"Donald's bans are not about "immigration", they're about
preventing certain religious folks from coming in"..."Exactly right 2 bits. And there would have to be about 30+ other countries on
the list, that TEMPORARILY restricts immigration, in order for the above
statement to be remotely true. Anybody with a half a brain can easily think this
@RanchI asked you which section of the Constitution the executive order
violated. And you come back with"The part that says the
government can't favor one religion over another. Donald's bans are
not about "immigration", they're about preventing certain religious
folks from coming in"...Show me where executive order says what
you said...Show me where constitution says what you said...They
don't.#1. Executive order doesn't mention religion.#2. Constitution doesn't say INS can't consider country of
origin.You gave something the order didn't say, and something
the Constitution doesn't say as your case?Constitution:The Constitution doesn't say we must not consider country of origin in
approving immigration applications. The Constitution says "the government
will not establish a State religion". This executive order does not
establish a State religion. Sorry.Truth is... The executive order
doesn't say what you said. And it doesn't violate any part of the
actual Constitution.And most hilarious of all is Ranch pretending
he's just against the order to protect religion. Palease...
"Americans need to make sure that foreigners who share their values and
desire to contribute can get here..."Didn't the author get
the memo from the far-left that ANY attempt to prohibit anyone from coming to
America, whether they share our values or not or have any intention of
contributing or not; is just bigotry and racial hatred. We have no right
whatsoever to say NO to anyone who wants to come here.Our borders
must be completely open to everyone in the world or we are all uncaring
Islamaphobes. If someone violated our laws and crossed the border illegally or
overstayed their visa, then they must be given every right of citizenship or
again, we are the bad guys.If anyone on the left disagrees, please
set the record straight because I have heard nothing from them contradicting
"Each immigrant costs the US $75,000 so a reduction of immigrants is helping
to pay for the wall. "Care to provide the math that supports
that? I would not disagree that illegal immigration cost us....
but that number is way optimistic. And what it doesn't count is the
reduction in cost every American pays in the cost of good via the use of cheap,
and often illegal labor.
@2 bits;The part that says the government can't favor one
religion over another. Donald's bans are not about "immigration",
they're about preventing certain religious folks from coming in.The wall, well, that's just to get his base roaring.
Re: Muslims and Mormon Missionaries.Here in Metro Detroit, with a
significant number of Muslims, at least in recent years, and maybe even now,
Mormon Missionaries needed Mission President permission to teach Muslims.As for "amnesty," for undocumented immigrants, I'm all for
it, with (what most undocumented would consider) a very, very minor penalty.
That is, permanent residency for life, but no pathway to citizenship (i.e.
voting rights and the right to run for public office). America should give them
precisely what the undocumented want--"a better life." No need to give
them something the vast majority of undocumented couldn't care less about
@Ranch RE: "You forgot something. The Constitution"...---Can you please cite or quote the part of the Constitution it violates?I'm tired of the blanket, "It's unconstitutional"...
usually meaning, "I don't like it, so I'm going to call it
Unconstitutional".Keep in mind that the US Constitution and Bill
of Rights only applies to US Citizens.Our Constitution can't
and doesn't bestow rights upon people of other countries. It protects US
Citizens (not refugees living abroad).Once they get here and become
citizens of the US... THEN it protects them. Not before.So now tell
me what part of the Constitution it violates...
I scratch my head when people say it's "Unconstitutional" to
enforce our laws. But it's Constitutional for President to instruct INS
to not enforce laws passed by Congress (as Obama did).Orders to NOT
obey the law... Constitutional Order to obey the law...
UN-Constitutional?That's backwards.DNC want us to
not enforce our laws.And if we do enforce our laws... it's
"UN-Constitutional".Is that logical?The most amazing
thing is... they can find 2 activist judges that agree with that logic!That shakes my confidence in our Federal Judges.If enforcing
the law is unconstitutional... strike down the law. Not the exec order to
enforce it.Judges do nothing when President orders INS to not
enforce our immigration laws.But judges block a President who orders INS
to do their job and enforce our laws.Since when is it
UN-Constitutional for President to obey/enforce laws?And Constitutional
for President to not obey our laws?That's crazy!If
immigration law is unconstitutional... Judges should have stricken them down
years ago, not wait for Trump to take office and try to enforce them (IMO).
Davey;You forgot something. The Constitution.
Each immigrant costs the US $75,000 so a reduction of immigrants is helping to
pay for the wall. The wall should also reduce drug influx which will also help
Mexico as it reduces the power of the cartels. For Trump voters he is doing
just what we hoped for.
@Yuge Opportunity Here - it's true that some predominantly Muslim countries
ban Mormon missionaries.It's also true that in many cultures,
the idea of changing religions is considered an insult to ones ancestors.
(Think of this as "eternal family values".) It's also
true that a group of Christian churches in SW India were founded by Jesus'
Apostle Thomas, and were largely unknown during what Mormonism considers the
Great Apostasy. Besides having an unbroken priesthood lineage to
Jesus - that was untainted by the Great Apostasy - these "St. Thomas
Christians" have their own rituals, and the parents often arrange the
marriages of their children... a concept completely foreign to the LDS view of
life.This isn't to say one group is right and the other wrong.
But assuming the rest of the world should conform to your view of what is good
and proper is a recipe for disappointment... and/or conflict.
It is always far easier to be against something, to point out what it wrong, to
make snarky comments, to demean those who don't agree with you. It's
far harder to actually come up with constructive solutions, to work to fix what
is wrong, and to avocate for those issues that impact all. There are many on
here I completely disagree with, but I respect those who advocate in positive
ways their beliefs. At least you can work with these people, seek to find those
areas of common ground.With immigration, there are lots of areas
where there is common ground. No one is for "open" borders as some
profess. Where there is disagreement is the solution to porous borders. You
can either invest billions in walls, or you can invest in systems to fix the
issues with the current process that has many trying to circumvent it. I am
confident the answer lies in the middle somewhere.... plugging the worst
vulnerabilities in our borders, all the while resolving issues with letting
those come who seek to do jobs that most Americans don't want.
Immigration is what has made America great. There is no other country that has
embraced this as fully.As for the fear of muslims - Yes, some
muslims out in the world have done horrible things. But so have Christians and
Atheists and Hindus and Jews and everyone else over the course of time.People are people, and in any group there is going to be a fringe element. How do you feel when someone assumes that all Mormons are like Warren
Jeffs and the fundamentalists? What you are saying about Muslims is the same
thing. It's not fair and the fear-mongering does no one any good.
A kairos moment -- a moment when the stage is perfectly set for something to be
done, or something to be said? We might, indeed, be on the verge of that. If
President Trump does continue to push against immigration, and against
"illegal" immigration, the moment might arrive when the undocumented
push back -- mightily, with a strength we have never seen from them, and are not
expecting. Maybe there are already tell-tale signs this could happen.
In 1858 William Seward gave a speech in New York titled "The Irrepressible
Conflict." It's worth the read. He was, of course, talking
about slavery and portending the Civil War, but it has some parallels today.
Slavery was rife with conflicts; regional, economic, religious, political,
moral...It's not like the issue today is new or the problems a
surprise. Carter, Reagan, Clinton and Bush all had advice from blue ribbon
commissions who told them there were problems that were not being addressed.So, I appreciate this Opinion piece telling us the time has come to
fight...hopefully in Congress, not in the streets. The refugee part
is easy; set a quota and vet the incoming.The illegal alien part is
far more complicated. They are just here to work. They don't care about
allegiance or loyalty to the American Dream.But as years turn into
decades and decades to generations, we have retirement and eldercare issues.
They haven't prepared themselves and we will be on the hook to provide for
Um, Imp7, many Muslim countries DO prohibit Mormon missionaries. We don't
need to imagine a ban; we're living it. Do you know the penalty in Islam
for just listening to a missionary discussion? Ask an RM from Russia what they
did when they met someone from a "Stan" nation.
How would this BYU student react if other countries banned mormons? No more
missionary programs, except for our neighborhoods. This is nothing but a muslim
ban. Otherwise, Trump would have started with Saudi Arabia and Egypt (the
countries that the 911 attackers came from). But wait, Trump does business in
Which is more dangerous, immigration or Trump's bizarre behavior? The greatest threat to our country and our economy is Donald
Trump's temperament. The next greatest threat is the group of radicals who
constitute his closest advisors. Trump's immigration policy is
making enemies globally, hurting U.S. leadership in education and innovation.
Foreign students who have flocked here in the past will find other places to go
to school. It's already happening. China will be the chief beneficiary.
Davey Runnells is a member of The Millennial Agenda, a millennial-inspired,
millennial-driven organization. ====== I curious....Will there be walls in the Millennium?Borders?Passports?
Visas?Armed Guards? Fences? Barbed-wire?What about healthcare
for everyone?Meals for the poor, sick, needy?In the
Millennium, Will there be a Leader who tells the TRUTH and does not lie
daily?Who does not bully or treat other people like trash and garbage?or will the Millennium consist only of WallStreet elites and
Billionaires, taking for the poor, and the middle - and fueling their own
coffers even more?Donald Trump is the anti-thesis to EVERYTHING
prophesied about the Millennium.
I had to tell my Trump supporter friends to sit down and read Obama's
immigration bill. All of them admitted that they never did. Had they, they would
understand that Obama's immigration bill is far more Humane and
realistic.Trump thrives on hysteria.
While I don't quite understand why this moment in history is ripe for
immigration reform, there are surely steps we can and should take. First, of
course, would be complete and immediate amnesty for all undocumented people,
along with a pathway to citizenship without penalty. That absolutely has to come
first. Then, we need to invite refugees in who are escaping violence. A couple
million would be a start. Meanwhile, let's treat the wall like the sad sick
joke it is. Our nation is built on immigration. That must continue.
Smashing the name "Trump" into the phrase "say or do the right
thing, at exactly the right time" is the sort of hazardous experiment best
left to the professonals at CERN and the controlled environment of the Large
Hadron Collider, at least until we understand the potential effects on the
Respectfully, I disagree with the idea that "now is the time to take action
on immigration." This first became a problem many years ago, when the
government adopted a policy of benign neglect regarding illegal immigrants and,
as a matter of practice, did not arrest or deport them. That attitude, of
course, encouraged millions of other immigrants to enter our country illegally,
and the total number of illegals now stands at approximately 11 million. How do
we deal effectively with excluding 11 million people from our country? The
prospect is daunting, to say the least. It would have been a much smaller
problem, and much more easily dealt with, twenty or thirty years ago. The only
reasonable solution now would seem to give those already here a path to
citizenship -- yes, call it "amnesty" if you like -- and also to build
that wall that the President keeps promising that Mexico will pay for.
This opinion piece is a *great* example of the generalized anxiety and confusion
of many Trump supporters.While Davey Runnells is motivated to cut
off entry, to apply extreme vetting to people from certain countries - or as
Trump has advocated, to particular religions - many others fear people like
Davey Runnells, or at least those who think the same way.Shots fired
into a pizza parlor frequented by Muslims, because an Internet rumor suggested a
child sex ring was there. A US citizen of Sikh ancestry, shot and told to
"go home". (Sikhs aren't Muslim, they're not from the banned
countries... but they do kind of look like they could be.)Meanwhile,
Trump is offending our *friends*, nations we'll need help in fighting
actual terrorism. Yesterday, at the G-20, our new Treasury
Secretary declared that America no longer is interested in free trade. The only
point that we could agree on is "trade is a good thing", a primitive
concept that pre-dates written language.Trump is isolating us on the
world stage. Maybe that is his goal.
Mr RunnellsThe first thing we need to do is soften up the rhetoric.
At which I believe you have failed, and miserably so.You freely cast
aspersions upon those who find the current administration's actions
deplorable. However, you remain silent on the speech of those who
support the current administration. Where in your opinion piece do you tell
those who have harassed legitimately residenced immigrants, and indeed American
citizens who just happen to look different from the generic WASP majority? You
needn't look hard to find innumerable actions by everyday citizens to
impugn the legitimate residency of American citizens and legal resident
aliens.Where do you tell politicians such as Congressman King of
Iowa to tone down? Where do you ask the President to stop the silly talk about
Mexico and that wall? Or his campaign rhetoric about Hispanic criminality?I agree that we need to have conversations about American identity, but
both sides need to cool the hot talk. The right as much, if not more, than the
Debate should start after Mexico absolutely pays for the wall. His rhetoric and
approach is failing miserably.