“Tell me, do you believe that people have the right to choose which laws they obey and which they do not?”
-It seems like you believe they don’t which means you disagree with many actions of Daniel, Abinidi, Joseph Smith, and the founding fathers which God himself praises for there violations of mans law.

“A wall may sound frightening to some, but the point is – keep the bad actors out.”
-It’s not your land to make that call. If someone shows up at my door and desires to enter into my home it is solely my choice whether or not that individual can enter. You have no right to aggressively deny a visitor entrance into my home only your own. Along these same lines all land within the borders of the U.S. does not belong to you thus you have no right to aggressively deny a visitor entrance or even advocate a third party (government) do this for you.

…whatever is more or less than this, cometh of evil (D&C 98:7).

…the strongest desire to do what is best for ALL OF GOD’S CHILDREN.”

Have Compassion for Immigrants – Elder Marlin K Jensen

If laws are not based on correct principles, it is our obligation as Citizens and Saints to get them changed in compliance with those principles.

The Corporation of the United States is in various declared wars. It has also not changed its tune regarding declaring U.S. Citizens as being enemies of the state since 1917. Ergo, you and I have been targeted. That law also needs to be changed.

The U.S. is on a war footing. By declaring that it is okay to allow those within our borders, who’s only desire is to destroy this once great nation as their mission in life, is tantamount to Treason.

Will we also give amnesty to the CEO of the Corporation of the U.S. and illegal alien that currently resides in the White House?

I believe it is wrong to baptize someone who is breaking the laws of the land, without them first repenting and making corrections. I do not want prospective members of the church winking at the Articles of Faith. I want them to truly believe in them and not join the church, just to have access to and taking advantage of the Bishop’s storehouse.

On my mission in East LA decades ago, we helped prospective members obey the laws of the land who were here illegally. Those who were honest, returned to their native lands and jumped through the appropriate legal hoops to come back to us. They joined the church back in their native lands.

I do not agree that an individual who skirts the laws of the land, can become a member of the church through baptism and have his civil sins washed away. He or she still has to pay the consequences of his/her civil inactions and should do so, prior to baptism.

I do not agree that it is okay to select which laws can be broken in order to become a member of the church in this country. I do agree that Immigration laws can and should be changed, based on correct principles.

My wife became a naturalized citizen, after I brought her to this country on a fiance visa. She joined the church in her own country years earlier. She enjoys dual citizenship in her country of origin.

It might be instructive to read the oath naturalized citizens have to make, in order to become U.S. Citizens.

I have declared my own personal sovereignty and am paying the price accordingly. I am currently between jobs. The opportunities for gainful employment are limited. Too many citizens are out of work, because they have been supplanted by illegal aliens who are employed.

And this country is continuing to pay a heavy price in lost and/or ruined lives, as the border areas are being declared unsafe for citizen habitation, because the borders cannot currently be secured.

[Allowing] unrestricted immigration into the USA [has never] invite[d] [or resulted in] invasion. Who among you can deny this?

[PAJ's] dishonesty on this issue is nothing more than a reflection of who he is. I don’t know about you, but I cannot trust a person who puts a deceptive spin on virtually everything he writes.”

He also understands the strong similarities between 1) immigration control in the heavens and 2) immigratiuon control in each of the world nations. And yet he still spins his web of deception.

To allow unrestricted immigration into the USA is to invite and ensure invasion. Who among you can deny this?

To allow individuals of poor or wicked character to enter the celestial kingdom, for example, is to destroy the harmony the the peace of that kingdom. Do any of you doubt this? No honest person can deny this because it is self-evident.

Thayne’s sarcasm and dishonesty on this issue is nothing more than a reflection of who he is. I don’t know about you, but I cannot trust a person who puts a deceptive spin on virtually everything he writes.

Paul

“We were talking about securing the national borders and properly regulating immigration. Now you’ve moved the issue to [people not making it into heaven] for one reason or another. … Shame on you for using this straw-man tactic.”

Most people who have never dealt with US Immigration have no idea what kind of a monster it has become. I had to deal with it when I brought my fiance from Belarus to the USA. I mention this only to show that I understand some of the pain immigrants go through. There is no question that US Immigration policies and regulations are totally screwed up and despotic. But the problem is not in the fact that we have US Immigration laws, but in the fact that those who have been put into office to govern that sphere are evil and corrupt. If given the authority, I would burn it to the ground and relace it with a system that actually works for everyone. Nevertheless, entering the US illegally is a crime. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

Paul

How can you possibly glorify in the violation of the law?
And yes, immigration laws are real and valid.
Tell me, do you believe that people have the right to choose which laws they obey and which they do not?

Paul

The reason why I disagree is not so much in the sources he provides, but in his final assessment. His conclusion is his real argument. And his conclusion, which supports unrestricted and unregulated immigration into the USA, is the big problem. And it is a huge one. Imagine, if you can, if people from any part of the world could travel to the USA and squat without any restriction whatsoever. If you think dealing with terrorism or with enemies are tough now, it would be impossible under such conditions. An enemy could just come across the border in huge numbers, setup camp all over the USA, and wait for orders to attack. And we would be unable to stop it. If this were allowed, we would have already had our Red Dawn and the war would be over. Without the ability to secure our borders and regulate immigration, this is a guaranteed end-result. Now, if this is not self-evident to you, then there is nothing left to say.

“I’m trying to remain an objective learner and want to hear your “foundation” for your opposition to the article.” — Ron

Supporting the Constitution is fine. But twisting the meaning or using clever interpretations to support a personal agenda that clearly undermines the security of this nation is dishonest to say the least.

“Paul I don’t agree with your likening this to the Gods seperating people into the three kingdoms, I see that as a whole different principle.” — Ron

I’m sure you do see it as a whole different thing. But like it or not, the similarities are stunning. The wrong types of people should not be allowed into this nation any more than wicked men and women can be allowed in the Celestial kingdom, sort-of-speak. This is not about race, as some people want to make it. It is about character. I trust that you see the difference.

“With that same logic we should be locking up our doors after all the “good Mormons” get into church each Sunday and not allow all the wicked Gentiles in who would distort our truth and bring heresy into the church. You need something stronger than that before you start casting some serious stones.” — Ron

We were talking about securing the national borders and properly regulating immigration. Now you’ve moved the issue to disallowing citizens from attending church for one reason or another. You know full well that I have not made this argument. Shame on you for using this straw-man tactic.

“Likewise with you Melinda I want to know why you believe his foundation is Precedent and not Constitutional principle. You seem to understand the principle of providing for the common defense differently than I’ve heard elsewhere, you said it “implies” securing the borders where is your foundation for understanding this Constitutional principle in that way. Is it just your opinion that it “implies” that or do you have a source to cite.” — Ron

I’ll respond to this also. The original constitution does not clearly describe federal jurisdiction as it should, for the purpose of national security. In 1787, this may have been an oversite by the founders, just as there are many other points that should have been enumerated more clearly. But in order to provide for the common defense and to repel invasions, a central government must secure its borders and regulate immigration and naturalization. If not, national security will be compromised and it will be quite impossible to repel an invasion if you have allowed a sufficient number of the enemy to enter unchecked. However, after the civil war, Congress did a better job of stating their federal jurisdiction through the 14th amendment. Now, I am NOT a fan of the 14th for a number of reasons, which I will not bring up here. Nevertheless, under the 14th, Congress has more clearly described or implied their jurisdiction over citizenship, which implies immigration control, which implies national security. Like it or not, this is how it is. And in all truth, I don’t have a problem with delegating national security to our federal government. I believe that is where it should be. The benefits of well protected national borders and immigration control are self-evident just as the gross hardships of an open border policy and no immigration control are. If I had to choose, I’d go with a strong national security. Unfortunately, what we have today is a something in between, which means the system is broken. And many of the people who are trying to fix it are progressives who want to tear down the walls and let anyone in. How sick is that?!

Gack!

Paul

I used to be mad at illegals and other who felt they had a right to come here yet I had to go though so much pain in my life to do things the “right” way. I wished the same pain on them. Who were they to not go through. What those in my family did? I eventually realized that my desire to have others feel my pain wasn’t in harmony with the gospel and certainly nothing that Christ would have me to want. If you came here illegally, hats off to you for not waiting for 10 years to ask sopme government badge for permission to peacefully trade and associate with other peaceful ppl. Which country are you from?

Cheers, JC