Less is more.

I’m tired of this post. I forgot it was still open for commenting.

Scott B. :
Natasha,

But I fear if I knew your counter-opinions that I’d be heartbroken.

Counter-opinions on what?

On welfare.

The “underlying motivations.” Please, that’s just more of the same. I can’t stand it when “you’re racist” is flung out so easily.
The whole context is this: too many illegal immigrats, many problems, feds aren’t doing anything, let’s do something. Why are you reading so much more into it? Show me the proof!

Kevin, it would be wonderful if we could get the authors of the legislation to hold a press conference which says, “Yes, we are all racists. We hate Mexicans.” Sadly, such a thing would never happen, because racism is ugly and evil and it’s not exactly the kind of thing people generally admit to. That means that the only thing left to do is evaluate the context, the political lobbyists, and the underlying motivations behind our laws. It’s not “more of the same” at all–it’s called standard critical analysis of legislation, and it’s vitally important to do such so that we understand not only what our laws do, but what they are supposed to do and what they might unwittingly do through unintended consequences. Do some homework yourself, Kevin–go read through the political comments on right-wing blogs, forums, and online newspapers. Go read the letters to the editors in the Arizona, California, and Utah newspapers. See for yourself what people are defending this piece of garbage legislation, what they are saying, and then you decide if you stand with them. I’ve done those things, and I’m ashamed that so many people of my own faith hold such violent rage and hatred against another group of people on this Earth. It’s simply astounding.

To me, the mere existence of that law is a direct manifestation of racism and xenophobia–no proof required. It requires officers of the peace to detain and require documentation for any person they come across who they “suspect” may be in the country illegally. Kevin, think really, really hard about that. What criteria could POSSIBLY be used to arouse suspicion of being undocumented? Let’s make a list:

1. Speeding? Nope, American citizens are prone to traffic violations also.
2. Walking a dog in the park? I have understood that American citizens also do this from time to time.
3. Smoking pot? Nope, Americans love them some pot.
4. Purchasing a hamburger at McDonalds? Not only a Mexican activity, if I understand correctly.
5. Watching soccer? Oooh…that’s a decent criteria there!
6. Driving a low-riding vehicle with tinted windows? Getting warmer…
7. Having non-white skin color? DING! DING! DING! DING! We have a winner!

Look, we just clearly see the world very differently. I grew up in a small Mormon town in Southern Idaho, and although I didn’t recognize it much as a teenager, I’ve come to realize that much of what I heard on a regular basis about the immigrants there was racially motivated. I’ve seen it myself. There’s not much more I can say, I guess.

These decisions in the pre-existance wouldn’t have hinged on borders, they would have hinged on families. I would have chosen to be part of a family that had a Uruguayan father and an American mother currently in Uruguay. Beatta would have chosen to make her family with an American. We decided on families that happened to live in one place, but that had high probabilities of living somewhere else. So really our decisions to be born in Uruguay/Finland were secondary.

And what of all the illegal immigrants who plan on coming to the US because they want to marry an American? Your whole reasoning there applies 100% as well to people who are trying to enter currently and cannot.

Your logic still makes no sense: These decisions in the pre-existance wouldn’t have hinged on borders, they would have hinged on families. I would have chosen to be part of a family that had a Uruguayan father and an American mother currently in Uruguay. Beatta would have chosen to make her family with an American. We decided on families that happened to live in one place, but that had high probabilities of living somewhere else.

So really our decisions to be born in Uruguay/Finland were secondary.

Perhaps these were part of my thoughts back then:
“Yes, I’ll be a part of that family, regardless of the fact that they live in a second world country. Moreover, I’ll probably end up in USA anyways as I’d be a born US citizen.”

Others may have decided like this:
“I’ll step up to the plate and be the poor street kid that has to sell candy in Mexico City. I’ll provide others with a chance to serve. I’ll grow strong from the adversity. I’ll be a good tool in God’s work………. I’ll try to make it financially and use my experiences to help others. Perhaps I must go to the USA to do that.”

It makes no sense to me that I or this hypothetical kid that made it the US would have to go back to our respective countries because of what we decided in the pre-existance. We accepted situations, we didn’t sign a document stating we were never going to try to change those situations.

#4- Cool, but it still gave me a chuckle when I read it. sorry

But I fear if I knew your counter-opinions that I’d be heartbroken.

Counter-opinions on what?

“Using that same logic, you should go back to Uruguay, Beatta should go back to Finland, and Natasha should make darn sure she never crosses that Canadian border into NYC”. I don’t know how that makes any sense.

Well, it goes like this: We’re talking about a law which regulates where people can and can’t live. You mention the pre-existence as a defense of such regulations. I mention that, if we are held to what we allegedly agreed upon in the pre-existence, then you and Beatta are clearly in the wrong countries, since you allegedly decided in the pre-existence that you should be born in Uruguay and Finland, respectively.

Re re re #4, I don’t want the government involved, in the final analysis. But the question about related to how to get the government out of the picture. Natasha (if I recall correctly) had picked up the impression that I was in favor of just throwing the gates open immediately, and was objecting to that because it would create chaos. I explained (and this is what you’re referring to) that I don’t advocate the government immediately pulling out; I advocate the federal government slowly pulling out over time, allowing for local communities to adjust and create their own border policies. In summary, I want the government to disappear from this issue, yes–but not immediately.

re, re #2- I agree with you, the preexistance doctrine and conjecture is hard to use for any argument. I just wanted to throw it out there. I do disagree with your statement: “Using that same logic, you should go back to Uruguay, Beatta should go back to Finland, and Natasha should make darn sure she never crosses that Canadian border into NYC”. I don’t know how that makes any sense.

re, re #3- Cool

re, re #4- I thought it was funny because after reading all the posts, you acquired the image that you did not want the government in the way of migration issues. At least in my eyes.

About Natasha’s first comment: I enjoyed her perspective on welfare and her experiences with it a lot. I still think minimizing welfare would decrease the number of people “falling mentally ill” with the dependence, but it is still the most illuminating post among many good ones in this thread. To me at least.

re your #1, I agree entirely. Calling things that aren’t racist such is an evil and unhelpful practice. Fortunately for me, I’m quite comfortable calling this legislation, or more specifically, the underlying motivations, racist. I think it is actually quite blatantly racist; one of the truly most ugly pieces of legislation in memory. I can’t provide you a “proof” of such anymore than you can prove it isn’t racist, since I don’t even know what would constitute proof.

re your #2, I also agree that it is quite logical to think that, from an LDS perspective, we had some influence on where we would be born. However, such an idea is neither here nor there when it comes to public policy. Using that same logic, you should go back to Uruguay, Beatta should go back to Finland, and Natasha should make darn sure she never crosses that Canadian border into NYC. There are other things (thinking pre-existence) that would be bad public policy–such as casting all people who don’t worship God the Father through Jesus Christ out (into North Dakota, maybe) for Eternity. The fact is, no one knows what we were able to decide on in the pre-existence–it’s 100% speculation. Making public policy based on the speculative ruminations of a religious micro-minority is insane.

re your #3, I agree that lines and borders are super-duper. I just don’t think that membership in those lined-and-bordered-communities should depend on something none of us have any control over.

re your #4, I don’t follow either why it’s funny or why you said “eventually” since I have always wanted such a regulation. The government currently regulates it–I’d like that same government to change its policy and begin rolling itself back in this area, until it is non-existent.

Re Natasha’s first comment, which you hoped I’d read–Natasha wrote a lot of comments (Hi Natasha! Welcome back!), and some were better than others. Her first was by far the worst of the bunch, in my opinion. (Nothing personal, Nat–we still on for dinner?)