Comparing illegal aliens and Mormon pioneers

[Queolby]

There is an argument circulating around Utah comparing illegal immigration today to the early Mormon pioneers. I will give a short argument on why it's not the same thing. And you can chime in if you want.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900081115/utah-ice-protesters-rally-pioneers-latter-day-saints.html?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=deseretnews&utm_campaign=facebookpage

 

 

 

Here is my argument: The Mormon pioneers were U.S citizens that were kicked out of their own country. 
 Boggs, Ford, President Buchanan and Stephen A. Douglas were all Democrats that were responsible for forcing these u.s. citizens out of their country.

Edited July 25, 2019 by Queolby

[NeuroTypical]

Mormon pioneers were not breaking any laws, going anywhere illegally, settling anywhere illegally.

(I can say that, because the impacted Native American tribes didn't have any such system of laws, or even know what hit them until it was too late.  But that's not an LDS-specific thing, nor does it really have much in common with our modern definitions of nations, which include borders and systems of immigration.)

Edited July 25, 2019 by NeuroTypical

[anatess2]

This is an idiotic argument.

ILLEGAL is a term that denotes the existence of an immigration LAW that somebody broke.

Settlers, colonizers, pioneers et. al., did not break any law to claim a piece of property. 

Now, Conquerors did not break laws they were bound to - they broke somebody else's laws and defeated those who made the laws - by conquest - so they can supersede the law with their own version of it.  Illegal immigrants have more in common with Conquerors than Pioneers.

[anatess2]

[anatess2]

26 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

(I can say that, because the impacted Native American tribes didn't have any such system of laws, or even know what hit them until it was too late.  But that's not an LDS-specific thing, nor does it really have much in common with our modern definitions of nations, which include borders and systems of immigration.)

Native American tribes conquered each other's tribes and plundered each other's resources.

[estradling75]

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

This...

 

Note that when the Church was driven out and then resettled near people (Like Clay County) they asked for and received permission first.

There is a huge difference between settling a place where no one is and having to build up infrastructure... (That is called Pioneering)

And settling in a place were people already live and you are not welcome.  (That is called invasion)

Now one might say the pioneers invaded the place of the Native Americans... That could be a fair comparison...  But then you have to convince me that experience the Native Americans had with people taking their lands is something I should want or should just let happen.

 

 

 

[NeuroTypical]

14 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Native American tribes conquered each other's tribes and plundered each other's resources.

Yep.  The whole of human history is an endless cycle of groups of humans conquering each other's groups and plundering each other's resources.   Native Americans in the plains in the 1700-1800s were on the more nomadic end of things.   Pioneers would have had a different story if they were moving into, say, the Incan empire at the height of it's power.

I wish the 'open borders' brigade would crack a few history books.  Because in terms of defending our way of life against newcomers, we're moving further away from the Mayans, and closer to the Navajo.  

Edited July 25, 2019 by NeuroTypical

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Queolby said:

There is an argument circulating around Utah comparing illegal immigration today to the early Mormon pioneers. I will give my arguments and some of you should chime in.

I think God would have both groups, each consisting of His children, treated with charity and compassion in choosing to immigrate under such extreme circumstances away from insurmountable threats to life, limb, humanity, happiness, etc. had they remained in their homes.

Edited July 25, 2019 by CV75

[Vort]

Ah, yes. The nonviolent, peace-loving American Indian native aborigines opened their arms to the white settlers, only to be cruelly conquered. If we teach that to our children for enough generations, eventually they'll believe it.

Do you suppose that the ancestors of the modern so-called Native Americans arrived here, that they found a virgin land, wholly unoccupied by any other human beings? Or do you think that maybe they,  you know, fought and killed and raped and pillaged and otherwise conquered their way to supremacy?

Where, exactly, is the moral superiority the Left claims against the descendants of those white settlers? Because I don't see it.

[anatess2]

19 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think God would have both groups, each consisting of His children, treated with charity and compassion in choosing to immigrate under such extreme circumstances away from insurmountable threats to life, limb, humanity, happiness, etc. had they remained in their homes.

Ahh yes... the guilt trip justifying ILLEGAL economic immigration.

 

[NeuroTypical]

27 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think God would have both groups, each consisting of His children, treated with charity and compassion in choosing to immigrate under such extreme circumstances away from insurmountable threats to life, limb, humanity, happiness, etc. had they remained in their homes.

Deuteronomy 20 lol

Quote

When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it:

And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee. Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations.

But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee: That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the Lord your God.

When thou shalt besiege a city a long time, in making war against it to take it, thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof by forcing an axe against them: for thou mayest eat of them, and thou shalt not cut them down (afor the tree of the field is man’s life) to employ them in the siege: Only the trees which thou knowest that they be not trees for ameat, thou shalt destroy and cut them down; and thou shalt build bulwarks against the city that maketh war with thee, until it be subdued.

 

Edited July 25, 2019 by NeuroTypical

[estradling75]

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Ahh yes... the guilt trip justifying ILLEGAL economic immigration.

 

Indeed... 

Note the profound difference between the Church members who where persecuted (and even the Anti Nephi Lehis) and what is being demanded  of us.

The Church members and the Anti Nephi Lehis both asked for and waited until they had permission before moving.  When the Church members were denied they didn't just go and take want they wanted anyways.  And remember Navuoo was a swamp that the Church was allowed to settle on.

God's call for Charity and Compassion works both ways... He does not turn a blind eye to thievery and law breaking just because one is in a bad place.

Immigrants who wait for permission are not illegal and are welcome.  Immigrants who do not wait... who selfishly think their needs justify taking that was not given them are illegal and not on the side of God.

[MrShorty]

Joseph Smith is alleged to have said something about finding the kernel of truth in the midst of outlandish allegations against. Along those kinds of "devil's advocate" lines, might there be some truth (especially if we allow presentism to inform our view of history) to the allegations? The Mormon migration began right in the midst of the Mexican American war and the furor of Manifest Destiny. Our pioneers even sent a battalion to serve in the Mexican American war, though they never participated in any actual conflict. My impression has been that the early LDS pioneers were a mostly pro-US bunch who, I expect, would have celebrated that Utah came under US jurisdiction at the end of the Mexican American war.

It seems that with the Oregon territory, the US's strategy was to send as many colonizers as they could to legitimize its claim to the territory. While the Mormons were probably thinking more about getting away from persecution rather than helping the US stake a claim to the Great Basin desert, that feels like a partial outgrowth of settling the Salt Lake Valley. Though, this sort of strategy towards a "hostile takeover" feels a bit different from illegal immigration. Perhaps the kernel of truth lies in understanding how the US colonization of Oregon, California, and Utah was part of Mexico agreeing to cede much of the western/southwestern US to the US at the end of the Mexican American war. Again, I think it would be important to avoid presentism, but try to understand it in the midst of 19th century US and Mexican and British politics and ideologies.

[Anddenex]

In our day and age there appears to be a lot of people seeking to justify/rationalize a paradigm rather than seeking to find truth. The Pioneers were not illegal immigrants. The only way you could liken this thought to illegal immigration is the Pioneers who traveled from Europe and other countries to travel to "Zion."

Did these Pioneers come over illegally? No. They went through proper channels to come to the US, and then traveled to where they could worship their God according to the dictates of their conscience. The link being drawn is a false link, a justification to rationalize a paradigm.

If you want to start a new life in America, go through proper channels. Should there be compassion, mercy, justice? Yes, all three are important. If I want to start a new life in Europe, to create a better life for my family (or to find asylum) then I need to go through the proper channels.

In times of war, I have two choices -- fight or flee. If I flee, and I am fleeing to another country that has established laws then I am at the mercy and compassion of the country I am fleeing to. The Book of Mormon even teaches this principle with the people of Ammon. They do not come over to the land of Nephi and expect the Nephites to take them in. They at first say the following when thinking of going to the land of the Nephites, "Yea, if the Lord saith unto us go, we will go down unto our brethren, and we will be their slaves..." They also discuss their willingness to perish in the land if the Nephites or the Lord did not say "go" or allow them to come into their land.

Part of life is to draw proper comparisons, not comparisons that further justify and rationalize a paradigm.

 

 

[Just_A_Guy]

If modern illegal immigrants are like the Anglo-European pioneers, that makes us like the Utes and the Navajo and the Piutes—no?  ‘Cause as I recall, things didn’t end up well for them. 

The Church, as a transnational organization, naturally has to take a broader view.  And of course, from a prophecy standpoint—I think one can extrapolate that there *will* be bad relations (bloodshed?) between Latin Americans (seed of Manasseh/Lamanites) and euro-Americans (seed of Ephraim).  So the Church’s best course of action is neutrality.

But I am an American as well as a Mormon; so if I can’t fight the invasion and cultural subversion of my country outright—I at least reserve the right to lament it.

[Guest Scott]

2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Mormon pioneers were not breaking any laws, going anywhere illegally, settling anywhere illegally.

Quote

The Pioneers were not illegal immigrants.

History lesson:

Yes, the Mormon Pioneers did immigrate to the Salt Lake Valley illegally, at least from the laws of men.   It was illegal from both countries (US and Mexico), at least before February 1848.

The Salt Lake Valley was part of Mexico when the original pioneers migrated into the valley.

As per Mexican law, it was illegal to immigrate into Mexico in 1846 and 1847 (the pioneers didn't reach the Salt Lake Valley until 1847, but they started the immigration in 1846) without authorization due to the Mexican American War.

The US Government also forbade the pioneers to immigrate out of the country because they didn't want a group of people (any people) leaving the country and into a country we were at war with.   That was part of the reasoning for the Mormon Battalion (the Church wanted to prove their loyalty to the United States).

The initial immigration was illegal from both countries.   In the end, the United States let them immigrate because they were afraid of a bloodbath if they weren't allowed to leave.    Also, in the end, Mexico did nothing because they had bigger problems than to worry about the immigration to the Salt Lake Valley.

That doesn't mean it was illegal though.   It was illegal from both countries.  This is in our Church History as well.   

Of note, before the Salt Lake Valley was decided on Church leaders proposed migrating to other locations, such as Minnesota and Texas.   The Church even sent explorers into both areas.   The Mexican American war ended any proposals to migrate to Texas and in the end, it was decided that Minnesota might pose the same problems that they had in Nauvoo.

Although we might think of it as a single short revelation where the location to migrate to was dictated or decided on, this was not the case.   The Church had to do its own homework before the decision was made.   As mentioned, the Church sent explorers to Minnesota and Texas and also talked to several trappers living in the Rocky Mountain region before the decision was made.  

Church leaders thought that the Saints could migrate to the Salt Lake Valley and be unmolested there because (they thought) no one wanted the land.   It was viewed as a hostile wasteland. 

Trappers such as Jim Bridger told Brigham Young that the land was good for a few people, but he recommended against a group of thousands trying to migrate there.    Obviously, he (Jim Bridger) was wrong.

Anyway, there’s a lot of history that can be discussed here, but back to the main point, the immigration was illegal, at least from the laws of men.   The Mormon pioneers, at least before 1848 were most certainly illegal immigrants.  

Quote

The Mormon pioneers were U.S citizens that were kicked out of their own country. 
 Boggs, Ford, President Buchanan and Stephen A. Douglas were all Democrats that were responsible for forcing these u.s. citizens out of their country.

President Buchanan wasn't president until 1857.   The first pioneers arrived in the Salt Lake Valley in 1847 and what is now Utah became a part of the United States in 1848.   

President Buchanan was instrumental in sending Johnston's Army (years after the Salt Lake Valley was settled by the Church); this came long after the pioneers were fleeing the country and long after the Salt Lake Valley was also a part of the United States.  

Edited July 25, 2019 by Scott

[Guest Mores]

3 hours ago, Queolby said:

There is an argument circulating around Utah comparing illegal immigration today to the early Mormon pioneers. I will give my arguments and some of you should chime in. 
...

Here is my argument: The Mormon pioneers were U.S citizens that were kicked out of their own country. 
 Boggs, Ford, President Buchanan and Stephen A. Douglas were all Democrats that were responsible for forcing these u.s. citizens out of their country.

There is a lot of history that you're not aware of.

• Prior to 1875 there were no immigration LAWS of the United States.  There were no laws to break in this regard.  Today there are immigration laws.  So, you'd first have to address the reality that such laws exist.  The states were in charge of controlling immigration.  The Feds took care of naturalization.  While we consider them to be almost synonymous, there are obvious legal differences.
• In 1875 the Page Act was passed to put a halt to indentured servitude of foreigners.  Slavery may have been ended.  But indentured servitude was almost as bad, and in many cases worse than antebellum slavery.  That was the primary effect of the Page Act.  But over time, this led to the Federal government taking many more measures to put any type of immigration under Federal rather than state purview.
• Today's illegal alien labor is more akin to the indentured servitude that the entire policy was trying to put an end to.  And this is what those for open borders are defending.
• Most conservatives are all for wide open LEGAL immigration.  But it is important to keep it a legal process so that human trafficking can be minimized.  Without illegal immigration, such a trade would be greatly diminished.  To have NO process opens the door wide open to human trafficking.  This DOES NOT MEAN that all the people coming across the borders are dealing in slavery.  It means that illegal crossings also open the door to slavers doing their business.  That is why there must be controls on the process.

[Guest Scott]

1 minute ago, Mores said:

Prior to 1875 there were no immigration LAWS of the United States. 

First of all, the first Pioneers migrated to Mexico (Salt Lake Valley), not the United States and immigration during the war was illegal.

Second, there may not have general immigration laws in the United States, but the United States forbade the immigration into a country that they were at war with.   As I mentioned in the post above, they only let them go because they feared a bloodbath between the Mormons (as we were called back then) and non-mormons if they were not permitted to leave.  

The US Army was sent to the Mormon camps to prevent the Mormons from fleeing the country, but in the end they let them go instead of participating in a bloodbath.  Offering soldiers for the Mormon Batallion helped smooth things over as well.  

[Guest Mores]

5 minutes ago, Scott said:

Yes, the Mormon Pioneers did immigrate to the Salt Lake Valley illegally, at least from the laws of men.   It was illegal from both countries (US and Mexico), at least before February 1848.

...

That doesn't mean it was illegal though.   It was illegal from both countries.  This is in our Church History as well.   

I'd like to see your sources.  As I've stated, neither country had immigration laws at the time of the Utah settlement.  

The first immigration act of the United States was in 1875 (Page Act).

Mexico specifically allowed foreigners to immigrate in 1824.  But only Catholics could be naturalized.

Remember that there is a difference between immigration and naturalization.

What you're referring to was a specific edict of the time due to a state of war.  But those were not the same as laws today.

[Guest Scott]

4 minutes ago, Mores said:

I'd like to see your sources.

Everything I said is in our Church History.  

Quote

What you're referring to was a specific edict of the time due to a state of war.  But those were not the same as laws today.

An edict issued by a governing authority is still a law.  

Edited July 25, 2019 by Scott

[NeuroTypical]

4 minutes ago, Scott said:

9 minutes ago, Mores said:

I'd like to see your sources.

Everything I said is in our Church History.  

I don't know much about the Mexican war, and I'd like to know more.  You're speaking authoritatively @Scott, and you sound like you've got a few brain cells to rub together.  But underlining the word "everything" does not a cited source make.   I second Mores' call for sources.  Reading his now.

 

Quote

An edict issued by a governing authority is still a law.  

Ok, you're sounding less and less like you know what you're talking about.  The word "edict" doesn't appear in the US Constitution...

Edited July 25, 2019 by NeuroTypical

[Fether]

Was it illegal in Mexico to join the US army and take Mexican land?

I only ask sarcastically cause this whole business of legal/illegal is so silly considering there was a war going on.

Edited July 25, 2019 by Fether

[NeuroTypical]

Maybe if we had just passed a law against Germany seizing the Sudetenland, the whole of WWII could have been avoided 'cuz it would have been illegal...

[Guest Mores]

21 minutes ago, Scott said:

First of all, the first Pioneers migrated to Mexico (Salt Lake Valley), not the United States and immigration during the war was illegal.

Second, there may not have general immigration laws in the United States, but the United States forbade the immigration into a country that they were at war with.   As I mentioned in the post above, they only let them go because they feared a bloodbath between the Mormons (as we were called back then) and non-mormons if they were not permitted to leave.  

The US Army was sent to the Mormon camps to prevent the Mormons from fleeing the country, but in the end they let them go instead of participating in a bloodbath.  Offering soldiers for the Mormon Batallion helped smooth things over as well.  

15 minutes ago, Scott said:

Everything I said is in our Church History.  

I provided links. Can you?

Quote

An edict issued by a governing authority is still a law.  

Do you know what a Constitution is?

Let's look at the best parallel to today's laws.

• Laws passed by legislative bodies (like Congress).
• Regulations: These are standards set by the executive branch in order to give more specificity to the laws established by Congress.  And the power to declare such regulations are granted to the executive through the act of Congress that they are trying to enforce.
• Executive orders:  Most of the time, this is simply the direction given by the executive to the rest of the branch in order to do the tasks they need to do.  But some of them are a vast change in direction on how the executive will interpret as well as give priority to the regulatory powers it has.
• Court orders:  This is much like an executive order, but through the judicial branch rather than the executive.

A legislative act is still a law, and violation of it is still illegal whether it is enforced or not.

Any of the others must have a basis in some legislative act or else it is null and void.

Any "illegal" aspect of Pioneer immigration to Mexico was certainly not due to legislative action.  Any executive orders or regulatory powers were non-existent when there were no laws they were addressing.

I stand open to criticism from @Just_A_Guy if my legal analysis is faulty.

Edited July 25, 2019 by Mores

[Vort]

4 minutes ago, Mores said:

A legislative act is still a law, and violation of it is still illegal whether it is enforced or not.

The blunt fact is that a toothless law is worse than no law at all. If there is no public will to enforce a law, that law is worthless. My mind is not settled as to the moral ramifications of ignoring or breaking of an unenforced law. These are questions of societal structure, and while it is true that any society is generally better than none, the relative worth of various societies is not a constant. Some societies, or at least some aspects of societies, are simply better than those aspects of other societies.