Mormon church calls on leaders to back ‘Dreamer’ immigrants

http://amp.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/26/mormon-church-calls-on-leaders-to-back-dreamer-imm/

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/64c996a4-ee43-3a77-9974-440e87fd5b47/ss_mormon-church-calls-on.html

Even gay Dreamers?

When they turn 18, do they have to renounce their country of origin?

On the surface of it - good.

Under the surface of it - a numbers game - latinos tend to get baptized in droves and to make more babies (i.e. catholic background + mormon reproductive expectations)

Think of all the future tithe paying BICs!

what is the surprise? the Mormon church has placed its bets on the third world just like the Roman Catholic church

Who cares? The church membership, even using their inflated 16 million members, minus the estimated 60% inactive, makes up .065 of the world's population. Nobody, outside of Utah mormons, care.

Ulterior motive!

Gee, they MIGHT be catching up with others in a limited, self-serving scope!

significant? just a bit, but the complete context is that it's Always Church First, others later

Anonymous 2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mormon church calls on [POLITICAL, not church] leaders to back
> ‘Dreamer’ immigrants
>
> http://amp.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/26/mo
> rmon-church-calls-on-leaders-to-back-dreamer-imm/
>
> https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/64c996a4-ee43-3a77-99
> 74-440e87fd5b47/ss_mormon-church-calls-on.html

Oh, political (not church) leaders. State of church and separation.

I saw former Mexican President Fox being interviewed on Fox News last night. He actually agreed with Trump's immigration proposal because it would give the Dreamers amnesty and would also fully fund the wall between the US and Mexico. He said that if the US congress funds the wall then that means that Mexico doesn't have to pay for it.

I think that most reasonable American conservatives would agree too. They would tolerate yet one more big amnesty if it puts an end to large numbers of people sneaking accross the border indefinitely, and if it puts an end to chain migration.

The church has no right to have an opinion on this issue though. Their tax exempt status should be at risk any time they take a political stand on anything.

I agree that the church should not interfere in political debates, but that applies to all the Christian fundamentalists (Graham, Perkins) as well.

Regarding Fox, you present a skewed perspective. He did not say he agreed with Trump's proposal. He said in fiery terms that there was no way on earth Mexico would pay for the wall, that if Congress wanted to do so that would be fine. But his comments were dripping with irony, hardly an endorsement of what Trump has proposed.

IMV giving amnesty to "dreamers" is not a political issue but a human issue. To eject from the country those who through no fault of their own know no other would be a cruel thing to do.

That's not true. The Dreamers may be innocent. But so are all of the other kids in Mexico and South America who would like to immigrate to the US. Why discriminate against them? The Dreamers have gotten a much better education here in the US than they otherwise would have. They have likely had better health care, and have been exposed to how a healthy society (and markets) should work. If, after this, they return to the place of their birth, the American people will still have given the Dreamers a great gift. When these kids (many of them now adults) return to their homeland, they will be much better prepared to take leadership roles in re-shaping their homeland for the better.

One major cause of illegal immigration is hope that the illegal immigration will be successful, based on the successful violations of others in the past. This may sound cruel, but the first thing to go must be the 'home free' mentality, that if you can just get to America, you will probably get to stay there. Ultimately, the most effective deterrant that could be the most effective way to stop illegal immigration from happening in the future, will be the loss of hope itself that if you go illegally, that you can stay. There needs to be some level of heartbreak and loss for people on the other side of the border to spread the word about, based on the real-life experiences of others who were forced to return home and get in line for a legal immigration process. Every violation of the law (every person who violates the law and wins) is incentive for several others to do the same thing. Every deportation has the opposite affect. If there are enough stories of failure get to stay, people will quit trying to violate the law. The Dreamers were given the gift of deferment. That is better than nothing.

One thing that many people don't consider is that ultimately, there is a real cost to illegal immigration. Who should pay those costs? There are billions of people in China and in India who would like to immigrate to the US too. Why deny them? If we want a fair world, perhaps we should we just divide up all of the world's money and re-distribute it to everyone equally? The average American salary would probably be a few thousand dollars per year in that case. Giving things away is only fun if you have plenty to spare, or unless someone else is paying for it.

kentish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> IMV giving amnesty to "dreamers" is not a
> political issue but a human issue. To eject from
> the country those who through no fault of their
> own know no other would be a cruel thing to do.
________________________________________________________

So how much to you give to 'truly needing children' in the '3rd world' that are not in the US or Mexico, etc. ----- not much I can tell!

If this is all a 'human' issue ---- let's talk about children starving, being killed, not being able to attend school, etc. etc. ------- not criminals sucking off the American taxpayer for who knows how many years!!

How judgmental of you. Most of those who are here and defined as "dreamers" are people who were brought here as very young children and have known no other country but this one. Sending them back to countries that would be as foreign to them as they likely would be to you and would be a very human issue and far below the very principles that have. Apart from papers these people are as American as you are despite their parents bringing them here illegally. And the point is they are here...they are not in third world countries or in countries like Mexico. The problem is here and it needs to be resolved here with compassion and understanding.

Two wrongs do not make a right. Arpaio in Arizona is right. deport all of them

No one person, you or Sheriff Joe, gets to legally set policy (okay, Obama got away with it...), so things will continue to be hashed out until congress or SCOTUS sets us on a new path.

Both sides of this issue are vehement and their is no real 'right' or 'wrong', just what we can get away with. And I can get away with offering to buy Kentish a drink, and no others.

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>> Both sides of this issue are vehement and their is
> no real 'right' or 'wrong', just what we can get
> away with. And I can get away with offering to buy
> Kentish a drink, and no others.

__________________________________________________________

That has been the problem all along the illegal/criminal way of thinking ----- there is no 'right' or 'wrong' just 'what we can get away with'.

You sound like the 'Mormon Devil' ---- no sin unless you get caught and punished!

I'm the anti-mormon devil and I grant myself great moral flexibility, because I'm my own ghawd, and I'm right pleased if it sticks in your craw.

DACA has an ethical basis for becoming "law of the land." But I'll sleep good whichever way it goes. That's what moral flexibility is all about.

Humans want to eat, drink, have shelter and belong to a tribe. After that, it gets very fluid.

vigilant Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Two wrongs do not make a right. Arpaio in Arizona
> is right. deport all of them

Sheriff Joe likes his guys to have their own personal piggy banks. I don’t think deporting the piggy banks is very profitable. If you find a guy with several thousand dollars in cash on him, because he has no safe place to keep it, you can just take it. After all, who’s the one with the gun?

Every time there’s an anti-immigration push in AZ, the economy takes a hit. It’s as if nobody understands that people getting things done that need to be done helps the economy.

kentish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How judgmental of you. Most of those who are here
> and defined as "dreamers" are people who were
> brought here as very young children and have known
> no other country but this one. Sending them back
> to countries that would be as foreign to them as
> they likely would be to you and would be a very
> human issue and far below the very principles that
> have. Apart from papers these people are as
> American as you are despite their parents bringing
> them here illegally. And the point is they are
> here...they are not in third world countries or in
> countries like Mexico. The problem is here and it
> needs to be resolved here with compassion and
> understanding.
----------------------------------------------------

Truth hurts to someone who wallows in brain washing of the media and politicos 24/7. Wasn't Mormonism brain washing bad enough????

A 'human issue' ----- obviously to the brain washed!!!!

The media and politicos LIE/or significantly exaggerate the truth ---- do you not get it????

They came to the US 'illegally'. We have hundred of thousands of people who would 'like' to come to the US but can't because 'criminals' are ahead of them.

Why show the world 'crime pays'???? When we show the 'world' crime pays ----- Guess who we get ---- criminals!!!!!

Also, it is not good enough to give them 'citizenship' they want to 'sponsor' their criminal parents ---- who were to blame for this in the first place. Again, why show the world in the USA ------ 'crime' pays big??????

Think of the opportunity for them to 'excel' in their home countries, if they are not outright criminals!!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/28/2018 05:09PM by spiritist.

You seem very fond of calling them "criminals". You do realize this is not a crime against property or persons, this is a crime of paperwork. It can be made not a crime by simply changing the paperwork requirements. We don't try and sentence illegal aliens to prison (which makes it a rather unusual "crime"). We send them back "home". For these kids, practically, if not technically, this is their home.

The big expense of raising children is educating them. These Millennials are already educated and acculturated to the US. They are American in every sense but paperwork. They are employed and paying taxes. We could actually use 800,000 twenty-something taxpayers. That's how they can pay us back for educating them. And they can pay into my Social Security check. I don't have a big problem with that. At this point, they are assets, not liabilities.

Oops, misplaced.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/28/2018 06:58PM by Brother Of Jerry.

A 'crime' is a crime!

However, now we have expressed our opinions here we can work with whatever organizations and just see what really passes and becomes a law.

It will be interesting what can pass both the house and senate and be signed by the president and become law! It does take passing in all the chambers to become a law.

There will be 'pressure' from both sides on the legislators and the midterms are coming up. House members better be on the side of the people who vote them in or a 'wrong' vote here could impact their continuing in office.

It is clear to me neither the Rs or Ds are happy with all of Trumps plan! Last time we had a Senate plan it failed ----- time will tell!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/28/2018 07:32PM by spiritist.

spiritist Wrote:


"House members better be on the side of the people who vote them in or a 'wrong' vote here could impact their continuing in office."

Yes indeed. That is what we are counting on.

Spiritist informs us that "Truth hurts to someone who wallows in brain washing of the media and politicos 24/7."

Where do you, Spiritist, get your information if not from media and politicos?



----------------


Spiritist explains, and exclaims, that "the media and politicos LIE/or significantly exaggerate the truth."

Again, where do you get your information, Spiritist?



---------------

Spiritist claims that Kentish has been "brainwashed" by Mormons and by the media. There is irony here, since it is Spiritist whose political views line up so very closely with those of Utah Mormons.

Yet again you make personal judgments about me without knowledge to support them. You know virtually nothing about me other than the position I take on this issue and I reject your personal attacks. Stick to the issue or refrain from responding to my posts.

This post is out of sequence but is directed at spiritist.

kentish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yet again you make personal judgments about me
> without knowledge to support them. You know
> virtually nothing about me other than the position
> I take on this issue and I reject your personal
> attacks. Stick to the issue or refrain from
> responding to my posts.

_____________________________________________________

I quoted what you 'said' ----- it sounded to me like an 'opinion directly from mainstream news' ----- brain washing. Similar to Mormonism where 'facts' and 'opinion' are intertwined.

Sending them back
> to countries that would be as foreign to them as
> they likely would be to you and would be a very
> human issue and far below the very principles that
> have.
______________________________________________

Really, is that a 'fact'???

Apart from papers these people are as
> American as you are despite their parents bringing
> them here illegally.
_____________________________________________

Another 'fact'?????

The problem is here and it
> needs to be resolved here with compassion and
> understanding.
________________________________________

Another of your 'so called facts'????


If you gave me 'facts versus opinion' I would have discussed your 'facts'! Since you gave me 'your opinion' I gave you mine!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/28/2018 08:17PM by spiritist.

We can't AFFORD it.

Certainly, Fox did not hold any admiration for Trump. He even didn't want to credit Trump when the interviewer tried to get him to give Trump credit for the things that Fox did agree with that were in the proposal (a cowardly tactic in my opinion). But Fox did clearly say that he did agree with the American congress funding the wall "because then Mexico would not have to pay for the wall". I just don't understand why the posturing and the discrediting of your adversary is still necessary when they finally give you what you asked for.

Brix doesn't know what he or she is talking about and I have read the tax code. Tax exemptions under 501(c)3 rules prohibit churches from supporting political causes but there are some exceptions. My opinion is that there should be no exceptions. So yes 'says me'. Mormon tyrany would be greatly reduced if the government would fine them nearly out of existance, every time they used their tax exempt money to bring harm to others. The purpose of a charity is to help, not harm people. Teaching people that it is okay to violate the law on any issue is not all that different than teaching people that it is okay to oppress gay people. Both are wrong and both sides quite often take pride in their right to violate the law and the rights of others (too often, because they believe that god is on their side), because of their beliefs. If you make an exception for one issue, you have to make an exception for them all. If we all can't agree on which rules are good and which ones it's okay to violate, then let's just agree to make the church keep it's mouth shut any time politics is the topic of discussion.

I disagree with your characterization of Fox. I think that anger, bitterness, and sardonic wit are appropriate when the leader of another country condemns your entire nation as gangsters and rapists (as well as a few "good people).

But on the broader point, our views are consonant. I wish the IRS and other regulatory agencies enforced the written laws against religions. Mormonism is the low-hanging fruit because we know it and dislike it; but there are other faiths that are also, in my opinion, way over the line.

Mixing religion is politics is bad for religion and it is bad for politics.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
----------------------------------------------------
>
>
> I wish the IRS and other regulatory agencies
> enforced the written laws against religions.

And what laws would those be? Please cite them.

Neither you nor Lot’s Wife know what you are talking about. The tax code only prohibits non-profits from endorsing candidates. It does not prohibit non-profits, including churches, from participating in the political process. You clearly have neither read nor understood Section 501(c)3 of the U.S. tax code.

Again, I ask for citations to the tax code or U.S. Supreme Court decisions that prohibit churches, or any 501(c)3 for that matter, from participating in the political process.

And nobody has to “agree to make the church keep it's mouth shut any time politics is the topic of discussion.” The law does not require that, not in the least.

You are changing your position.

Above you wrote that "the U.S. tax code says [churches] have the right [to "take a political stand on anything"]. I provided a quotation from the IRS giving an example of a prohibition. Your response now is, "well, yeah, other than that."

Thank you for the line!

Is that really the best you can do? A childish attempt at a personal attack?

I’m hardly a TBM. I’m Episcopalian, if that’s any of your business. The Episcopal Church, by the way, was one of the churches I referred to above that supported homosexual marriage in California, and openly worked against Prop 8. Curious that no one here bitches about that and calls for the Episcopal Church to lose its 501(c)3 status.

And I am still waiting for a citation to any part of the tax code, any U.S. Supreme Court decisions, or any other law for that matter, that prohibits a church or any other non-profit from participating in the political process.

It is obvious that none of you are in possession of the facts or have a knowledge of the tax code or the law.

I didn't ask about your religion and frankly do not care. I took you seriously at first, but that moment has passed.

I don't think that Trump characterised Mexico as a nation of gangsters and rapists. He was talking more about the higher number of gangsters and rapists that immigrate to the US. Those who are happy and successful with their lives in Mexico have no need to look for a better life by immigrating to the US. So of those who come to the US illegally, the prevalence of crime is significantly higher. But he didn't say exactly that. He said what you said about them, but limited the object of those words he spoke to apply to those who were immigrating illegally.

If Fox had any integrity, he would have 'made Mexico great' (or at least tried to) while he was in office, not simply tried to preserve the flow of remittances to his country from the US by supporting the illegal immigration by his citizens to the US. If he values his life, he can't dare to take the cartels on and put an end to corruption, bribery, and even mass murder (when the cartels deem it necessary). Until a Mexican President can make some progress along those lines, we need that wall.

I take issue with your description of immigration. There are certain laws in economics, one of which is that relative wages dictate most of the flow of people. A developing country suffers a brain drain until its wages begin to rise, at which point the volume of immigrants falls off and in some cases eventually reverses.

The reason immigration from Mexico has fallen declined in recent years is that the wage gap has shrunk considerably. If I recall correctly, it has contracted by around 50%. That doesn't apply to all of Central America, but it does to Mexico--and you can see the changing nationality in the US immigration figures. So there is evidence that Mexico has made considerable progress in economic terms.

Regarding the broader problems of corruption and gang violence, I tend to agree. The question I have, and it is not a pleasant one, is how much is possible for a president--or consecutive presidents. Politics is the art of the possible, and if the cartels have too much power in the police and state the scope for reform is limited. My (largely uniformed) fear is that that may be the case.

Can we discuss Why ChurchCo spoke to this matter & what effect(s) that will have?

Right.

The church has long favored leniency towards immigrants, legal or illegal. The reason is that those people (and their relatives back home) are one of the few populations that is still converting fast. The stance has angered a lot of Mormons, who are obviously more conservative than most of the country, but the church does not want to offend people in promising lands.

It does seem curious that SLC would take a public stance now. On the one hand, the US isn't going to care what the church says. On the other, however, perhaps Latinos' attitude towards Mormonism is changing--either among immigrants or in Latin America. It would not surprise me if SLC felt it necessary to distance itself from Trump in order to protect its reputation in Central and South America, perhaps even in Africa.

As an experiment to illustrate my point, let's say that the US decided to give Arizona to Mexico, free of cost and obligation. With only a six month notice, the borders would be re-drawn. What would then happen to Arizona over that six month period? Millions of people would put their homes and businesses up for sale as most people in Arizona who can, would escape to other US states with as much of their wealth as they could take with them. The demand and thus the prices would drop to near zero for the average home and for manufactured goods made in Arizona. By the time that Mexico took over, Arizona would be as destitute as the rest of Mexico.

It's never about the land. It's always about the government that rules the land, where ever that land is and who governs it. Educated, hard-working, and the most talented people gravitate to where there are valid opportunities for wealth. They also flee poverty at any cost, even if they have to start over. They may end up temporarily broke, but they refuse to live in poverty. No one can make Mexico great until the foundational laws and cultural norms there are changed to be more like the US. Financial equality on both sides of the border will always be a 'we give and they take' proposition fornthe US until basic issues of freedom and sovereignty of the people over their own land and the rights of the Mexican people are respected by their own government. America can not fight that battle for the Mexican people. They have to liberate themselves. Attempts to ignore market demands and to force equality can never succeed. A lucky few of the Mexican people can become Americans or at least live here illegally. But does that solve the core issues?

Revision to a Mormon article of faith: We believe in being subject to kings, Presidents, rulers, and majistrates, and in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the laws of the land... unless our sorry-ass religion wants more members and the money they bring with them and the law of the land gets in the way, in which case we don't believe that shit about obeying the law, at all.

Your thought experiment is good.

I think, though, that parts of it are overstated (as is inherent in the exercise). It isn't all about the government. People in most parts of the world really, really love their home countries. They love their relatives and friends, their culture, their food, the air, the smells. It takes a lot for them to want to move away. And when they do, a lot of them hope to return.

Pragmatically, we can measure what it takes to draw people out of their home countries in terms of the wage differential. When the differential is large, people move. When it shrinks, the volume of immigration into the richer country slows. And before the gap gets to zero, the net flow of people reverses--because the majority of them would, once again, rather be at home. What we see with Mexico is a predictable response to the shrinking of the wage gap.

The key point, I think, is that the US is not the home of choice for most people around the world. It is a place to make some money, perhaps get one's kids educated, but then to leave. That is not true of everyone, but it is a true description of the average person in the vast majority of countries. The belief that everyone wants to be an American was never true, and it is a lot less true now than it once was.

Compare & contrast to an internal concern, lds divorces:

There are significant steps that tscc could do to discourage divorce, including sanctioning hateful, lying divorces which are loaded with greed & lies; LDS response to those? Nothing, Except blame SSMs for family breakdowns.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2018 02:34AM by GNPE.

I e-mailed my resignation. This was the straw....

Many years ago when lds inc. supported illegal immigrant legislation 'secretly' is when I stopped paying tithing. Praise to the elitist agenda!

I left for good a year or two later.

They're dreaming

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/mormon-church-calls-on-leaders-to-back-dreamer-immigrants/

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/5780a28b-1680-39b9-b451-176f6f2b0410/ss_mormon-church-calls-on.html

Aren't they playing around with their tax free status with this!???

Not endangering their tax status in the least. They are not allowed to endorse candidates. They can take stands on issues.

And out of gratitude for this support, they'll become Mormons, right?

Good marketing gimmick by TSCC.

↑↑↑↑↑↑

A wall is just stupid and will do little to nothing except cost US TAXPAYERS a ton of money WE CAN'T AFFORD. We are already saddling our future generations with this crushing debt but hey, who cares right? Let's throw another 18/25 BILLION on the pile because it will make few feel like they actually did something. Hum, and just who is holding a lot of that debt? CHINA. You remember China? Think about the ramifications of that. But the majority of it is owned by the Social Security Trust Fund. There have been tunnels dug for DECADES below the border. And let us not forget that the "dreamers" came forward VOLUNTARILY to register. It is pretty shabby to treat people like this.

LDSInc has done it's best to protect illegals. Who do you think did a lot of the building on the new Temple Square apartments???

the US can't afford not build a wall. If we want to preserve a first world level of standard of living and not be flooded with diseased low-level immigrants and the ensuing levels of crime etc. we have absolutely no choice.

I'd be willing to lower my standard of living a notch or two if it helps out members of the family of man!

Also, what about diseased, high-level immigrants?

A fraction of that amount could be used for things that would really make a difference. Drones (I think having some sort of crowdsourced system could really help). More MANPOWER. The things Border Patrol has been asking for. Not some silly eyesore that will do NOTHING except waste money. Money we DON'T HAVE.

And if you believe what you wrote above - God made th34e House of Israel (Europeans) above all of the other nations Deut 7:6
Well, that just says a lot about YOU, doesn't it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/28/2018 07:51PM by Susan I/S.

There seems to be some confusion on what churches can and can't do WRT supporting political causes.

They can't endorse candidates. There was an attempt to repeal the Johnson Amendment as part of the recent tax overhaul, but that failed, so the Johnson Amendment still forbids churches from endorsing candidates. (BTW, yes, proposed by Lyndon Baines Johnson)

The last I heard about the IRS rulings on the issue (20-some years ago), a church was safe from IRS scrutiny if less than 5% of its budget was spent on political causes. If it exceeded that amount, it would have to convince the IRS that it was a church and not a political action organization.

LDS Inc endorsing not deporting Dreamers represents 0.000% of their budget. It cost them essentially nothing to issue a statement, which appears to be all they did. Their tax status is in no danger whatsoever.