Doctrine on immigration?

[Guest]

I think I understand your point, but imagine that it was an illegal immigrant having a heart attack....would you have them leave him outside to die?  Your wish would be that citizenship papers are checked along with insurance because only legal people deserve to live?  

I don't mean that to sound sarcastic, or cold, I'm just wondering if you have thought that through.  

About the "freebies" I hear this argument all the time, but honestly I'm very suspicious.  How could illegal immigrants be getting all these perks if they don't have papers.  Sure some get fake ID's etc, but my guess is that most of them do not.  Does anyone have any proof either way on this issue?  I've heard that most of the people on welfare are white folks.  I'll do some digging and see if I can find that again and if it is a reasonable source I'll share it here later.  

 

LP, if they're having a heart attack, you treat the condition then send them back.

 

I have lots of anecdotes for you.  They don't make sanctuary cities for nothing...

 

I left LA for the main reason that every party I went to asked me if I need papers... it's quite a lucrative business in LA to provide illegal immigrants with papers and it all works through word of mouth.  I mean - you won't find an ad for it on billboards, ya know.  But yes, there are more people just working on a cash basis.  I worked for 2 months in a bakery in Texas on a cash basis because the store owner assumed I was an illegal immigrant.  I didn't give him my resume because I had a computer engineering background applying at a bakery and I was hesitant and uncomfortable asking him for a job. 

 

On the percentages, I wouldn't be surprised if there are more whites receiving welfare than blacks as they are a bigger slice of the population - in a society of 10 whites and 2 blacks, having 5 white people and 1 black person on welfare doesn't say much.

 

But this:  https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012026/tables/table_32.asp do say the white folks are the least percentage of the population receiving public assistance.

Edited September 25, 2015 by anatess

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Thanks Anatess that is helpful information. I've never lived in California or any sanctuary cities so I had no idea papers were so easy to get.

It's quite a conundrum.

Edited September 25, 2015 by LiterateParakeet

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

Citizenship:

The idea that a person's right to seek job security, health care, housing, or political participation are dependent solely on the place of that person's birth, rather than on the place where they currently reside or their activity in the local community.

 

Illegal immigration:

The idea that birds need a visa and a passport to fly south for the winter.

The idea that an entire class of people are criminals based on how they cross an imaginary line.

 

Notes on ancient Israel:

They were invaders violently evicting the current residents. They were far more than illegal immigrants, they were warmongers.

Borders were completely open except for armies. Trade and immigration were almost entirely unregulated.

 

Notes on ancient Lehites:

They were immigrants from Jerusalem to the Americas.

They were undocumented. Other indigenous peoples already lived here. We do not know if they were unwelcome.

Their borders were essentially open except for armies.

 

The Lord's actual words regarding immigrants:

Exodus 12:49

Exodus 22:21-22

Leviticus 24:22

Leviticus 25:35-38

Jeremiah 22:3

Ezekiel 22:29

Matthew 25:35

Luke 10:36-37

Galatians 3:28

Galatians 5:14

Hebrews 13:2

3 John 1:5

(Summary: God sees no difference between you and an immigrant. Period. God is no respecter of persons, NOR of a person's origin. Period.)

 

It's important to point out that we teach all investigators to "obey, honor, and sustain the law" and to "follow the law of the land". And the church allows illegal immigrants to get baptized.

 

And finally, on the note of legality vs illegality - those are man's laws, not God's. The Saints are not required to silently subject themselves to unjust laws. Most people who talk about illegal immigration don't actually have a clue what America's immigration laws actually say, much less whether they are just or not. I'm also going to point out that most of the people complaining about illegal immigration are the same people who are complaining about government over-regulation. The hypocrisy, and all the ways that it is rationalized, is suffocating.

Edited September 28, 2015 by puf_the_majic_dragon

[Guest]

 

Citizenship:

The idea that a person's right to seek job security, health care, housing, or political participation are dependent solely on the place of that person's birth, rather than on the place where they currently reside or their activity in the local community.

 

 

Incorrect.  Citizenship is the idea that a government has jurisdiction over you.

 

In the US, a mix of blood-line and place of birth determines citizenship.

 

In the Philippines, only blood-line matters, but you have to be born from citizen parents.  If your parents become citizens of somewhere else, your blood-line won't make you a citizen anymore.

 

In Israel, blood-line matters very much.  You can be a citizen of any land for generations.  If you can trace your roots to a Jewish blood-line, you are a citizen.

 

In any one of these countries, if the country ends up in War, they can call on its citizens - by volunteer or by draft - to take up arms to defend the country.

 

 

 

Illegal immigration:

The idea that birds need a visa and a passport to fly south for the winter.

The idea that an entire class of people are criminals based on how they cross an imaginary line.

 

 

Birds don't need visas.  Only humans do.  Governments are not obligated to provide services to birds.  They are obligated to provide services to their human citizens.  If you receive services from a government that do not have jurisdiction over you, you are receiving services illegally.  Because - as you are not under their jurisdiction, they cannot force you to contribute to society and defend the country.  Of course, you can't draft birds for war either, so there's really no point in requiring citizenship from them - legal or otherwise.

 

 

 

Notes on ancient Israel:

They were invaders violently evicting the current residents. They were far more than illegal immigrants, they were warmongers.

Borders were completely open except for armies. Trade and immigration were almost entirely unregulated.

 

Notes on ancient Lehites:

They were immigrants from Jerusalem to the Americas.

They were undocumented. Other indigenous peoples already lived here. We do not know if they were unwelcome.

Their borders were essentially open except for armies.

 

 

Yes.  That's how you build a nation.  You take a piece of land (by inheritance or through war) and defend it with your army or your allies' armies.  If you can't defend it, then you will lose it.  That's how the Promise Land became Ancient Israel, that's how Modern Israel rose out of the Ottoman Empire, that's how you became an American instead of a Brit.  And that's how you will remain an American instead of Chinese.

 

Those who don't think defending one's borders is important need to look back at what happened to the Native Americans and what's happening to Iraq and Syria today and where their culture, faiths, traditions, etc. is going to end up.

 

 

 

 

It's important to point out that we teach all investigators to "obey, honor, and sustain the law" and to "follow the law of the land". And the church allows illegal immigrants to get baptized.

 

And finally, on the note of legality vs illegality - those are man's laws, not God's. The Saints are not required to silently subject themselves to unjust laws. Most people who talk about illegal immigration don't actually have a clue what America's immigration laws actually say, much less whether they are just or not. I'm also going to point out that most of the people complaining about illegal immigration are the same people who are complaining about government over-regulation. The hypocrisy, and all the ways that it is rationalized, is suffocating.

 

 

Yes, it is man's law.  As far as American law is concerned, it's a law designed for man to be free to follow their God's laws.

 

There is ONLY ONE purpose for the Federal Government - that is to defend the US borders.  That's it.  THAT'S IT.  So, yes, you can complain about Federal over-regulation while at the same time demand from the Federal Government to protect the borders from illegal immigrants.

 

And what is suffocating is majority of the people who support open borders are the same people who demand increased social welfare and are the same people who demand a section of society get taxed to pay for them. 

 

Now, observe the effects of open borders within the EU and their impotence at managing refugees and how it has now become a crisis so that they are putting borders back in place.  A sovereign nation will not remain sovereign for long without the means to defend its borders.

Edited September 28, 2015 by anatess

[Guest]

You had me until here and then entirely lost me with this baloney insert.

I feel badly that I lost you. And over just a few words. Oh well, you wouldn't be the first to walk away over the use of a few words.

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

Birds don't need visas.

EXACTLY.

 

Governments are not obligated to provide services to birds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migratory_Bird_Treaty_Act_of_1918 

 

They are obligated to provide services to their human citizens.  If you receive services from a government that do not have jurisdiction over you, you are receiving services illegally.  Because - as you are not under their jurisdiction, they cannot force you to contribute to society and defend the country.  Of course, you can't draft birds for war either, so there's really no point in requiring citizenship from them - legal or otherwise.

 

 

Yes.  That's how you build a nation.  You take a piece of land (by inheritance or through war) and defend it with your army or your allies' armies.  If you can't defend it, then you will lose it.  That's how the Promise Land became Ancient Israel, that's how Modern Israel rose out of the Ottoman Empire, that's how you became an American instead of a Brit.  And that's how you will remain an American instead of Chinese.

That's... not at all related to my point. Or any point. It's almost like you're suggesting that war is a good thing.

 

Those who don't think defending one's borders is important need to look back at what happened to the Native Americans and what's happening to Iraq and Syria today and where their culture, faiths, traditions, etc. is going to end up.

And that's the problem. That there is a segment in American society that thinks that 10,000 women and children riding in train cars into Texas is a defense issue. What are you afraid of? That a couple thousand 12 year old Guatemalans are going to invade Dallas and cede from the Union? Why does the nation need defending from a bunch of hungry children?

 

Answer: because there's no profit in feeding them. And Americans would rather let them starve than (God forbid!) give them food.

 

Yes, it is man's law.  As far as American law is concerned, it's a law designed for man to be free to follow their God's laws.

And God's law is....? Oh, right, thou shalt treat the stranger as one born among you.

 

There is ONLY ONE purpose for the Federal Government - that is to defend the US borders.  That's it.  THAT'S IT.  So, yes, you can complain about Federal over-regulation while at the same time demand from the Federal Government to protect the borders from illegal immigrants.

 

 

And what is suffocating is majority of the people who support open borders are the same people who demand increased social welfare and are the same people who demand a section of society get taxed to pay for them.

Breathe easy, because God didn't command us to take care of the poor. Nope. God never did that. So relax!

Oh, and 12 out of the top 20 richest people in the world, including Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, are democrats. And 36% of people with an annual income over $200,000 are democrats. That's a lot of people volunteering to be taxed.

 

The OP asked what the doctrine on immigration was. The doctrine is clear - "But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself..."

Note the imperative verb in that sentence. That is language God uses when He means business.

 

We could debate all day about the appropriate ways to manage and regulate immigration. There might even be some good that could come of that debate. We could argue for hours about legal immigration vs illegal immigration. But this I promise you - every single person talking about deportation is guilty of the same sin Ezekiel preached so adamantly against. The doctrine is clear.

[JojoBag]

Do you think that the LDS church or Book of Mormon teaches principles or doctrine of protecting immigrants?

 

Are you talking about illegal immigrants?  I think that when it comes to this class of people, Church doctrine is very clear.

 

 

We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

(Articles of Faith 1:12)

 

I truly feel for those people coming to American to find a better life, but my wife is an immigrant and she did it within the bounds of the law.  I don't think anyone should be given special status through an executive order that side steps the Constitution or Congress.

[Guest]

EXACTLY.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migratory_Bird_Treaty_Act_of_1918

That's... not at all related to my point. Or any point. It's almost like you're suggesting that war is a good thing.

And that's the problem. That there is a segment in American society that thinks that 10,000 women and children riding in train cars into Texas is a defense issue. What are you afraid of? That a couple thousand 12 year old Guatemalans are going to invade Dallas and cede from the Union? Why does the nation need defending from a bunch of hungry children?

Answer: because there's no profit in feeding them.

And God's law is....? Oh, right, thou shalt treat the stranger as one born among you.

Breathe easy, because God didn't command us to take care of the poor. Nope. God never did that. So relax!

Oh, and 12 out of the top 20 richest people in the world, including Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, are democrats. And 36% of people with an annual income over $200,000 are democrats. That's a lot of people volunteering to be taxed.

The OP asked what the doctrine on immigration was. The doctrine is clear - "But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself..."

Note the imperative verb in that sentence. That is language God uses when He means business.

We could debate all day about the appropriate ways to manage and regulate immigration. There might even be some good that could come of that debate. We could argue for hours about legal immigration vs illegal immigration. But this I promise you - every single person talking about deportation is guilty of the same sin Ezekiel preached so adamantly against. The doctrine is clear.

There's a HUGE difference between LEGAL immigration versus ILLEGAL immigration.

The difference is summarized as:

1.). You have a budget of $10/day to feed your 5 children so you plan to feed them fruits and veggies.

Legal immigration:

2.). You see 2 hungry children on the street so you make the tactical decision with your kids' consent that the nutritional content of your children's food can be reduced to stretch your $10 to feed 7 instead of 5. So you buy Ramen instead and invite the 2 kids over.

Illegal immigration:

3.). You go out and buy fruit and veggies for your 5 children. You come home to find that there are 2 uninvited kids on the table. The 2 uninvited kids eat the fruit and veggies without you nor your kids' consent and 2 of your kids go to bed hungry.

Now that was just the food. There's another element to it. The #2 scenario of Legal invitation to enter one's home requires that the 2 kids invited to dinner abide by the house rules of good manners and right conduct - no alcohol, no drugs, no cursing, no porn, and reverent prayer before meals etc. The 2 kids swear an oath to abide by the rules.

The #3 scenario of uninvited guests swore no such oaths, so they sit at your dinner table and sing Crazy Train while you hold prayer because that's what they've always done before they showed up at your house.

#2 is Immigration. #3 is not immigration. This is called invasion.

War is an appropriate response to an invasion as illustrated by Joseph Smith's attempts at armed defense of the early Saints. The trip to Utah was a result of their inability to defend their community in Missouri. While in Utah, the Saints continued to fight off invaders to preserve their way of life.

Edited September 29, 2015 by anatess

[Guest]

The Church's teaching: This is the Church's Official Statement on Immigration.

......................................And they later added this clarification on worthiness.

 

********************************************************

 

Book of Mormon:

 

First Example:

When the Lehites first landed on the continent there were no other people in the lands they settled.  No on owned it. No one claimed jurisdiction over it.  So they were free to settle where they would until they came to across another civilization. At that point they'd have to settle on borders via treaty and agreement.  But they didn't come across anyone else until they hit the Mulekites.

 

Second Example:

Alma 27: When the Ammonites came to the borders of the Nephite lands, Ammon had them stay outside the borders as he went to ask permission from the chief judge.  The chief judge asked the people to vote on whether they should be allowed in or not. (apparently there was a law against letting them in that even the chief judge could not reverse of his own authority).  The people heard their pleas and agreed to let them in.

 

Third Example:

Helaman 6: After peace was completely established there was open commerce between the nations and there was free travel for commerce.  Some say this was immigration.  I just believe this was for trade only.  Other passages indicate that permanent immigration was still rare.