex slaves. They did not need to pay "coyotes" that formerly were needed to make a stealth entry.

Then they were escorted by CBP agents (see second desc below) to waiting luxury busses. At no point did the invaders lack for food and water and tents/shelters. The busses were sent to all states and most cities.

I am troubled by this stuff.  I want a generous immigration policy for people who want to come here legally and just work and improve themselves and contribute to society, but we need to do it "above board" so that we are not facilitating the passage of drugs, criminals and gangsters, sex slaves, diseases, hostile foreign agents, and other terrible things.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 3, 2025 by smac97

[CV75]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think a better question would be to compare "open borders" to "controlled borders."  There are substantial differences between "controlled" and "closed" borders.

Thanks,

-Smac

"Open border" seems to be used in both moral (philosophical) and tactical (political) conversations. "Controlled borders" seems to be used as part of a more tactical conversation. So, if someone wants to talk "open borders" in a moral sense but not a political sense, they will not want to get into tactical discussions about controlled borders.

I think this suggests an added layer of challenge when saints of varying moral foundations are talking in philosophical, political or both aspects at once. A sense of morality may underly both, but it seems to more directly underlie philosophy than politics, and then there are the various areas (foundations) of moral consideration, which even in good faith can be found in unequal or even disproportionate proportion in the minds of the saints, simply because of their innate makeup.

Edited February 3, 2025 by CV75

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

What you are suggesting is that somehow my proposal of an open border means that we will no longer be looking at anyone - and that's not true at all. It is this sort of fear mongering that creates the misinformation that we see all the time when discussing these issues.

One could even have an open border in the sense of restricting to certain ports but letting all through at those points and thoroughly searching and then documenting all who pass through, including fingerprinting and DNA taken at that border before entering and then followed up with medical assessments and basic treatment if necessary including temporary quarantining if sick along with background checks and being at least initially tracked while in the country to ensure needs are met and safety for immigrants and citizens is a high priority.  If people lie about where they are heading or other suspicious behaviour, they can be red flagged and their case handed over to be investigated by law enforcement.  If there is something odd going on with the children involved, instant red flagged.

Not suggesting this is the way to do it, just pointing out that open borders could be done in different ways.  Open borders just require you let people in, it doesn’t dictate how you do it or what you do to them after they cross the border.  Doesn’t even require you let all goods or services through either.

Edited February 3, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

money, huge amounts of it, were not involved in ushering in hundreds of thousands, even millions, of people into the United States via illegal means, and if we were instead speaking about the matter in purely humanitarian terms, then I think advocacy for Open Borders might have a little more purchase (but not much, since it is still a hugely harmful idea).

As it is, though, huge amounts of money are in play in this context, and with that money comes incentives to to usher in as many illegal aliens as possible.  Moreover, that money seems to be cropping up in some interesting places. 

Surely it’s the illegality that drives the money though?  Wouldn’t that incentive disappear if open borders became a thing?  Legal businesses could help immigrants get here, costing much, much less most likely for all involved. 
 

Plus open borders do not require letting all goods in, search and seizures of drugs and illegal goods can still occur.

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

One could even have an open border in the sense of restricting to certain ports but letting all through at those points and thoroughly searching and then documenting all who pass through, including fingerprinting and DNA taken at that border before entering and then followed up with background checks and being at least initially tracked while in the country to ensure needs are met and safety for immigrants and citizens is a high priority.  If people lie about where they are heading or other suspicious behaviour, they can be red flagged and their case handed over to be investigated by law enforcement.  If there is something odd going on with the children involved, instant red flagged.

Not suggesting this is the way to do it, just pointing out that open borders could be done in different ways.  Open borders just require you let people in, it doesn’t dictate how you do it or what you do to them after they cross the border.  Doesn’t even require you let all goods or services through either.

What would be the purpose of searching, documenting, and tracking all who enter, if the border remains unrestricted regardless of what is found?  (not arguing, just trying to understand the post better)

[Danzo]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think a better question would be to compare "open borders" to "controlled borders."  There are substantial differences between "controlled" and "closed" borders.

Thanks,

-Smac

The current law actually has the border open . . . to some people.  And Closed  . . . to some people.

The border is Open to me.   I can come (and go) pretty much as I please.  there is some control, where I have to check in with Customs and some times, when going through San Ysidro, wait a six hours, but other than delays and restrictions on what I can bring and what I can't bring in, the border is pretty much open.

If you are afraid of what Open Borders might do,  then you should look at how people who have open borders behave.

For example, my mother and father in law.  The border is completely open to them. they can come, they can  go whenever they want, subject to economic restrictions and the aforementioned delays.   

In their case, they choose to live in Mexico and when they can afford it, visit the US.  

Closed borders force people to make a decision (that it is very difficult to change) on where they stay.

[rodheadlee]

On 2/2/2025 at 6:33 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

I think that the issue of outer darkness is problematic because we know virtually nothing about it. There was a statement by Brigham Young that really reveals the kinds of possibilities that early leaders felt could exist there - in light of an infinite atonement:

 

I can assure you through personal experience there is nothing, absolutely nothing, in the Outer Darkness. I committed suicide and died when I was 18. I was certain that I was going to be alone with my thoughts for all eternity. I can't explain it to you well enough to make you understand when I say all alone for all eternity that's exactly what I mean. I had never heard of the church at this point in my life. Obviously I was given a second chance. I haven't been as well with it as I would have hoped but I'm limping along trying to make a difference. I could see other sectors of life but there is no way to cross over. Nor could they hear me nor I them I could only see them.

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

One could even have an open border in the sense of restricting to certain ports but letting all through at those points and thoroughly searching and then documenting all who pass through, including fingerprinting and DNA taken at that border before entering and then followed up with medical assessments and basic treatment if necessary including temporary quarantining if sick along with background checks and being at least initially tracked while in the country to ensure needs are met and safety for immigrants and citizens is a high priority.  If people lie about where they are heading or other suspicious behaviour, they can be red flagged and their case handed over to be investigated by law enforcement.  If there is something odd going on with the children involved, instant red flagged.

Not suggesting this is the way to do it, just pointing out that open borders could be done in different ways.  Open borders just require you let people in, it doesn’t dictate how you do it or what you do to them after they cross the border.  Doesn’t even require you let all goods or services through either.

Looks like we need to define terms.  Everything you describe above reflects controlled borders, not open borders.

From ChatGPT:

Quote

Difference Between "Open Borders" and "Controlled Borders"

The key difference between open borders and controlled borders lies in how much regulation a country imposes on the movement of people across its boundaries.

---

1️⃣ Open Borders: Little to No Immigration Control

🚪 Definition: A policy where people can freely enter, exit, and work in a country without needing visas, permits, or legal documentation.

✔️ No immigration restrictions – Anyone can enter and live in the country.
✔️ No border enforcement – No need for visas, background checks, or immigration patrols.
✔️ No work authorization needed – Foreigners can work without restrictions.
✔️ Full freedom of movement – People can stay indefinitely or gain residency easily.

📝 Examples of Open Borders Policies:

• European Union (Schengen Zone) – Citizens of Schengen countries can travel, live, and work across member states without visas.
• Pre-1920s United States – Before modern immigration laws, people could enter freely without restrictions.

---

2️⃣ Controlled Borders: Regulated Immigration & Enforcement

🚧 Definition: A policy where a country regulates who enters and under what conditions, typically using visas, work permits, and border security measures.

✔️ Immigration laws & visas – Foreigners must apply for visas, residency, or work permits.
✔️ Border enforcement – Governments use border security, patrols, and checkpoints to control movement.
✔️ Employment restrictions – Work visas or sponsorships are required to legally work.
✔️ Deportation & legal consequences – Unauthorized migrants may face removal if they enter illegally.

📝 Examples of Controlled Borders Policies:

• United States – Requires visas for most immigrants and enforces border security.
• Canada & Australia – Uses a point-based immigration system and enforces legal entry.
• Japan – Strictly limits immigration and temporary work visas.

---

3️⃣ Key Differences Between Open & Controlled Borders

Feature	Open Borders	Controlled Borders
Immigration Regulation	No restrictions	Entry controlled by visas & permits
Border Enforcement	No security checks	Border patrol & entry restrictions
Freedom to Work	Anyone can work	Work visas required
Residency/Citizenship	Easily granted or unrestricted	Requires legal process
Deportation	No deportations	Unauthorized migrants may be removed

---

4️⃣ Which System Do Most Countries Use?

✅ Most modern countries use a controlled border system because it allows them to manage population growth, national security, and economic impacts.
✅ Only specific regions, like the Schengen Zone in Europe, use semi-open borders, but even they have some restrictions (e.g., temporary border controls in emergencies).

---

5️⃣ Summary

🔹 Open Borders = No restrictions on entry, exit, or work.
🔹 Controlled Borders = Regulated immigration with visas, enforcement, and security.

Which generalized approach are you referencing in your above remarks?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

What would be the purpose of searching, documenting, and tracking all who enter, if the border remains unrestricted regardless of what is found?  (not arguing, just trying to understand the post better)

If immigrants commit crimes, easier to figure out who did it (assuming a national database).  This could be a deterrent.  Also trafficking of kids or anyone would be harder, they could claim stepparents of course or adopted, but having the additional paperwork and then tracking afterwards makes it more avenues to be caught.  Background checks and tracking would give a heads up to law enforcement on who they should invest time observing.

There could even be the extreme response of if a background check pops up criminal activity of any sort or anything else undesirable, the immigrant doesn’t get deported, but gets imprisoned.  The border is still technically open.   

A country willing to go this route likely has CCTV everywhere, big law enforcement presence in other ways, etc.  I was imagining how one might have a very controlling and authoritative (not sure that is the right word, but no time right now) government and still accept open borders.  

I don’t see it useful to argue against open borders in and of themselves without greater context because how open borders are handled would be what makes them incentives for good or bad behaviour imo.

But as Smac mentions, my definition of open border might be too broad.

Quote

Open Borders = No restrictions on entry, exit, or work.
🔹 Controlled Borders = Regulated immigration with visas, enforcement, and security.

I am not suggesting visas are required, they are just entering info into a database, not stopping people.  If they don’t have such documentation, they create ids, etc so immigrants are traceable.

But if any control/interaction with officials beyond have a nice day at all means a border isn’t opened, then my possiblity is not an open border.

However, ChatGPT said open borders does not mean goods and services are not controlled, so it seems at least some restrictions can be allowed with open borders.

Here’s another ChatGPT response.

Quote

"Open borders" refers to a policy or concept in which countries allow the free and unrestricted movement of people across their borders without imposing significant barriers like visas, permits, or other legal restrictions. In such a system, individuals from other countries could enter, leave, and settle within a country with little to no government intervention.

Government intervention is not to stop people in my example, but only to allow the possibility of tracking them after entering the country if it is seen as needed.

Edited February 3, 2025 by Calm

[Analytics]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

As it is, though, huge amounts of money are in play in this context, and with that money comes incentives to to usher in as many illegal aliens as possible.  Moreover, that money seems to be cropping up in some interesting places. 

See, for example, this article about Bishop Budde: Episcopal bishop lectures Trump while earning taxpayer millions to bring migrants into US

Some excerpts:

Wow.  That works out to nearly $15,000 per individual ($14,722.22).  To the tune of $53 million dollars per year.  That's quite a gravy train of taxpayer money going to the Episcopal Church. 

Since you asked, a couple of points. First, in no way is this a gravy train for the Episcopal Church. The $53M went to the Episcopal Migration Ministry, not to the Church. The Episcopal Church itself spends about $300k per year of its own money providing the administration for this program. So the program actually costs the Episcopal Church money and isn't some sort of profit source--it is a net cost to them.

Second, the program includes things like "intensive case management" designed to help these specific immigrants become self-sufficient individuals who are integrated into their communities, public-private partnerships with businesses and private donors, and thousands of volunteer hours. Providing these services to 3,600 people a year seems far from a bad thing, and in terms of future contributions to the tax base and economic output, probably has a positive IRR for society. 3,600 people are helped this way for about about the price of, say, a single CPS hypersonic missile. That isn't an obvious bad deal.

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Was keeping this gravy train going part of Bishop Budde's calculus...

Again, this isn't a gravy train for their church. It's hypocritical for a member of your church that uses most of its annual income to grow its for-profit business empire to be talking this way about other churches. An analogy about beams and motes captures the level of hypocrisy here.

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Was any part of Bishop Budde's call for "mercy" influenced by the financial self interest considerations of the Episcopal Church?

No. There is no evidence of financial interest for her personally or for her church in this. Again, the Episcopal Church uses its own money to finance the administration of this charitable endeavor. They don't get any taxpayer money for it--that all goes to EMM which is a different legal entity.

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

I wonder how much, if any, of that money is not spent on "taxpayer-funded government programs" and instead is used to subsidize other financial needs of the Episcopal Church....

You don't need to wonder about this. Like all ethical churches, the Episcopal Church is financially  transparent. According to their budget, the Church donates money to fund the administration of EMM and doesn't get any money in return for it. 

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

"{A}ffiliates," such as the Episcopal Church, "have an incentive to maintain or increase the number of refugees they resettle each year rather than allowing the number to decrease."

That "incentive" is, it seems, a financial one.

This is incredibly cynical of you.

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Huh.  So what Bishop Budde's sermon a lobbying effort?

I don't know that I have a particularized objection to religious groups having the ability to "lobby" in D.C., except to the extent such lobbying includes efforts along the lines of "Hey, Federal Government, please give us more taxpayer money."

"{P}ublic money has pretty much driven out private money in all resettlement programs."

I wonder if this is accurate.

It doesn't make sense. If you want to donate money to a resettlement program, nobody is stopping you.

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

I wonder how much money the Episcopal Church has made off of these programs.

Again, the answer is zero.

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am curious as to how the irreligious/secular folks on this board feel about the foregoing.

See above.

[smac97]

44 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Since you asked, a couple of points. First, in no way is this a gravy train for the Episcopal Church. The $53M went to the Episcopal Migration Ministry, not to the Church.

Question #1: Was all of that $54M spent on refugee resettlement efforts?

Question #2: From the NY Post article:

Quote

The Episcopal Church also earns a commission for collecting on travel loans made to refugees resettled by EMM.

Here’s how it works: The U.S. taxpayer funds the International Organization for Migration, which loans money for airfare for the refugee’s flight to America. If the refugee pays the interest-free loan back, the church (not EMM) pockets 25% of the money. If the loan is not paid back, no one is the worse off, except the taxpayer.

 E-mailed questions about the responsibilities of this position were not answered.

Assuming this description is accurate, does this alter your assessment of government money going into the coffers of the Episcopal Church?  It sure looks like this is happening.  This arrangement indicates that while EMM's primary funding is designated for resettlement services, there is a financial relationship where funds flow to The Episcopal Church through commissions on repaid travel loans.

Taxpayers pay taxes --> taxed funds go to the International Organization for Migration --> IOM loans $ for refugees' airfare --> Some refugees pay back that $ --> Episcopal Church receives 25% of the repaid money (which, again, originated with taxpayers).

I'm not sure how to read your spreadsheet, but it looks like line items 21 and 456b ("Refugee Loan Collection Income") shows $1,150,000.00.  Is that 1.15M in money from taxpayers?

I'm not sure how I feel about this stuff, except that I think I prefer the Church's non-acceptance of government $ for stuff like this.

44 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The Episcopal Church itself spends about $300k per year of its own money providing the administration for this program. So the program actually costs the Episcopal Church money and isn't some sort of profit source--it is a net cost to them.

Unless like items 21 and 456b are showing $1.15M in "Refugee Loan Collection Income," in which case our Episcopal friends would seem to be making a tiny ROI off of government money.

We don't have much information on this, so I'd like to wait to hear more before reaching any particular conclusions about the Episcopal Church and whether it makes money of taxpayer-funded refugee programs.

44 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Second, the program includes things like "intensive case management" designed to help these specific immigrants become self-sufficient individuals who are integrated into their communities, public-private partnerships with businesses and private donors, and thousands of volunteer hours. Providing these services to 3,600 people a year seems far from a bad thing, and in terms of future contributions to the tax base and economic output, probably has a positive IRR for society. 3,600 people are helped this way for about about the price of, say, a single CPS hypersonic missile. That isn't an obvious bad deal.

I agree.  I would hope that this program is efficiently managed.  

44 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Again, this isn't a gravy train for their church.

Well, we'll see, I suppose.  

My, but you are certainly accommodating when the Latter-day Saints are in the crosshairs.  If this story was about the Church or its affiliated programs being the direct recipient of tens of millions of taxpayer dollars, I think you would be . . . pretty unhappy about that.

44 minutes ago, Analytics said:

It's hypocritical for a member of your church that uses most of its annual income to grow its for-profit business empire to be talking this way about other churches.  An analogy about beams and motes captures the level of hypocrisy here.

If the Church was receiving federal $, you might have a point about hypocrisy.  But it apparently doesn't, so you apparently don't.

Again, I'm not sure how I feel about this stuff.  Frankly, religious groups may well be more competent than the government at administering these things.  That said, it does give me some separation-of-church-and-state pause.

44 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Was any part of Bishop Budde's call for "mercy" influenced by the financial self interest considerations of the Episcopal Church?

No. There is no evidence of financial interest for her personally or for her church in this.

I will accept that for the time being.

Would that you could convey comparable benefits of the doubt to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

44 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Again, the Episcopal Church uses its own money to finance the administration of this charitable endeavor.

And it and its affiliated entities also receive tens of millions of dollars from the U.S. taxpayer. 

And as the NY Post article aptly notes: "{A} 2012 Government Accountability Office report quotes an official noting that “funding is based on the number of refugees they serve, so affiliates have an incentive to maintain or increase the number of refugees they resettle each year rather than allowing the number to decrease.”

"Affiliates" includes, presumably, the Episcopal Church and its affiliated entities.

Meanwhile, no such arrangement appears to be in place with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which also "uses its own money to finance the administration of this charitable endeavor."  

44 minutes ago, Analytics said:

They don't get any taxpayer money for it--that all goes to EMM which is a different legal entity.

According to the NY Post article:

Quote

To get $1 of Department of Health and Human Services money, EMM must contribute just 10 cents, along with 90 cents worth of used cars, furniture, and monetized volunteer time.

When the program started out, it really was almost a true match of $1 of grant money for each dollar contributed by the contractor, but no longer. So much for attempting to incentivize private charity; public money has pretty much driven out private money in all resettlement programs.

The Episcopal Church also earns a commission for collecting on travel loans made to refugees resettled by EMM.

Here’s how it works: The U.S. taxpayer funds the International Organization for Migration, which loans money for airfare for the refugee’s flight to America. If the refugee pays the interest-free loan back, the church (not EMM) pockets 25% of the money. If the loan is not paid back, no one is the worse off, except the taxpayer.

Thoughts?

44 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

I wonder how much, if any, of that money is not spent on "taxpayer-funded government programs" and instead is used to subsidize other financial needs of the Episcopal Church....

You don't need to wonder about this. Like all ethical churches, the Episcopal Church is financially  transparent. According to their budget, the Church donates money to fund the administration of EMM and doesn't get any money in return for it. 

And yet, according to the NY Post article, it does "get {} money in return" ("If the refugee pays the interest-free loan back, the church (not EMM) pockets 25% of the money.").

44 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

"{A}ffiliates," such as the Episcopal Church, "have an incentive to maintain or increase the number of refugees they resettle each year rather than allowing the number to decrease."

That "incentive" is, it seems, a financial one.

This is incredibly cynical of you.

Oh, the irony.

The question, I think, is whether it is accurate.

I am glad that the Church has its financial ducks in a row, such that it apparently does not have to rely on, and does not actually rely on, government funding for humanitarian purposes.  

44 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Again, the answer is zero.

"If the refugee pays the interest-free loan back, the church (not EMM) pockets 25% of the money."

Every dollar the American taxpayer pays to EMM is a dollar the Episcopal Church does not pay to EMM. 

How much of EMM's funding has the Episcopal Church outsourced to the Federal Government?

Again, I'm not sure I'm opposed to this arrangement.  I think religious groups may be more effective at humanitarian efforts that government bureaucrats, but I think the risk of misuse, nonfeasance, malfeasance, graft, etc. is pretty much always going to be there.  I am surprised you don't see that.   For all your disparaging commentary about the Church, its financial decisions are about its own money, not taxpayers'.  I find that to be a fairly significant difference. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 3, 2025 by smac97

[Benjamin McGuire]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

I have not posted what I believe to be the Church's position.  I have instead quoted it (the Church's position) verbatim.  And you seem to be indicting it.

Texts don't say anything - until you read and interpret them. What you are saying is that you are reading my comments and interpreting them in a way that conflicts with how you read and interpret the Church's statement. That seemed pretty straight forward. I am not indicting the Church's statement - but I am sure that I am interpreting it differently than you are.

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again, here is my generalized position:

I really don't care. Really. Truly. I am not going to respond to your list. Please take the politics elsewhere.

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am happy to discuss ethical and moral dimensions.  I think evaluating the Church's published statements is a good starting place.

But you seem incapable of it. Why don't you start with the AI Chatbot response instead. Because I am not sure that we can come to an agreement over the meaning of the Church's published statement.

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

I sure would like to see you address this.

I am sure you would. But let's get back to the ethical and moral question first rather than some possible hypothetical (indicated by the word "may").

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

So which is it?  Open Borders or Controlled Borders?  Which is better in your view?

*shrug*. Whichever one can best answer the ethical and moral concerns that are raised. Of course, since the notion of an open border (which exerts its controls through policy) is pretty straight forward. There are probably an infinite number of ways to organize a controlled border - so its hard to compare them in general terms - so without defining how the controlled border deals with the moral and ethical concerns, I can't really pick which is better, can I. Probably any controlled border that compares favorably with an open border in terms of its ability to meet the challenges of ethics and morality will be much closer to an open border than to a closed border.

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Then perhaps we could have that discussion, instead of you resorting to ad hominem slurs.

I don't think its going to happen. Not because it can't happen, but because you seem absolutely unwilling to discuss the notion of morality and ethics in the context of controlled borders.

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

He said, after calling me a bigot, and after advocating for Open Borders.

Actually, this is based on years of observing what you write.

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Texts don't say anything - until you read and interpret them.

In the law, the "plain and ordinary meaning" rule in statutory construction states that when interpreting a statute, courts should give words their usual, everyday meaning unless the context indicates otherwise, essentially meaning that a statute should be read according to how a reasonable person would understand the language used, without resorting to complex interpretations or outside sources unless necessary. 

I think we should adopt a "plain and ordinary meaning" approach to the Church's statements.  Like this:

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.

See, this seems pretty straightforward, so much so that I feel like I need to either choose to listen to it, or listen to you and your "Open Borders" stuff.

And here:

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.

Again, this seems hard to square with your "Open Borders" rhetoric (which also fails for other reasons, such as being incongruent with common sense, but I digress).  

6 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

What you are saying is that you are reading my comments and interpreting them in a way that conflicts with how you read and interpret the Church's statement. That seemed pretty straight forward. I am not indicting the Church's statement - but I am sure that I am interpreting it differently than you are.

Indeed.

You support open borders.  I do not think the Church does.  Instead, it "acknowledge{s} that every nation has the right to enforce its laws and secure its borders," that "{u}nchecked and unregulated {immigration} ... may destabilize society and ultimately become unsustainable."  The Church also "discourages its members from entering any country without legal documentation, and from deliberately overstaying legal travel visas."

I suppose you can eke out a differing "interpretation" by suggesting that de jure "open borders" comports with the Church's position, but that seems like pretty weak tea, and we'd likely end up with the same "unsustainable" consequences that you persistently refuse to address (by calling them "politics").

6 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I really don't care. Really. Truly. I am not going to respond to your list. Please take the politics elsewhere.

Says the guy who started a thread about United States "immigration policy."

6 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Quote

I am happy to discuss ethical and moral dimensions.  I think evaluating the Church's published statements is a good starting place.

But you seem incapable of it.

Again, from my various prior posts:

• "compassionate accommodations  {for illegal aliens} where at all possible"
• "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"
• "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."
• "I grant the point that some accommodation may be appropriate for some who came here unlawfully under the wink-wink-nudge-nudge system."
• "I am open to some limited amnesty provisions at the outset to accommodate these folks {}.  I am also open to substantially revising and expanding Green Card entry into the U.S."
• "{W}e 'have implicitly invited the large scale violation of our borders and immigration laws, and in the process many fine and hard-working and otherwise-law-abiding people have created deep roots in the United States' ... '{W}e need to make some accommodations for these folks (though not including citizenship).'"

6 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Why don't you start with the AI Chatbot response instead.  Because I am not sure that we can come to an agreement over the meaning of the Church's published statement.

I think we can.  It's not written in Chinese, after all.  The Church's "plain and ordinary meaning" is there for the taking.  

6 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

*shrug*. Whichever one can best answer the ethical and moral concerns that are raised. Of course, since the notion of an open border (which exerts its controls through policy) is pretty straight forward. There are probably an infinite number of ways to organize a controlled border - so its hard to compare them in general terms - so without defining how the controlled border deals with the moral and ethical concerns, I can't really pick which is better, can I. Probably any controlled border that compares favorably with an open border in terms of its ability to meet the challenges of ethics and morality will be much closer to an open border than to a closed border.

I think virtually any form of "controlled border" is superior to "open borders."

Again, we can look at recent instances of unregulated mass migration and see some pretty huge problems with it.  Lebanon.  Germany.  The U.K.  Sweden.  Italy.  Greece.  

Again, from ChatGPT: "No modern developed nation has successfully implemented a fully open border policy while maintaining economic stability, national security, and social cohesion."

Again, if you have evidence to the contrary, i would like to see it.

6 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Quote

Then perhaps we could have that discussion, instead of you resorting to ad hominem slurs.

I don't think its going to happen. Not because it can't happen, but because you seem absolutely unwilling to discuss the notion of morality and ethics in the context of controlled borders.

Again, from my various prior posts:

• "compassionate accommodations  {for illegal aliens} where at all possible"
• "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"
• "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."
• "I grant the point that some accommodation may be appropriate for some who came here unlawfully under the wink-wink-nudge-nudge system."
• "I am open to some limited amnesty provisions at the outset to accommodate these folks {}.  I am also open to substantially revising and expanding Green Card entry into the U.S."
• "{W}e 'have implicitly invited the large scale violation of our borders and immigration laws, and in the process many fine and hard-working and otherwise-law-abiding people have created deep roots in the United States' ... '{W}e need to make some accommodations for these folks (though not including citizenship).'"

Instead of addressing these points, you call me a bigot and a goat.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rodheadlee]

On 2/2/2025 at 6:33 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

 

It's also worth pointing out that generally speaking, my observation is that those who are the least interested in allowing immigrants in are also those that are the least interested in sending resources out.

I don't think that's a very fair observation. But what I have observed is if you merge the economies of Mexico and the United States prices will go up in Mexico not down in the United States. Gas in Mexico used to be approximately 1/2 of what it cost in the United States then they allowed Arco Standard numerous other companies into Mexico instead of just having Pemex. Now fuel is higher not lower in Mexico. Also my slip rent would go from $800 a month to 1800 a month then I would have to fire my boat wash around my bottom cleaner. Now I know having a "yacht" makes it seem like I am a rich American. But the fact is it's my home and if I were not here in California taking care of my 92-year-old father and working two weeks a month I would be living in Mexico 100% of the time. I must say I was surprised to see a Pemex fuel station in Victorville California.

[Zosimus]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

And yet, according to the NY Post article, it does "get {} money in return" ("If the refugee pays the interest-free loan back, the church (not EMM) pockets 25% of the money.").

I've worked alongside IOM and EMM in refugee camps to help resettle refugees to the USA. 

Most refugees will pay their travel loans back, eventually. Let's say 90% of travel loans are paid back. 25% of that goes back to EMM for doing the incredibly complicated work of organizing the travel of refugees around the world. I can't stress enough how complicated it is to, for example, take a Burmese migrant from a war zone who has never used electricity in their life and transfer them and their families to a place like Utah, where they are expected to not only immediately assimilate, but to quickly find a job to pay off their loans. All the while, everyone around them is giving them the sideeye because they don't believe refugees should be allowed in the USA, or worse, they are treated like undocumented migrants and shouted at in Walmart to go back to their countries, which by the way is still an active war zone.

To make matters worse, all federal funding for refugee resettlement programs has been frozen last week. Not only that, but funding for food and medical centers in refugee camps has also been frozen.

I just spoke to some friends in the camps who were on the list to be resettled in the USA. They are being told they are no longer going. Their hospitals have been closed, last week.

Myanmar refugees face sudden discharge from Thai hospitals shuttered by US aid freeze

Their food distribution is at risk. They can't legally cross the border into Thailand, so their only option is to take their families back to their burned out villages and pray as fighter jets rain bombs down on them. 

And through all this, those working in such desperate circumstances (I can assure you there is no glamor in it and the IOM, IRC and EMM salaries for most on the ground are half of what you'd get working McDonalds in Orem) in the camps are being accused of grifting and scamming American taxpayers.

Sure, there are problems to solve with immigration, but shutting everything down and turning our backs on those who could use our help is dangerously close to becoming IMO, immoral.

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

just spoke to some friends in the camps who were on the list to be resettled in the USA. They are being told they are no longer going. Their hospitals have been closed, last week.

Myanmar refugees face sudden discharge from Thai hospitals shuttered by US aid freeze

Their food distribution is at risk. They can't legally cross the border into Thailand, so their only option is to take their families back to their burned out villages and pray as fighter jets rain bombs down on them. 

And through all this, those working in such desperate circumstances (I can assure you there is no glamor in it and the IOM, IRC and EMM salaries for most on the ground are half of what you'd get working McDonalds in Orem) in the camps are being accused of grifting and scamming American taxpayers.

This makes me weep, but grateful for you sharing personal experience and knowledge of what’s really going on.

Edited February 4, 2025 by Calm

[Zosimus]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

This makes me weep, but grateful for you sharing personal experience and knowledge of what’s really going on.

If anyone feels EMM and other aid orgs are only interested in lining their pockets and refugees/migrants are only coming to America to smuggle children and fentanyl, please watch All Saints, a true story about a Burmese refugee family that was resettled in Tennessee through the efforts of orgs like EMM/IOM/IRC, and ends up reviving the local (empty) Episcopal church

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdCDoEowA6k

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

If anyone feels EMM and other aid orgs are only interested in lining their pockets and refugees/migrants are only coming to America to smuggle children and fentanyl, please watch All Saints, a true story about a Burmese refugee family that was resettled in Tennessee through the efforts of orgs like EMM/IOM/IRC, and ends up reviving the local (empty) Episcopal church

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdCDoEowA6k

I can imagine there are those speculating that maybe the guys with their feet on the ground are good souls, but the ones higher up that supposedly don’t deal with the nitty gritty are the ones making money off of others’ troubles (I think a lot os Saints, for example, didn’t appreciate how upper management of Boys Scouts of America got quite large salaries when they did it for nothing and had to make do at times because of fees to the regional and national organization).  Have you any knowledge about what happens there?

Edited February 4, 2025 by Calm

[Zosimus]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

I can imagine there are those speculating that maybe the guys with their feet on the ground are good souls, but the ones higher up that supposedly don’t deal with the nitty gritty are the ones making money off of others’ troubles (I think a lot os Saints, for example, didn’t appreciate how upper management of Boys Scouts of America got quite large salaries when they did it for nothing and had to make do at times because of fees to the regional and national organization).  Have you any knowledge about what happens there?

The boots-on-the-ground folks are expected to take local wages. This means local programs are usually quite inexpensive. Where things get sketchy are at the staffing levels where "experts" or "professionals" are needed. American contractors charge a lot for their services. 

This is what we'll see with USAID. American contractors, because they deserve their American lifestyles wherever they go, are paid a lot while the people that run the local projects funded by USAID are paid peanuts. Its easy to look at such an arrangement and say those boys at the top are taking advantage of the system. But if you were to compare USAID salaries with, say, Twitter salaries, I'd imagine Musk pays his marketing execs for APAC region more per year than USAID pays their execs in APAC region. Its just easier to expect that people working in development, aid or humanitarian efforts should be doing it for local wages, while nobody expects State Department or Twitter execs to take local wages.

It will be interesting to see how much of the world shifts to China as they expand their aid and development programs to fill the void left by USAID's impending closure.