Let's talk about sanctuary cities

"

Moshe_of_Succubus wrote:

"

diablofdb wrote:

"

Moshe_of_Succubus wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6B9l-c2cGY
this is why sanctuary cities need get less money if they protect illegal immigrants

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZXbG5gvoC0

<3

this video comparation is much better

fake news dont show this way

It's really amazing how much things can change in 20 years.

They are all complete shit. Just Democrats (agents of chaos) engaged in their usual destruction of normal formerly functioning society's. LA, who I'm closet too, has 50,000 homeless - they are everywhere. Some places where they congregate is like a zombie area. No law, feces on the streets, no go by cops, you need a HAZMAT team before you go in.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-homeless-count-20170127-story.html

I'm not opposed to immigrants. My grand parents on materal side immigrated in 1970s. But they were assets not liabilities. You had to have money in the bank or a useful skill e.g engineer doctor whatnot. Today its exact opposite. We take in people who are useless even in their own country let alone on an advanced economy such as USA. Or even worse - Mexico Cuba Elsalvador dumps a prison on us or ISIS moles looking to exact mayhem. We just don't know with "sanctuary" - its come any come all. Very Dangerous and impoverishing.

I still don't even know of an objective definition for "sanctuary city".
The term gets leveled at lots of cities but it still just feels like political hooplah to me, used whenever convenient with whatever shifting definition is needed to make it stick.

---

I agree with Scrotie's comments. I think that cities/counties/states are stupid to recklessly absorb immigrants faster than they can truly naturalize them, but I also think that they are allowed to make that decision.

At the federal level, if the federal gov't is having problems finding and deporting them all and it's deemed a Big Problem (tm), the solution is more ICE/CBP agents, not conscription of the states.

I think it's worth noting that opponents of the US war on drugs should really not be arguing for federal power to override recent votes of the people in several states to legalize recreational and/or medical marijuana. There's a "sanctuary city" policy I can fully get behind. ;)

I bet now that I've contextualized my earlier argument with a different social issue, I'll suddenly get more agreement. Inside-the-box thinkers, some of you are.

"

pneuma wrote:

I still don't even know of an objective definition for "sanctuary city".
The term gets leveled at lots of cities but it still just feels like political hooplah to me, used whenever convenient with whatever shifting definition is needed to make it stick.

---

I agree with Scrotie's comments. I think that cities/counties/states are stupid to recklessly absorb immigrants faster than they can truly naturalize them, but I also think that they are allowed to make that decision.

At the federal level, if the federal gov't is having problems finding and deporting them all and it's deemed a Big Problem (tm), the solution is more ICE/CBP agents, not conscription of the states.

Sanctuary cities don't inform immigration when someone is undocumented sitting their jails like federal law requires. Thats how that Kate women in San Fran died among many others. Guy was a multiple Felon in and out of jail and SFPD did not notify ICE to deport.

Technically it's ok. States rights and all that. Its not states or cities duty to enforce Federal Law. But Trump has right to cut Federal funding too. This is where battle is.

A good way to think about it is weed. Weed is Federally illegal. But obviously states have legalized it and most dont inform feds when someone is busted. Weed sanctuary exists as well.

I really have difficulty understanding the popularity of a policy to protect convicted violent offenders from being expelled from their communities. At this point, it seems to be pure spite. "Trump is for this? Well then, I'm against it!"

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I really have difficulty understanding the popularity of a policy to protect convicted violent offenders from being expelled from their communities. At this point, it seems to be pure spite. "Trump is for this? Well then, I'm against it!"

First of all most people are ignorant to what it means. They think doing away with sanctuary means they will have to call ICE on their housekeeper Maria from Mexico. With no small help from democratic leadership to put that in thier heads. Second Democrats are agents of chaos in constant revolution against normals and capitalism. More society is unstable, poorer people get closer to the communist revolution and complete power they will have. Means to an end.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I think it's deeply hypocritical how partisans of the previous opposition party *cough RayCheetah cough* tend to be all about state's rights and the ominous expansion of federal power, then as soon as their party establishes dominance they about-face and want an all-powerful federal system.

States' rights are the varied and unenumerated rights provided for in the Constitution. As long as they do not conflict with the Enumerated Powers of the Federal Gub'mint, I am for their protection. Pretty sure the Constitution also enumerates a substantial quantity of powers and authority to the Gub'mint, though, and those are also to be respected and enforced if we are to maintain the rule of law in this country.

Have a Ludens, Scrotie. ='[.]'=

"

Raycheetah wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I think it's deeply hypocritical how partisans of the previous opposition party *cough RayCheetah cough* tend to be all about state's rights and the ominous expansion of federal power, then as soon as their party establishes dominance they about-face and want an all-powerful federal system.

States' rights are the varied and unenumerated rights provided for in the Constitution. As long as they do not conflict with the Enumerated Powers of the Federal Gub'mint, I am for their protection. Pretty sure the Constitution also enumerates a substantial quantity of powers and authority to the Gub'mint, though, and those are also to be respected and enforced if we are to maintain the rule of law in this country.

Have a Ludens, Scrotie. ='[.]'=

I agree but lets not act like Feds can't compel states to enforce Fed law. Carter threatend Fedreal HWY funds to Wyoming among others who had no speed limits to make it 55. The Department of education constantly threatens school districts funding to comply with feds educational mandates. Millions of examples really. Trump can do same with these sanctuary cities.

Department of Education is another thing where most people are clueless. It's not "do you want public schools?" It's "do you want federal influence over public schools?"