Matthew 25 and Immigration Policy

[ZealouslyStriving]

41 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It sounds like you are saying those that are taking the easy way by rejecting their neighbors and calling them “illegal” are being led by Satan? That’s harsh. 

You forgot the "/s".

It is possible to have respect for the rule of law (justice) while simultaneously ministering to and serving those in need (mercy)- it doesn't have to be an either or thing.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

 

46 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

You forgot the "/s".

It is possible to have respect for the rule of law (justice)

Aren’t you equating God’s justice with our current slate of immigration laws? And accusing those who disagree with the current state of immigration laws as following Satan? Are you sure you’re not following Satan?

[BlueDreams]

11 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

I didn't take the time to read your whole post but right off the bat Christ separated the goats from the Sheep, that's a border. Second off do you think there should be borders between the outer darkness and the Celestial Kingdom? Number three you can certainly help people in other countries without having to open the borders. We spend a thousand bucks every single month in Mexico do you think if we had Mexico's economy we would have the money to do that? Everywhere we have traveled in our sailboat, which probably cost less than the car you're driving, we have tried to leave resources behind.

Others responded, but I would add one more thing. Each of these examples of 'borders' is not about a specific group of people here on earth. The goats weren't the Samaritans and the sheep Jews. The tares aren't Latinos or refugees or Haitians and the wheat Americans. If we're cutting off or severely limiting immigration to groups of people off of fear, anecdote, half-truths, and outright lies, we are by no means living up to these parables in how we see "borders." We are just as likely to be the Tares as we lose track of the second great commandment: to love others as ourselves. We are the priest and the rabbi who walked past the robbed and broken man on the way. We are the one who can't understand who is truly our neighbor. On how to become neighbors. We are the ones who are losing track of humanity in the pursuit of temporal concerns and politicking. 

 

With luv, 

BD 

Edited February 2, 2025 by BlueDreams

[Tacenda]

This just happened yesterday, on other media they are a white supremacist group. https://www.facebook.com/reel/592245676897352/?s=single_unit&__cft__[0]=AZU_NkjRqOGf4A9FSzkVmB0Gdwb6ntt433Q2w53I6TN2wg2vXV5om_czAw36hUPPnblj0fjqH9isWqufuVQnlpKmBkd5NsWfvVwp3Vu5wxn61dfyvaWMoMolBAZvLX4wZseflVUcPmMh-zfcDKYTz-18zy4erjQM6obrZRgSRV4VRfBbFmWVoM6sh7jbpdlrnMY&__tn__=H-R

 

https://www.newsbreak.com/share/3787532474008-extremist-group-marches-near-herriman-city-hall-to-protest-invaders?_f=app_share&pd=0J52dcu0&lang=en_US&send_time=1738518856&trans_data={"platform"%3A0%2C"cv"%3A"25.4.0.27"%2C"languages"%3A"en"}&sep=ns_foryou_recall_exp_25q1-v5%2Cns_foryou_blend_exp_25q1-v9%2Cns_foryou_model_exp_25q1-v9%2Cns_foryou_rank_exp_25q1-control%2Cns_push_exp_rt_bucketv12-v6&s=i16&fbclid=IwY2xjawIMkl5leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHYk-TfKUk-frw9wWrwY8wPEWIguHYDEcbSnqpN5_jukP-sKCKRNxXjSYRg_aem_GNqQg_RQ8AAZUN7PWn9F4g

Edited February 2, 2025 by Tacenda

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

This just happened yesterday, on other media they are a white supremacist

Ugh…https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Front

[Rain]

I've been going through in my head different scripture stories about letting in "strangers". I'm having a hard time coming up with any where if someone let someone in that it didn't go well for the person whose home/land it was. Story after story tells of people letting someone in and it being ok for them and at least one time even better.   

The only one I could think of was the battle at a hill where the enemy kept saying "come down". Sorry, bad memory on names and sides at the time. Letting in the enemy/stranger proved to be their downfall, but interestingly they went into the enemy camp first. 

So can anyone give me any scripture stories where a home/land ownder let in people and it didn't go well with them, please. I would like to see IF any of them differ from the other stories in any significant way.

 

[Tacenda]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

Ugh…https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Front

It's a little too close to home. I'm fearful for the first time in my life of what's happening to our country. 

[Calm]

50 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

It's a little too close to home. I'm fearful for the first time in my life of what's happening to our country. 

According to wiki they have only a couple of hundred members.  They are apparently good at propaganda or at least getting seen which may make it look they are bigger and more influential than they actually are.

“The chat logs showed the group struggled to expand membership, often reprimanding members for not meeting fitness and participation requirements, according to The Guardian. In a conversation with Patriot Front "lieutenants" on December 14, 2021, Rousseau wrote, "We are absolutely desperate for new people. We've been in the 220's to 230's membership rut for nearly a full year."^[11][66]

The communications revealed the group attempted to inflate its membership numbers and importance; outlined plans to spread misinformation about public events on social media sites, such as Twitter, Reddit and 4chan, and send deceptive news tips to journalists at traditional media outlets; and detailed notes of interviews with potential members.^[11]”

Not saying don’t be concerned, but fear is not useful in the situation imo as it will push us to overreact and to justify our mistakes rather than learn from them.

Edited February 2, 2025 by Calm

[manol]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

There is a big difference between God’s ability to judge who are the goats that should be kept from mixing with the sheep and our own.

Yes.

It is not the job of those who consider themselves sheep to decide who are the sheep and who are the goats.

Nor is it the job of those who consider themselves wheat to decide who are the wheat and who are the tares.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

I've been going through in my head different scripture stories about letting in "strangers". I'm having a hard time coming up with any where if someone let someone in that it didn't go well for the person whose home/land it was. Story after story tells of people letting someone in and it being ok for them and at least one time even better.   

The only one I could think of was the battle at a hill where the enemy kept saying "come down". Sorry, bad memory on names and sides at the time. Letting in the enemy/stranger proved to be their downfall, but interestingly they went into the enemy camp first. 

So can anyone give me any scripture stories where a home/land ownder let in people and it didn't go well with them, please. I would like to see IF any of them differ from the other stories in any significant way.

 

Kishkumen (Helaman 2: 6 - 9). But you are talking about the good guys, right?

ETA Alma 55: 5 - 18.

Laban and Lehi's sons interactions.

Edited February 2, 2025 by CV75

[Benjamin McGuire]

8 hours ago, Potter said:

Isn't it true that Mormonism suggests there's a little veil between us, God's kids, and the juicy details of our pre earthly escapades? That veil can be considered a border, nothing wrong with that belief. Ok to having a border at the temple.

It's not analogous. Seriously. If we want to consider everything to be a border, that's fine - but comparisons simply don't work well when we contrast things that have very little similarity. About the closest we could come is to point out that for Mormonism, entrance into the temple has well defined criteria, without limits or quotas. Anyone can get in as long as they meet those criteria. I suppose that kindergarten has a border right (well defined age requirements on either side). I work in healthcare, and the kind of healthcare that I work in has borders (we label them as gates) which mean that only those who qualify can get in. The thing is, when we are having a discussion about morality and ethics, we find that there are some borders that are far more ethical and moral than others. Consider that we do in fact view the idea that getting married requires some degree of adulthood. We create laws that limit the age at which people can get married. That seems moral and ethical (although, clearly, some people tend to have a different view of where that border becomes ethical and moral). But, whatever.

8 hours ago, Potter said:

The temple ceremony has this whole border situation that demands specific measures to be taken before you can even think about stepping beyond the curtain? I watched a video that required the knowledge of a handshake to move beyond a curtain. 

You need to take a closer look at the rules of this forum. This isn't a topic open to discussion.

8 hours ago, Potter said:

Mormonism's take on heaven features at least five distinct borders, neatly dividing God's children based on their loyalty to divine commandments. It's like a celestial game of red rover, but with a lot more at stake! Nothing wrong with borders dividing heaven, borders create order.

And clearly you don't really have any idea what you are talking about, do you. There has been a consistent belief held by many in the LDS Church that these borders are temporary - Elder Talmage (a past apostle) was pretty clear when he said: “It is reasonable to believe, in the absence of direct revelation by which alone absolute knowledge of the matter could be acquired, that, in accordance with God’s plan of eternal progression, advancement from grade to grade within any kingdom, and from kingdom to kingdom, will be provided for." I think that this isn't nearly as distinct or as permanent as you suggest. A former member of the First Presidency of the LDS Church, J. Reuben Clark added this:

Quote

I am not a strict constructionalist, believing that we seal our eternal progress by what we do here. It is my belief that God will save all of His children that he can: and while, if we live unrighteously here, we shall not go to the other side in the same status, so to speak, as those who lived righteously; nevertheless, the unrighteous will have their chance, and in the eons of the eternities that are to follow, they, too, may climb to the destinies to which they who are righteous and serve God, have climbed to those eternities that are to come.

Eternity is a long, long time, and Mormonism teaches as a fundamental principle the idea of eternal progression.

8 hours ago, Potter said:

I'm not grumbling about the boundaries within Mormonism, rather, I'm highlighting that every religion needs its own set of borders. Take a gander at the Vatican, it's surrounded by a border.

And the question that I am asking remains - clearly some boundaries, no matter how you define them, are moral and ethical, while others are not. So bringing up all of this isn't particularly useful or helpful in looking at the question of political borders and the question of whether or not it is more moral and ethical to have open or closed borders. It seems to me that you really just want to have an argument for the sake of an argument, and not really to discuss the premise of the OP.

8 hours ago, Potter said:

If you happened to leave your door unlocked and a family of wanderers decided to make themselves at home because they were in a bit of a pickle, would you roll out the welcome mat or reach for the phone to dial the authorities?

I'll figure it out when it happens. Hypotheticals - especially those that have really low risks of occurring - aren't of much use in a discussion like this. In the United States,

But since you bring it up, one of the things that we have in the United States is the limited defense of private necessity - which could have interesting applications in the context of your hypothetical and the implications that might have for the question of open borders.

[Benjamin McGuire]

On 2/2/2025 at 2:53 AM, The Nehor said:

Much has changed. For example we have outsourced our thinking to AI.

It's probably not all bad ... it just means we don't have to think about it. Of course, what is concealed in using ChatGPT is that it also has potential biases. But, for @smac97, we can ask it about the premise in the OP:

Quote

Prompt: How are open borders more moral and ethical than closed borders?
ChatGPT said:

The morality and ethics of open vs. closed borders depend on how we define human rights, justice, and national sovereignty. Advocates of open borders argue that they are more moral and ethical based on several principles:

1. Freedom of Movement as a Human Right

Open borders align with the idea that individuals should be free to move and seek better opportunities, much like how we allow freedom of movement within countries. Restricting movement based on nationality is seen as an arbitrary limitation on personal liberty.

2. Reducing Global Inequality and Poverty

Open borders provide opportunities for people from poorer regions to access better jobs, education, and healthcare. Studies suggest that freer migration could drastically reduce global poverty and increase overall economic productivity.

3. Moral Responsibility to Refugees and the Disadvantaged

Many people migrate to escape war, persecution, or climate disasters. Denying them entry can lead to unnecessary suffering or death. Ethical principles of compassion and humanitarianism suggest that those in a position to help should do so.

4. Opposition to National Privilege

Closed borders reinforce inequality by allowing people born in wealthier countries to have vastly more opportunities than those born in poorer ones, based on accident of birth. Some argue this is similar to feudal privilege, where birth status dictates one’s life prospects unfairly.

5. Economic and Cultural Benefits

Economically, immigrants often contribute more in taxes and labor than they take in benefits, growing national economies. Culturally, migration fosters diversity, innovation, and global cooperation.

Arguments for Closed Borders and Ethical Concerns

Opponents argue that open borders could strain resources, weaken national identity, or increase crime. They also emphasize a government's duty to its own citizens first. However, ethical counterarguments suggest that many concerns (such as resource strain) can be managed with good policies rather than outright exclusion.

Ultimately, the ethical case for open borders is grounded in human rights, fairness, and global solidarity, while closed borders often prioritize national self-interest over universal moral obligations.

And this might be a decent summary. The challenge for us as followers of Jesus Christ is that Mormonism is also grounded in human rights, fairness, and global solidarity, and not at all in national self interest. Even the push to suggest that Mormonism requires in some way a strong national self interest falls far short.

But in any case, it's fairly easy to get what you want out of ChatGPT ...

Edited February 3, 2025 by Benjamin McGuire

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

I've been going through in my head different scripture stories about letting in "strangers". I'm having a hard time coming up with any where if someone let someone in that it didn't go well for the person whose home/land it was. Story after story tells of people letting someone in and it being ok for them and at least one time even better.   

The only one I could think of was the battle at a hill where the enemy kept saying "come down". Sorry, bad memory on names and sides at the time. Letting in the enemy/stranger proved to be their downfall, but interestingly they went into the enemy camp first. 

So can anyone give me any scripture stories where a home/land ownder let in people and it didn't go well with them, please. I would like to see IF any of them differ from the other stories in any significant way.

 

That's a book of Mormon story. Also can't remember the names but I'm pretty sure the one trying to get the guy to come down is amalickiah...I think. Amalickiah in general would be a solid story of things going wrong from a group being immigrating into another people (amalickiah's people with the lamanites). But that's probably more a story that would go against seeking domination and vengeance more than the risk of immigration as a whole. Could also be a warning about maintaining beliefs of hate as leaving one open to corruption and violence. 

The ones that popped in my mind that may also fit were early OT accounts with the repetitive warning stories about mixing with other populations (though some of those may have been tweaked by the deuteronomists to assert the importance of one God). Usually there's some command to destroy a population so they don't have a chance to really mix. There's also the stories of the Israelites adopting religious practices from neighboring groups and it leading to idol worship and later woes. But those are more about ideological contamination moreso than peoples... because you have that balanced with stories like Ruth and varying measures as to how to integrate different populations into and Israelites land. 

Besides, the OT is a terrible direct model for just about anything modern nowadays IMHO. I like plenty of the stories but plenty others are just plain weird and gruesome. 

In the BoM the people of limhi/zeniff did not fair well with being neighbors with the lamanites. 

Of course there are far more stories of the groups coming together as a sign of greater strength, unity, and/or closeness with God in the BOM. From the anti-nephi-lehites, to the several other conversions, to the slow blending of lamanite and nephrite communities under a common threat, to Christ's visits and its ramifications. The strongest message in the BoM for me, is that the ultimate desire of God is to have One People 

And then the early latter-day church was started by gathering (ie immigrating) to be one people... particularly during the early Utah era. 

 

With luv, 

BD 

[The Nehor]

15 hours ago, Zosimus said:

89% of fentanyl seizures at checkpoints are from U.S. citizens (source)

If 9 out of 10 fentanyl smugglers are US citizens then this is not an immigration problem. You can't ban citizens from returning home, and that's exactly why Americans will always be the cartels' most effective drug mules

Yep, the idea that refugees and asylum seekers and the like are drug mules suggests that drug smugglers are complete idiots. When you smuggle something you don’t use someone who is going to be under scrutiny and have a court hearing. You use the people that are waved through.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

It's probably not all bad ... it just means we don't have to think about it. Of course, what is concealed in using ChatGPT is that it also has potential biases. But, for @smac97, we can ask it about the premise in the OP:

And this might be a decent summary. The challenge for us as followers of Jesus Christ is that Mormonism is also grounded in human rights, fairness, and global solidarity, and not at all in national self interest. Even the push to suggest that Mormonism requires in some way a strong national self interest falls far short.

But in any case, it's fairly easy to get what you want out of ChatGPT ...

I think the issues is more about open borders v. *controlled* borders (I have never advocated for closed borders).  Again, from the Church's published 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.

And 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.

I also just saw this comment and thought it apt (emphases added) :

Quote

The debate about Haitian immigrants in Ohio provoked a ton of racist and xenophobic commentary; I think there were also some legitimate gripes from residents, most importantly the driving down of pay in the low-wage job market. And yet I think we can also recognize that scenario as a failure for the Haitians as well. Can it really be considered humane to airdrop 15,000 Haitian migrants into an alien culture with minimal assistance in finding housing, learning English, getting jobs, and otherwise integrating into the local community? I very much believe that it can not. Too many on the left who support more legal immigration, as I do, refuse to engage with mass immigration as a challenging effort in social engineering, rather than simply as a benevolent opening of doors.

There’s a whole other macro dimension to this, which I will develop in another piece - the simple fact that, on a long enough timeline, “All of the poor people move to the rich countries” simply can’t be the solution, and that’s especially true because of how badly those outflows can hurt poorer countries. (I thought that this Lydia Polgreen piece looking at mass migration from 10,000 feet failed to really consider this dimension, but it’s the first in a series and there may be more explanation to come.) This points to a dimension of the immigration debate that restrictionists often ignore: if you really want fewer undocumented immigrants in the United States, you should work to improve international institutions and help to tear down the structural walls that keep a lot of countries unstable and poor. Ultimately, I have very banal views on all of this: I don’t feel any greater moral obligation to someone who lives a mile south of the border with Mexico than I do to someone who lives a mile north of it, I think immigration makes us strong, and I think we are a graying nation with real structural problems with our social safety net that immigration could ease. But none of that erases just how difficult mass immigration can be, and I think too many immigration proponents have hidden behind accusations of bigotry rather than confronting this difficulty. I love New York and hearing all the languages and smelling the exotic foods and seeing people go by in the clothes from their home cultures. But that’s the easy part. The rest of it is complicated and often hard.

"{T}oo many immigration proponents have hidden behind accusations of bigotry rather than confronting this difficulty."

Yep.

I sense this this pie-in-the-sky, unicorns-and-rainbows thinking is fairly prevalent amongst the Open Borders crowd.

I am in favor of robust immigration into our beautiful country, but not open borders.  That's a recipe for chaos, for the destabilization and destruction of the United States.

Thanks,

Smac

Edited February 3, 2025 by smac97

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

course, what is concealed in using ChatGPT is that it also has potential biases.

And makes up stuff.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

28 minutes ago, Potter said:

Is it really moral and ethical for the Mormon church to put up an actual physical border around their temples?

Former Mormon here. Just FYI. I think this is a perfect analogy. Latter-day Saints have a border around the temple, sure. But they send out 10's of thousands of missionaries every year to try and recruit people to come over the fence. They don't turn anyone away who wants to come and is willing to follow their rules. Anyone who wants to can join their church (come into the country and become a citizen), pay tithing (taxes), follow their commandments (obey the law) and go into the temple. They'd love that. 

To make the analogy work, the United States would have a fence, but they would invite everyone that is willing to swear allegiance to it's constitutional government, pay taxes, obey the laws. Anyone who meets those criteria gets to come in. Is that what you are advocating for? 

Edited February 3, 2025 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Benjamin McGuire]

10 hours ago, Potter said:

I'm baffled by your take that an open border policy is somehow more moral and ethical than a closed one, especially when closed borders are a key tenet of Mormon belief. 

Except that they aren't. Borders are just a part of reality. That doesn't mean that there is an advocacy for them. Borders themselves aren't a key tenet of Mormon belief - it is more a recognition of a necessity. Your comment reminds me of something that occurred in the Old Testament during the Israelite exodus from Egypt. Moses had called out seventy of the elders of Israel to become those that would help him manage the huge population of Israelites - (Numbers 11:26-29):

Quote

But there remained two of the men in the camp, the name of the one was Eldad, and the name of the other Medad: and the spirit rested upon them; and they were of them that were written, but went not out unto the tabernacle: and they prophesied in the camp. And there ran a young man, and told Moses, and said, Eldad and Medad do prophesy in the camp. And Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of Moses, one of his young men, answered and said, My lord Moses, forbid them. And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them!

I think that this more closely reflects the perspective of the LDS Church - that everyone should participate fully. This is much more of a key tenet of Mormon belief. Of course, it is a vision and a goal and not a reality (at least in mortality). But this vision drives the missionary efforts of the LDS Church.

10 hours ago, Potter said:

Isn't it the case that Mormonism suggests if a child of God sticks to the straight and narrow, they’ll eventually waltz right up to heaven's gates? Isn't it rather obvious that one typically strolls through a gate because there's a pesky border or barrier trying to keep them out of somewhere?

Not really. Mormonism's view of requirements is highly relative. The theology of the Book of Mormon is that the requirements are individualized. This doesn't work well with structured organizations who use criteria in a way that God doesn't have to. At the same time, we speak of gates in terms of entry into new places. Everyone who lives (in Mormon thought) will pass through certain gates. Birth would be a gate. Death would be a gate. One doesn't necessarily stroll through - as if we were on a pleasure cruise at night through eel infested waters - but - we all pass through these gates. Part of the problem (and I keep trying to point this out) is that the idea of a gate or barrier as you use it here is an analogy. But, as with all analogies, the comparison isn't rarely exact. We get this same issue in the post-mortal Mormon condition. You want to portray the differences between kingdoms of glory as borders - as barriers that are closed, but this isn't what occurs in Mormon theology. Mormon theology with it's principle of eternal progression is much less about borders and more about openness - as key tenets of Mormon belief.

10 hours ago, Potter said:

But you're arguing borders aren't ethical or moral?

No, that's not what I am arguing. In fact that can't be what I am arguing - this is what I wrote in the OP:

On 2/1/2025 at 9:27 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

I think that open borders are more moral and ethical than closed borders.

An open border is ... a border. So I cannot be arguing that borders are unethical or immoral - I am arguing that some kinds of borders are more ethical and moral than others. This seems to be difficult for you to wrap your head around ...

10 hours ago, Potter said:

Is it really moral and ethical for the Mormon church to put up an actual physical border around their temples?

This is a border where ethics and morals don't seem to play much a role, isn't it. Do you think it's moral and ethical or immoral and unethical? Perhaps you could explain why rather than simply suggesting that its existence is somehow a problem for me to resolve. And if you are referring to the fence that exists around LDS temples, there is no gatekeeper. When the gate is open, people can certainly go in and out without restriction.

11 hours ago, Potter said:

Isn't it a bit ironic to have a fence or gate keeping folks from strolling on temple grounds?

It isn't ironic at all. It doesn't actually do what you are suggesting it does - in my personal experience - because there is no gatekeeper. The fence is closed when the temple is not open, and when the temple is open, it is open. Go to temple square in Salt Lake City - they actually welcome everyone to come in and stroll around. The pictures you posted - what you don't see in them is a gatehouse, or a place where someone sits and checks paperwork. (Yes, there is that inside the temple). Outside, everyone is welcome. I am not sure that this is the argument that you want it to be.

[Benjamin McGuire]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am in favor of robust immigration into our beautiful country, but not open borders.  That's a recipe for chaos, for the destabilization and destruction of the United States.

Except that it's not Spencer. And that is the crux of the issue. If it is moral and ethical, we should place a much higher bar on these restrictions - you seem to be willing (as the ChatGPT answer I provided suggests) of putting your concerns about national self interest above the concerns about ethics and morality.

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, Potter said:

A lot of people have been turned away from my church. The military and police cops who work on our safety team are very professional. Background checks are done to see if someone has a crime record if they think that person is not who they say they are.

A background check was done on one of our youth leaders three years ago because he was known to drive one of our teens home from events. The guy had been convicted of child molesting and having multiple drug convictions.

We trespassed him from the property and called every church in the area to let them know about him. Since we also talked to his parole officer, I think it's very likely that he went back to jail. Does the Mormon church background check members who interact with children if they become sketchy?

In your view, what was the right thing to do? Should we have let him worship in our church knowing he was a child molestor, or called the police?

You're just asking for trouble if the Mormon church lets anyone into their local church without checking their background when things become sketchy, especially when it comes to keeping kids safe. 

You are asking two different questions.

Of course someone who has lied about their background and been working with the youth should be sanctioned and reported to the P&O officer. It shows a lack of change in the life of that individual.

Should you background check every single person who walks through the door and kick them out if they don't come up to your standards? Well, would Christ do that or would he minister to the sinner? You can do that also- and take appropriate precautions. 

Or do you believe some people are beyond redemption?

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, Potter said:

I want Benjamin to understand that his policy of keeping the borders open isn't moral or ethical in this case

And it would be nice of you to actually explain why open borders are not moral and ethical as opposed to trying to suggest that my position is hypocritical because I ignore the question of ethics and morality elsewhere.

1 hour ago, Potter said:

Every year, around 300,000 children are sold for sex around the world. About 6% of these children are brought to the United States, with a portion of them coming in through the border. What is moral or ethical about that?

That is an interesting issue. Those children come into the US right now (and we do not have open borders). So why should we believe that closed borders will prevent this from happening. And if it happens now when we don't have open borders, how does this challenge the morality or ethics of open borders. This is an issue that is and should be addressed in other ways.

Human trafficking represents perhaps the absolute worst in the commoditization of human beings. And the U.S. has a history with that - after all, close to a half a million Africans were brought into the U.S. as slaves in the 18th century. Very few were brought into the U.S. in the 19th century - they were mostly born here. And there is nothing ethical or moral about human trafficking. But it is a logical fallacy to suggest that it is the open or closed border that is ethically or morally responsible for the human trafficking that occurs. So let's try again.

1 hour ago, Potter said:

200 people died every day in 2022 because of fentanyl. A lot of the fentanyl is brought in illegally through the open border. Is it moral or ethical to let fentanyl come into the country illegally?

The vast majority (and I mean vast) of fentanyl is brought into the United States by citizens. Just as importantly, the demand for fentanyl is driven by citizens and not by immigrants. Having an open border wouldn't mean that fentanyl would be legal. So it isn't the state of the border that drives the opioid crisis or the deaths that come from it. A huge portion of the blame for these deaths in terms of morality and ethics lies squarely on a pharmaceutical industry and a complicit healthcare industry that allowed for so many to become addicted to quite legal pain-killers. But this is not an issue of ethics and morality for the border. So let's try again.

1 hour ago, Potter said:

Migrants trying to cross the border illegally are often stopped before they get here because criminals know they have money. They are then often raped, kidnapped, or robbed. During the night, many refugees are taken to makeshift "raped tents" and raped. Because the borders are open, many refugees have to go through these terrible things. The people wouldn't have tried to make the dangerous trip if the border wasn't open.

The border isn't open right now. And yet they are trying to make that trip because - even with a closed border - the risks of having these terrible things are often less than the risks of having the same problems if they stay where they started at. By actually having an open border, these immigrants would not need to expose themselves to criminal elements to try and get through the border. They would be able to travel openly. The trip would be far less dangerous. And that is an argument for the ethics and morality of an open border, and not an argument against it. So let's try again.

1 hour ago, Potter said:

One thing Benjamin doesn't seem to understand is that every year, about 2.3 million immigrants legally enter the United States, even when the border is closed. That's how many people live in Chicago. That means we can socially and legally take care of a lot of immigrants in a moral and ethical way without leaving the border open, which gives people who are trying to come in illegally false hope.

Actually, I understand this reasonably well. I also understand that the only reason why the US is in a positive trajectory in terms of population is because of immigrants. The U.S. fertility rate is only 1.66 (replacement fertility rate is 2.1). Immigration directly accounted for 84% of the population growth in 2023-2024. Children born to immigrants means that immigrants and their children are the only things driving population growth. If we were to back out immigrants and their US born children (only one generation), the U.S. population would have started shrinking in 1990. We have a relationship with immigration that doesn't really reflect your concerns.

So, let's get back to the question of morality and ethics - what is it really that makes open borders unethical or immoral (because I have made the case for it being ethical and moral).

1 hour ago, Potter said:

It is not moral or ethical for an American to be raped or killed because we thought it was moral and ethical to have an open border. 

It is never moral or ethical for Americans to be raped or killed. But this isn't dependent on having either a closed or open border. It is true that undocumented aliens commit crimes. However, they commit violent crimes at a far lower rate than do our citizens. So once more, this isn't the argument that you think that you are making. In fact, strangely enough (I use that term with some irony), studies show that increasing the undocumented population of a community leads to lower violent crime rates, not higher violent crime rates - and this is especially true for long term integration into society. If you think that violent crime is immoral and unethical, then perhaps this could be an ethical and moral argument in support of open borders.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Just now, Potter said:

What you're suggesting is that we throw open the border, so when immigrants waltz into the US, whether they take the scenic route through ports of entry or decide to play hopscotch across the land, their grand entrance suddenly becomes all above board, legal. 

No. That isn't what I am arguing. My argument was very clear: "I think that open borders are more moral and ethical than closed borders." This is a pretty narrow argument. The political and practical implications are something else entirely. When I speak of open borders, I am suggesting that we give a legal status (of some sort) to those trying to immigrate here. I am suggesting that we work to integrate immigrants into our society. And I am arguing that this is a Christian principled approach to the question. Now those who want to argue that the alleged needs of the state should trump these ethical and moral issues are welcome to have that opinion. I am not arguing with them. I am just asking people to confront the question from this ethical and moral standpoint.

4 minutes ago, Potter said:

So, what you're really suggesting is giving the cartels a VIP pass to waltz into the US with their cargo of sex slaves and illegal drugs, no questions asked?

Nope. I think that this is a misrepresentation of what an open border is. All of these things don't magically become legal with an open border. Further, as we can see in one of the links in an earlier post, nearly all fentanyl that is seized coming in to the country is seized from citizens - individuals for whom the border is already open. 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.

6 minutes ago, Potter said:

If that's your stance, should we just throw caution to the wind and legalize all drugs, so the cartels can stroll across your open border with fentanyl without breaking a sweat?

Why would I want to do this? Again, stop with the bad reasoning.

[Rain]

Deleted

 

Edited February 3, 2025 by Rain

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Quote

I am in favor of robust immigration into our beautiful country, but not open borders.  That's a recipe for chaos, for the destabilization and destruction of the United States.

Except that it's not Spencer. And that is the crux of the issue. If it is moral and ethical, we should place a much higher bar on these restrictions - you seem to be willing (as the ChatGPT answer I provided suggests) of putting your concerns about national self interest above the concerns about ethics and morality.

A few thoughts:

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

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.

Open Borders = "Unchecked and unregulated {flow of undocumented immigrants which} may destabilize society and ultimately become unsustainable.

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.

2. You speak of me "putting {my} concerns about national self interest above the concerns about ethics and morality."  I think you are putting your sociopolitical preferences above the counsel of the Church, common sense, and the welfare, and even survival, of the United States.  And you are doing so by characterizing your sociopolitical opinions as "ethical and moral" and any diverging opinions as lacking in these virtues.

Nevertheless, I readily admit that I prioritize the well-being of the United States over acceding to self-destructive, even suicidal "Open Borders" policies.  As I said previously:

Quote

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. 

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

3. 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.

4. Your comments here presuppose that "open borders" = "ethical and moral."  Respectfully, I reject the premise.  I find open borders to be manifestly unethical and immoral.  I previously posted a list of some of the many unethical/immoral aspects of open borders:

Quote

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.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Benjamin McGuire]

45 minutes ago, Potter said:

Your argument seems to be playing hide and seek with clarity. Sseems like you've lost the plot in this debate.

 No, it seems that you want to make it something other than what it was. I know what I was writing.

45 minutes ago, Potter said:

In the inaugural post of this thread, you mentioned that you kicked it off because someone inquired whether you champion the cause of open borders. So, I embarked on a little treasure hunt for that conversation and stumbled upon it in a thread that's now sealed tighter than a drum.

There is this header on the forum that reads "Seriously No Politics." By discussing the ethical and moral content, I am doing my best to make the discussion not about politics. I think that there is a useful and potentially valuable discussion that can be had without engaging in the raging political debate. But it is the rule about politics that caused the other thread to be locked up. I am finally responding to that question because it has been asked repeatedly in other threads (many of which have also been locked up), and I answered it in a new thread because as the originator of the thread, I have some limited ability to direct the discussion specifically into the area that I want to discuss instead of having it constantly split off into political debates.

48 minutes ago, Potter said:

So, I'm curious, what’s the game plan when the cartels decide to waltz in with their sex slaves and illegal drugs through the open border you’re all for?

The same as the plan to deal with it now, when they waltz in through the closed border that seems relatively ineffective at stopping them.