Branch President arrested, faces deportation

[Netgood]

Japan and South Korea have amazing high tech economies. They didn't need immigration to become this way. They just took up the foundation that the great American minds created.

They got this way by having great families who support their children, and teach them a good work ethic.

Immigrants do not have a good work ethic. A majority of them are on welfare in western countries. They are the ones who want to take a easy way out of the struggles of their countries.

Just heard Obama is allowing 20,000 Muslim refugees into our country from recent upheavals. Do you know that children of muslim immigrants are some of the best recruits for terrorists. 35 terrorists in Guantomono come from western immigrant families.

[Netgood]

The same people who say that government is a mighty power for good that can extinguish every cigarette butt and detoxify every cheeseburger and even change the very climate of the planet back to some Edenic state so that the water that falleth from heaven will land as ice and snow, and polar bears on distant continents will frolic as they did in days of yore, the very same people say: Building a border fence? Enforcing deportation orders? Can't be done, old boy. Pie-in-the-sky.

Quote of the day - Mark Steyn

[rameumptom]

Netgood, that's basically baloney. The data does not support your statements.

Japan, S. Korea, India, Russia and other nations used to be failed states until they adapted free markets, private property rights, etc. Most nations on earth have yet to do these things. The family cannot become as wonderful as you think, simply by choosing to do so. Many Arab nations do not allow Christianity or free ideas to thrive. Women are often not allowed a voice. In many other nations, large portions of the people do not have a voice, and so are forced to live in squalor. Without education or private property, they cannot rise above their station.

We can build a border fence. I have no problem with that. But then I want the gates to be opened up. Unless you are a purebred Native American, you are the product of immigrants. Why would you deny the blessings you enjoy to others who simply were not fortunate enough to be born here?

And I do not consider the government an instrument of good. It is a necessary instrument

[Netgood]

You are baloney filled.

I referred to Japan and South Korea as examples of rich high tech countries that have practically zero immigration as compared to the USA. This was to counteract the cry that we need immigrants to succeed in this global economy.

As to your point of were all immigrants Mark Steyn disagrees.

This is not an "immigration" issue. "Immigration" is when you go into a U.S. government office and there's a hundred people filling in paperwork to live in America, and there are a couple of Slovaks, couple of Bangladeshis, couple of New Zealanders, couple of Botswanans, couple of this, couple of that. Assimilation is not in doubt because, if you're a lonely Slovak in Des Moines, it's extremely difficult to stay unassimilated.

This is not an "illegal immigration" issue. That's when one of the Slovaks or Botswanans gets tired of waiting in line for 12 years and comes in anyway, and lives and works here and doesn't pay any taxes, so the money he earns gets sluiced around the neighborhood supermarket and gas station and topless bar and the rest of the local economy, instead of being given to Trent and Arlen and Co. to toss into the great sucking maw of the federal budget.

But a "worker class" drawn overwhelmingly from a neighboring jurisdiction with another language and ancient claims on your territory and whose people now send so much money back home in the form of "remittances" that it's Mexico's largest source of foreign income (bigger than oil or tourism) is not "immigration" at all, but a vast experiment in societal transformation. Indeed, given the international track record of bilingual societies and neighboring jurisdictions with territorial claims, it's not much of an experiment so much as a safe bet on political instability.

[Guest]

I'm going to make this short because I am feeling like my posts are not being read in its entirety (your responses seem to miss a lot of what I say). Very understandable because my posts have been really wordy...

<snip>... slavery...

Federal Law versus State Law. Either way, it was all about abiding by some law. Which law supercedes the other is not the point of the discussion.

<snip>... Jim Crow, Hitler, Ghandi, etc. etc.

See my statement from one of my posts in this thread below:

I'm fine with civil disobedience for a just cause. I don't agree that this is one of them, especially for the reasons that Rame presented.

<snip> getting rid of the 12-20 million illegals...

This is what I meant when I said you haven't read my posts. Because, if you have read my proposition to modify the McCain-Kennedy bill you will see clearly that I support McCain-Kennedy's solution of granting Y-visas to illegal immigrants. But, I don't support giving them a path to citizenship.

<snip> my cousins...

Of course there is no guarantee that ANYBODY can get an entry visa to the United States. Why would you need borders if you just open the gates to anybody?

If my cousins do not pass visa requirements, then they should remain in the Philippines.

America do not need to open their borders to people who are going to burden the welfare system. They can provide humanitarian aid to these people through the many programs America embarks on in their native countries.

Immigration policy must change, as well as other policies.

I gave you my proposal to modify the immigration law on a previous post. Granted, it is a high-level outline as it is for the purpose of a forum. I have a more detailed version of it that I submitted to the Senators in my state.

I am interested to see what you propose as a change.

We can absorb not only the illegals now here, but many millions of more people. We just have to get government out of the way of everything. And that is going to require some civil disobedience.

No you can't. You have a 10% unemployment rate with over $3Trillion in deficits. Unless those immigrants are filling a labor void, you will not be able to afford them. And the way to determine if an immigrant should be allowed entry or not is through the LEGAL immigration process.

Civil disobedience is not to be used just because you don't like the law. Civil disobedience is to be used when human rights are trampled. That does not exist in this case. Mexicans who live in Mexico retain human rights even if they are poorer than their American counterparts. Those whose human rights are being trampled gain entry into the USA through political assylum.

Edited May 11, 2011 by anatess

[rameumptom]

Anatess, there is more than one way to have a human rights violation. And the USA is not always accomodating. For those escaping Cuba, they must reach US soil, otherwise they are turned back.

In Mexico, one has a corrupt government, drug dealers, and military that make living very dangerous. There is ever growing concern in the LDS colonies in Mexico, because the drug cartels are trying to push into them. I know, because I have friends there.

And the dangers abound. When Pres Obama was in Texas the other day, gunfire from Juarez hit government buildings in El Paso. The murder rate in Juarez is alarming. Clearly, human rights violations are occurring all the time.

So, even this part of our immigration policy is broken.

As for Netgood's assessment, let's just say I don't give much credence to Mark Steyn, who is a nobody pretending to be an expert. Japan and S. Korea are both going to hit a major crisis soon: they are aging nations. Eventually, there will be so few young people to fill jobs that they will be forced to repopulate one way or another. The easiest method is via immigration.

[Guest]

Anatess, there is more than one way to have a human rights violation. And the USA is not always accomodating. For those escaping Cuba, they

must reach US soil, otherwise they are turned back.

Of course! That's what it means to have SOVEREIGNTY. America has no jurisdiction over other country's citizens until they reach American soil.

In Mexico, one has a corrupt government, drug dealers, and military that make living very dangerous. There is ever growing concern in the LDS colonies in Mexico, because the drug cartels are trying to push into them. I know, because I have friends there.

And the dangers abound. When Pres Obama was in Texas the other day, gunfire from Juarez hit government buildings in El Paso. The murder rate in Juarez is alarming. Clearly, human rights violations are occurring all the time.

So, even this part of our immigration policy is broken.

Welcome to Planet Earth. I lived through that too. I'm a Marcos dictatorship survivor. I lived under Martial Law until I was 16 years old.

Mexico is a lot better country than Sudan, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, Central African Republic, Niger, Somalia, North Korea, Cuba, Colombia, Guatemala, Haiti, Ethiopia, Iraq, Bosnia, Georgia (the country), Azerbaijan....

I can name 50 more, most of which do not even have a single missionary of the LDS church in them.

Read up on a few of them. You will see Mexico is a relatively awesome country.

So, what makes Mexicans special? None of the other countries are allowed entry into the US. Instead, they get American support through US international efforts and Angelina Jolie.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION is NOT the answer to any of the problems you present.

[rameumptom]

I agree that illegal immigration is not a good answer. However, it is a reality. And we can deal with it in a humane way, or we can lose our Christianity over it. As I've stated before, the Church's stance is humane and workable.

However, I still am an advocate for Civil Disobedience when a law is bad. The Underground Railroad was the right thing to do against slavery. Peaceful sit-ins and marches were the right thing to do with the Jim Crow laws. If we can get our borders secured and open up the gate to reasonable immigration, then we can allow many people in and allow them all the benefit of the American Dream.

Having said that, this discussion seems to be going around in circles, and going nowhere, and so I'm bowing out of it.

[Guest]

I agree that illegal immigration is not a good answer. However, it is a reality. And we can deal with it in a humane way, or we can lose our Christianity over it. As I've stated before, the Church's stance is humane and workable.

Let's end it there. Because I agree with that 100%.

[Netgood]

I disagree that creating government laws to keep your nation pure is against Christianity. Rounding up every illegal who has overstayed their visa is not un-Christian.

[Just_A_Guy]

Define "pure"?

[Dravin]

Define "pure"?

Heh, that makes me think of a Babylon 5 episode where a race created a weapons system that would eliminate everything that wasn't pure (their race). It ended up destroying all life on the planet.

[PrinceofLight2000]

Of course! That's what it means to have SOVEREIGNTY. America has no jurisdiction over other country's citizens until they reach American soil.

Welcome to Planet Earth. I lived through that too. I'm a Marcos dictatorship survivor. I lived under Martial Law until I was 16 years old.

Mexico is a lot better country than Sudan, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, Central African Republic, Niger, Somalia, North Korea, Cuba, Colombia, Guatemala, Haiti, Ethiopia, Iraq, Bosnia, Georgia (the country), Azerbaijan....

I can name 50 more, most of which do not even have a single missionary of the LDS church in them.

Read up on a few of them. You will see Mexico is a relatively awesome country.

So, what makes Mexicans special? None of the other countries are allowed entry into the US. Instead, they get American support through US international efforts and Angelina Jolie.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION is NOT the answer to any of the problems you present.

Generally left-wing voting bloc. This issue is so unilaterally political it's pathetic.

[beefche]

None of the other countries are allowed entry into the US. Instead, they get American support through US international efforts and Angelina Jolie.

Edited May 12, 2011 by beefche
bolded the part that made me laugh

[PrinceofLight2000]

To be fair, illegal immigration is nowhere near as severe of a problem for any other nation as it is with Mexico.

Source: http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/61.pdf

[beefche]

See my edit, POL.

[PrinceofLight2000]

See my edit, POL.

We seriously need a thank and laugh ability.

[Guest]

To be fair, illegal immigration is nowhere near as severe of a problem for any other nation as it is with Mexico.

Source: http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/61.pdf

Of course... you can't just hop and skip into US soil from say... Afghanistan.

And Canadians think too highly of themselves.

[Guest]

Generally left-wing voting bloc. This issue is so unilaterally political it's pathetic.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here POL... purty please enlighten me further...

[Dravin]

And Canadians think too highly of themselves.

Or the thought of giving up poutine is simply too much to contemplate.

[PrinceofLight2000]

I have no idea what you're trying to say here POL... purty please enlighten me further...

Many liberal politicians want Mexican illegals to continue to come here and stay here illegally so that they can eventually attempt to get them amnesty. They will then be additional votes for said politicians. And this doesn't even take into account the huge amount of vote fraud already done by illegals.

[Guest]

Many liberal politicians want Mexican illegals to continue to come here and stay here illegally so that they can eventually attempt to get them amnesty. They will then be additional votes for said politicians. And this doesn't even take into account the huge amount of vote fraud already done by illegals.

I'm not sure this is the case. Because, last time, Ronald Reagan was the one that signed the amnesty and it didn't swing Hispanic votes to the Republican side by any noticeable margin. Even if you consider the authors of that amnesty bill - Simpson, a republican senator, and Mazolli a democratic congressman - the amnesty still weighs heavily in favor of the Republicans. Yet, Hispanic votes in the 1988 election remained in a 70%/30% split in favor of the Democratic candidate.

And then again, in 2005/2007, McCain was heavily engaged in another amnesty bill with Ted Kennedy while Obama never touched it. Yes, it died on the floor, but if Hispanics wanted amnesty, they would have voted McCain in to get that bill back on the floor again... yet, in the 2008 elections, Hispanics still favored the Democratic candidate at 67% - no change from past elections statistics.

So yeah, I think that's just media propaganda.

[Netgood]

Define "pure"?

Same as the book of mormon definition politically correctness enforcer dude.

Edited May 12, 2011 by Netgood

[PrinceofLight2000]

I'm not sure this is the case. Because, last time, Ronald Reagan was the one that signed the amnesty and it didn't swing Hispanic votes to the Republican side by any noticeable margin. Even if you consider the authors of that amnesty bill - Simpson, a republican senator, and Mazolli a democratic congressman - the amnesty still weighs heavily in favor of the Republicans. Yet, Hispanic votes in the 1988 election remained in a 70%/30% split in favor of the Democratic candidate.

And then again, in 2005/2007, McCain was heavily engaged in another amnesty bill with Ted Kennedy while Obama never touched it. Yes, it died on the floor, but if Hispanics wanted amnesty, they would have voted McCain in to get that bill back on the floor again... yet, in the 2008 elections, Hispanics still favored the Democratic candidate at 67% - no change from past elections statistics.

So yeah, I think that's just media propaganda.

That doesn't really address my point. All it proves was the part of my point which said that Mexican immigrants, and by extension illegal immigrants, are a left-wing voting bloc, and that conservatives (McCain is highly debatable but meh) won't win anything by appeasement.

Edited May 12, 2011 by PrinceofLight2000