Church supports watered-down immigration bill

jvquarterback wrote:
What works for the Creator works for me - a thing remains unowned until someone organizes it for their use. But if you have some other way that property can be acquired please share, even if you think it is too complicated for the rest of us, we'll try to manage.



BTW Do you know what the word anarchist even means? I don't usually LOL so I'll just keep shaking my head while you think I espouse "psuedo-anarchy" given what I wrote three posts ago.

Yeah...the philosophy of your "Creator." You sure are reading a lot into scripture and revelation that isn't there. You seem to be assuming that the Creator didn't already have rights to the matter unorganized.....what's your basis for that assumption? Did you learn that from Wesley Snipes? How then do you explain that same Creator giving the Israelites title to all of the Promised Land of Israel when at that time it was either (a) improved upon and held by the residents of Jericho, Ai and the Gibeonites; or (b) unimproved land? Not to mention the Israelite government subsequently subdividing the kingdom among tribes and then families and following Creator-given laws of succession and escheat for these same lands. These passages indicate that your Creator had in mind something different than "first-come first-served" as he was granting title to people who hadn't come yet to take from people who were there first and improved first. Your appeal to divine authority falls flat.



As for my labeling your silliness as pseudo-anarchy: Do you know what the word "pseudo" means?



Your idea of property rights seems to have worked well for such illustrious civilizations as the Anasazi, Easter Islanders, and modern day Australia.....oh, wait....they all wasted their resources with lasseiz faire approach to land that resulted in some pretty awesome results. Two civilizations collapsed when they completely deforested their environment, and the other is headed in the same direction with devegetation, salinization, and urban sprawl decemating any fertile lands left.



Your Georgist idea is trite, juvenile, and in short, ignorant of human nature that leads to problems like the Tragedy of the Commons. First-come first-served sounds great to someone who is looking to seem openminded and intelligent, but in the end it belies a severe lack of forethought.



I'm sorry to have added to this intellectual delinquency that you and taekwandave seem to enjoy wallowing in. I'm done with this. Apologies to all for adding to the decline of the Lounge.

Oh Sno, apology accepted. I'm just feel lucky to have gleaned from your vocabulary :roll:

First, private property only exists because of the sovereignty of the country in which it is located. JV “owns” the land by the border because the US government allows him to. If there were no government from which the ownership is derived then there could be no transfer of ownership and therefore no private property. And this principle applies to the land, the house, and everything in it. You own what you own because your government and its laws allow you to do so (our Constitution-the most free of all government systems yet established save for the United Order). If you don’t believe that you need to read through history and see what people in early feudalistic societies were “allowed” to have.

Also, you have the right because of those laws to the ownership but those rights are not unlimited. Allowing persons who are knowingly breaking US law is also complicity in that law breaking and is not an unfettered right. Just like you cannot harbor a convicted criminal that has escaped from prison even if he were your son. You also cannot use the property except for the purposes that the government has deemed. You cannot put a casino on it. You cannot put a business on it if it is not zoned for business. You cannot build a single family home on it if it is zoned business. And the best indication of this is this, try to drill for oil on your land. See what happens when you try to remove anything “beneath” the topsoil without approval of the government. You may have bought the land but the mineral rights are a whole different matter. Just because you paid for the property the US has not resigned its sovereignty over it.



To answer Dave’s “unalienable rights” comment. That term is used in the US Declaration of Independence. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” When Thomas Jefferson penned this he used the term unalienable rights to indicate that the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (Joy in LDS vernacular) were derived from God and not from the power of government. But we can see that even these “unalienable” rights are not all powerful. The government cannot claim to grant or legislate these rights but they can revoke them based on the actions of the person having them revoked. The government still has the right to execute a murderer, or lock up a criminal. It, “unalienable rights”, has nothing to do with citizenship.

taekwondave wrote:
"Saying that nobody is forcing people to go over and under walls is dishonest at best. Sure, nobody's forcing them to, unless they wish to come and go as they please, which is their right per the Constitution. As for advocating that we harass brown skinned people, I advise you to look at Arizona's law. That is precisely what it advocates."

Dishonest at best.? Please show me in the Constitution where it says that anyone can come and go as they please? Also, the US Constitution is law in the US and applies to her citizens. It does not afford rights to people in other countries. That is dishonest at best.

What part of the AZ law says to harass brown skinned people? I’m looking and I don’t see anywhere that says to “harass brown skinned people”. It does mention people/person that the officer in a legal exercise of law enforcement feels may be in the country illegally that the officer shall make a reasonable attempt to determine the persons immigration status but that could be someone from Canada, China, Russia, Japan, or any other country. You are assuming the “brown skinned part”. That is dishonest at best.

CougarClaw wrote:

In my mind there is no difference between migrants sending their kids to school on my dime and the grandma next door buying her meds on my dime. It is just easier for people to get upset with the migrant than with the grandma next door. They are both thieves.

I get so angry when I see those power chair ads on TV. ESPECIALLY when they start spewing drivel like "I paid nothing for mine!" or "medicare covered the whole thing!". I feel like they should be thanking me and my children and all the Chinese who are slowly buying America.

Yeah, but watching that old lady spin wildly around in a circle in her kitchen cracks me up every time. "Your power chair will be paid in full!" :lol:

taekwondave wrote:
Dishonest at best.? Please show me in the Constitution where it says that anyone can come and go as they please?

I can do better than that. Here's some Supreme Court cases that prove it (the Supreme Court, btw, has the last say regarding the interpretation of the constitution)



"The right to travel . . . cannot be deprived without due process of law UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125



"Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to move from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the 14th amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." Schactman v. Dulles, 96 App DC 287, 293.



So to answer your question: The Supreme Court says that the fifth and fourteenth amendments say so. But what do they know, right?

imuakahuku wrote:
Also, the US Constitution is law in the US and applies to her citizens. It does not afford rights to people in other countries. That is dishonest at best.

You have spoken truly, sir. The US Constitution does NOT afford rights to people in other countries. It does not even "afford" rights to people in THIS country. Keep in mind what the Constitution DOES: It sets the limits of the government, not the people, based on the fact that human beings have certain rights that SHOULD not be deprived without due process of law. (That means they either voluntarily waive those rights, or they break laws wherein they do harm to another and they are forced to pay restitution or do time, etc). Does the constitution say "unalienable" rights? No. That would have probably seemed redundant to them at the time, seeing as how the Constitution was already based so largely on the Declaration of Independence, or more aptly, the principles outlined therein, as well as those same principles outlined in the Federalist Papers.



As for the Constitution being "law" and applying to her citizens: wrong again. The LAWS in our country DO apply to us. However, the constitution applies to the government itself, not to us citizens. Find me a single law for you and me to follow in the Constitution. It's not there if I recall correctly. The Constitution is nothing more and nothing less than a rulebook for the government to live by so they can do what the Declaration says is the whole purpose of government "to protect the rights of its citizens." Per the Declaration, that is the ONLY purpose of government. This belief permeated the whole creation of the Constitution. To claim otherwise would be...dishonest ;)

imuakahuku wrote:
The government still has the right to execute a murderer, or lock up a criminal. It, “unalienable rights”, has nothing to do with citizenship.

First off, the fact that nobody has the military/police power to stop the government from executing a murderer or locking up a criminal does not mean that government has the "right" to. A government doesn't really have "rights." It has only obligations per the will of the people from which it derives its power to govern. It is an hireling at best, not a person with inherent value. When our government doesn't live up to its obligations, we vote the representatives out of office. But the government has no "rights" regarding anything at all. Try separating those ideas and see if it changes the way you see things.



As for the second part, you're right again. "Unalienable rights" has absolutely NOTHING to do with citizenship (weren't you arguing otherwise though?). Per the doctrine laid out in the Declaration of Independence and reflected in the Bill of Rights, all people are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. Among those (but not necessarily limited to) are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Bill of Rights attempted to get more specific regarding those so that the Government would not feel so brave as to squash the rights of the people under color of law.



I argue that since ALL men are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, that we should have an open border, for a free country that that follows the Constitution would have one. It's obvious the Supreme Court agrees with me, even though the Federal Government, by and large, has illegally stolen this right from us, stopping us at entry and exit locations for invasive pat downs and naked body scans, and claiming that we need a passport to come and go if we want. This government, per the Supreme Court's reading of the Constitution, has trampled the rights of all people everywhere in so doing. We just haven't woken up to that reality yet, unfortunately.

snoscythe wrote:



Yeah...the philosophy of your "Creator." You sure are reading a lot into scripture and revelation that isn't there. You seem to be assuming that the Creator didn't already have rights to the matter unorganized.....what's your basis for that assumption?

I am just taking Him at His word. If He owned the unorganized matter He would require 1) possession and 2) title. An unorganized thing cannot be possessed. To possess a thing entails organization. He never claims title to the unorganized matter before the creation (though He is very clear on the claim after the Creation “I, the Lord, stretched out the heavens, and built the earth, my very handiwork; and all things therein are mine. Behold, all these properties are mine.” D&C 104: 14) but I suppose you will try to argue He never denounces title either. There is some unorganized matter which He is very clear to denounce title and that is our intelligence. He may have organized the dust of the earth to make our bodies (spiritual and mortal), but He most certainly states there is a part of us to which He does not claim ownership (See Neil A Maxwell Conference Oct 1995).



There are a lot of references in modern revelation that at speak about ownership of creation by the process of creation. If you are interested.Try these

JRC (Conference Apr 1943)

BRM (Christ and the Creation)

JFS DOS1 (Sorry we're moving and these are packed away and can't give you the actual reference)

JS LOF5,7

Mosiah 2

snoscythe wrote:
How then do you explain that same Creator giving the Israelites title to all of the Promised Land of Israel when at that time it was either (a) improved upon and held by the residents of Jericho, Ai and the Gibeonites; or (b) unimproved land? Not to mention the Israelite government subsequently subdividing the kingdom among tribes and then families and following Creator-given laws of succession and escheat for these same lands. These passages indicate that your Creator had in mind something different than "first-come first-served" as he was granting title to people who hadn't come yet to take from people who were there first and improved first. Your appeal to divine authority falls flat.

"[E]verything we have belongs to the Lord; therefore, the Lord may call upon us for any and all of the property which we have, because it belongs to him." J Reuben Clark in Conf Report Oct 1942, p 55. However He wants to divide His property is fine with me. I'm not sure exactly what the Canaanites did to be treated as they were, but their bodies and all of the land belonged to God to dispose of as He wished.

snoscythe wrote:
Your idea of property rights seems to have worked well for such illustrious civilizations as the Anasazi, Easter Islanders, and modern day Australia.....oh, wait....they all wasted their resources with lasseiz faire approach to land that resulted in some pretty awesome results. Two civilizations collapsed when they completely deforested their environment, and the other is headed in the same direction with devegetation, salinization, and urban sprawl decemating any fertile lands left.



Your Georgist idea is trite, juvenile, and in short, ignorant of human nature that leads to problems like the Tragedy of the Commons. First-come first-served sounds great to someone who is looking to seem openminded and intelligent, but in the end it belies a severe lack of forethought.

Your argument rests upon two civilizations for which we have no real idea who was responsible for the failures, and a reference to Australian resource management. If the first two societies were anything like their peers it would be much more likely that a centralized government oversaw the destruction the land; certainly you cannot blame private property for the failures there when you know nothing of how property was treated in those societies. The same thing that is happening in the American West is occurring in Australia. Conservation efforts are far stronger in areas privately owned. Replanting efforts in lands owned by wood product companies in the US and Canada are far and away superior to anything in "national" forests especially in areas leased to those same paper companies.



The tragedy of the commons has a simple solution: Private ownership. Aristotle knew this 2400 years ago when he said that which is had in common has the least care bestowed upon it. And it is borne out in the productive capacity of privately owned versus publicly owned lands.



But most importantly, your implied alternative (whichever socialized option you prefer) to private property which is the product of our lives and liberty (aka our pursuit of happiness) results in the forceful, coercive destruction of agency.

jvquarterback wrote:



An unorganized thing cannot be possessed. To possess a thing entails organization.

I call bull...my house is very unorganized but I own/possess it.

It is obvious what side of the fence people are on in this post, and certain personalities are dominating the conversation with quantity and passion. This violates the soapbox rules for the forum, so this topic must be closed.

hawkwing wrote:
It is obvious what side of the fence people are on in this post, and certain personalities are dominating the conversation with quantity and passion. This violates the soapbox rules for the forum, so this topic must be closed.

I still own my house...

kiwibacon wrote:

It is obvious what side of the fence people are on in this post, and certain personalities are dominating the conversation with quantity and passion. This violates the soapbox rules for the forum, so this topic must be closed.

I still own my house...

Only because the bank doesn't know how disorganized it is.