Should Churches Harbor Illegal Immigrants?; #PrinceofPeace; and More!

[Third Hour]

Is it Our Christian Duty To House Illegal Immigrants? Jeanette Vizguerra is originally from Mexico but was granted sanctuary by the First Unitarian Society of Denver in order to avoid deportation as an undocumented immigrant. Ingrid Encalada Latorre, of Peru, has been living at the Mountain View Friends Meeting since December. Thanks to the sensitive locations policy maintained by both Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, arrests at "sensitive locations" (i.e., schools, hospitals, and churches) should be avoided. Faith communities in Denver and Boulder are taking advantage of this policy, banding together to form the Metro Denver Sanctuary Coalition. "For Unitarian Universalists, one of our primary foundational beliefs is the inherent worth and dignity of all people. That's central to our work on immigration because we're looking at the human indignity of our current immigration process where you go in and take people from their home or workplaces and the effect that has on children and families," said Rev. Lydia Ferrante-Roseberry of The Boulder Valley Unitarian Universalist Fellowship. Other faith groups...

View the full article

[Guest MormonGator]

Ok, I'll be the mean guy here. It would be odd for a church that claims to believe in "being subject to, honoring, sustaining and obeying the law" to openly harbor those who are inherently breaking it. 

Edited March 22, 2017 by MormonGator

[mordorbund]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

Ok, I'll be the mean guy here. It would be odd for a church that claims to believe in "being subject to, honoring, sustaining and obeying the law" to openly harbor those who are inherently breaking it. 

I'll be even meaner. Are such organizations consistent with their beliefs when it comes to squatters? Are they concerned about the "human indignity of our current [squatter] process where you go in and take people from their home or workplaces and the effect that has on children and families"? Or would they contend that a squatter has no legitimate (legal or moral) claim to the house as "home"?

[unixknight]

1 hour ago, ldsnet said:

"For Unitarian Universalists, one of our primary foundational beliefs is the inherent worth and dignity of all people. That's central to our work on immigration because we're looking at the human indignity of our current immigration process where you go in and take people from their home or workplaces and the effect that has on children and families,"

Do we care about he human indignity of someone being arrested at home or at work because they shoplifted?

Do we concern ourselves with the effect on the children and family of a drug dealer being put in jail to await trial?

No, of course not.  We would say that this person brought those troubles on themselves and their families by choosing to break the law.

When did breaking immigration law turn into a moral act?

[Guest MormonGator]

10 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Do we care about he human indignity of someone being arrested at home or at work because they shoplifted?

Do we concern ourselves with the effect on the children and family of a drug dealer being put in jail to await trial?

No, of course not.  We would say that this person brought those troubles on themselves and their families by choosing to break the law.

When did breaking immigration law turn into a moral act?

Preach brother. The sad truth is that illegal immigration is the new and latest radical chic and test of compassion for the left. Ten years ago it was gay marriage. 

[unixknight]

Just now, MormonGator said:

Preach brother. The sad truth is that illegal immigration is the new and latest radical chic and test of compassion for the left. Ten years ago it was gay marriage. 

I just find it bewildering.  My dad was an immigrant to this country in 1962 and he did it legally.  He was the classic example of the dirt poor immigrant coming here from South America and building a life for himself.  This year, at last, he's going for citizenship.  (about time.)

Every single illegal alien is a slap in the face to people who did it right the way my father did.  It's like they think they're too good to follow the legal process.  I'm sorry to go on a rant here but this is something I feel very strongly about and it sickens me the way the left has turned an entire group of lawbreakers into a protected class.

And now churches are protecting them as if it was the Government that was the Big Bad(TM) coming after the poor innocent [sic] immigrant who just wants to make a better life for himself.

Contrary to the popular narrative:

• Illegal aliens are not law abiding people.  They have already demonstrated at least once that, if it's convenient for them, they'll ignore the law.
• Violating immigration law is a Federal Crime.  Trump has introduced *no* new orders or policies.  He's only enforcing existing law.
• Nobody has a right to be in the United States other than United States Citizens.  Everyone else is a guest.  Is it too much to ask our guests to obey our laws?
• While I agree that non-citizens should be protected by the U.S. Constitution just as much as citizens, that still means they have to obey the laws.

These opinions apparently make me a xenophobic racist. 

[Guest MormonGator]

4 minutes ago, unixknight said:

 

These opinions apparently make me a xenophobic racist. 

That's because like we all know, the hardcore left has one thing in their "argument": name calling. 

[mordorbund]

3 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Violating immigration law is a Federal Crime.  Trump has introduced *no* new orders or policies.  He's only enforcing existing law.

This is a point that I don't think President Trump has driven home forcefully enough. I've heard the following soundbite from his address to Congress:

Quote

As we speak, we are removing gang members, drug dealers and criminals that threaten our communities and prey on our citizens. Bad ones are going out as I speak tonight and as I have promised.

To any in Congress who do not believe we should enforce our laws, I would ask you this question: what would you say to the American family that loses their jobs, their income, or a loved one, because America refused to uphold its laws and defend its borders?

And when I hear it I always think it should be:

Quote

To any in Congress who do not believe we should enforce our laws, I would ask you this question: Why then did you pass them in the first place?

 

[Guest]

Consider four levels of nefarious behavior:

1) Level 1: Almost everybody does it.  I honestly don't know any drivers over 25 years old who never speeds on a fairly common basis.

2) Level 2: Behavior a significant minority engages in.  We don't like it, but we probably wouldn't report it. Yet, if they got caught, we'd be right there saying,"You should have known better.  It's your own dumb fault for doing something like that."

3) Level 3: Behavior a smaller minority engages in.  These crimes are upsetting.  Conscientious people would tend to report it.  But we tend not to think of people as monsters if they commit them.

4) Level 4: Behavior pretty much everyone would fight against and hate -- except for the ones committing the crime.  These may cause people to think the criminal is evil.

Conservatives tend to focus on the illegal immigrants who do things at Level 4, also conflating their illegal status to be on the same level of crime in and of itself.

Liberals often place the illegal status at Level 1 or even Level 0 (an unjust law and it shouldn't be illegal at all).

I tend to think of it as level 2.  I'm not going to report someone simply because of their illegal status.  I won't like it.  I won't help hide them.  And if they get caught, I'm going to miss them but think,"Oh well.  You  broke the rules."  I may be persuaded to believe some ways of going about it would be level 3 -- especially if it is the mechanism by which they repeatedly commit other crimes.

I do believe that the statement the Longmont Stake President represents the level 2 belief.

Edited March 23, 2017 by Guest

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Consider four levels of nefarious behavior:

1) Level 1: Almost everybody does it.  I honestly don't know any drivers over 25 years old who never speeds on a fairly common basis.

2) Level 2: Behavior a significant minority engages in.  We don't like it, but we probably wouldn't report it. Yet, if they got caught, we'd be right there saying,"You should have known better.  It's your own dumb fault for doing something like that."

3) Level 3: Behavior a smaller minority engages in.  These crimes are upsetting.  Conscientious people would tend to report it.  But we tend not to think of people as monsters if they commit them.

4) Level 4: Behavior pretty much everyone would fight against and hate -- except for the ones committing the crime.  These may cause people to think the criminal is evil.

Conservatives tend to focus on the illegal immigrants who do things at Level 4, also conflating their illegal status to be on the same level of crime in and of itself.

Liberals often place the illegal status at Level 1 or even Level 0 (an unjust law and it shouldn't be illegal at all).

I tend to think of it as level 2.  I'm not going to report someone simply because of their illegal status.  I won't like it.  I won't help hide them.  And if they get caught, I'm going to miss them but think,"Oh well.  You  broke the rules."  I may be persuaded to believe some ways of going about it would be level 3 -- especially if it is the mechanism by which they repeatedly commit other crimes.

I do believe that the statement the Longmont Stake President represents the level 2 belief.

Here's the difference:

Level 1:  I have not heard of any group who is making a political statement that helping speeders avoid the fine is a moral impetus even as they believe it is wrong to speed but that everybody is doing it...

So,  the sanctuary-supporting Liberals (because I don't think it is a majority of liberals who believe in sanctuary for illegal immigrants) wouldn't be at Level 1.  They'd all be at Level 0.  Right?

Edited March 23, 2017 by anatess2

[Guest]

15 hours ago, anatess2 said:

So,  the sanctuary-supporting Liberals (because I don't think it is a majority of liberals who believe in sanctuary for illegal immigrants) wouldn't be at Level 1.  They'd all be at Level 0.  Right?

18 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Liberals often place the illegal status at Level 1 or even Level 0 (an unjust law and it shouldn't be illegal at all).

 

Edited March 24, 2017 by Guest

[Guest MormonGator]

18 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Consider four levels of nefarious behavior:

1) Level 1: Almost everybody does it.  I honestly don't know any drivers over 25 years old who never speeds on a fairly common basis.

2) Level 2: Behavior a significant minority engages in.  We don't like it, but we probably wouldn't report it. Yet, if they got caught, we'd be right there saying,"You should have known better.  It's your own dumb fault for doing something like that."

3) Level 3: Behavior a smaller minority engages in.  These crimes are upsetting.  Conscientious people would tend to report it.  But we tend not to think of people as monsters if they commit them.

4) Level 4: Behavior pretty much everyone would fight against and hate -- except for the ones committing the crime.  These may cause people to think the criminal is evil.

Conservatives tend to focus on the illegal immigrants who do things at Level 4, also conflating their illegal status to be on the same level of crime in and of itself.

Liberals often place the illegal status at Level 1 or even Level 0 (an unjust law and it shouldn't be illegal at all).

I tend to think of it as level 2.  I'm not going to report someone simply because of their illegal status.  I won't like it.  I won't help hide them.  And if they get caught, I'm going to miss them but think,"Oh well.  You  broke the rules."  I may be persuaded to believe some ways of going about it would be level 3 -- especially if it is the mechanism by which they repeatedly commit other crimes.

I do believe that the statement the Longmont Stake President represents the level 2 belief.

Insightful post my friend. 

[anatess2]

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

 

Nuance:

There are the Level 0 globalists who believe in open borders (no such thing as illegal immigration).  There are those who believe in closed borders but that those already here should not have to suffer any consequence - not Level 1.  This not-Level-1 is where those sanctuary churches are at.  Level 1 would be Marco Rubio or John McCain - they're already here, have them pay a fine and all is forgiven.