A clear, direct & comprehensive defense of Sanctuary Cities

[gipper]

Could someone provide one?

Thanks.
.

Willful ignorance. There have been several made by mayors from many of our most important cities. New York, San Francisco, LA. Go ahead. Pick one. This is not an issue that any rational person sees as confusing.

But..look at all the love you got for this enlightening thread. You are so awesome.

You forgot to mention that all the defenses of sanctuary cities made by radical left politicians, is pure unadulterated ignorance. (as usual, since radical leftism is CRAZINESS)

Only a FOOL would think allowing criminals free and open access to your city, is a good thing.

It is clear that sanctuary cities is merely an effort for more D votes. It is as plain as the nose on your face, but somehow you and many others get duped by the radical left...AGAIN.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Here's the deal you meatheads . These cities DO turn over immigrants accused of felonies and dangerous crimes .

But they ain't gonna hold in their jails , at their expense , some guy caught driving without insurance .

You never think of the unintended consequences of your roundup . Public mistrust , people NOT reporting crime, people not cooperating with the police , families being broken up , increased welfare to suppprt broken families .

Unintended consequences?

Public mistrust. Correct. I don't trust the government to forcefully take my hard earned wages to give them to someone who violated Federal law to feed, clothe and, educate and house those and their families while they make these demands under the color of their own Country's flag, while they assault our citizens and riot input cities.

Reporting crime and not cooperating with Police. Correct. They are not reporting the crimes committed amongst their own and cooperating with Police.

Families broken up. Correct. You didn't think of this when the parents of these children sent their children North, to take up residence in the hated United States, with the intent of getting a free ride for the rest of their family once their children made it here, so that we could feed, clothe , house and educate them with no participation from them, other than arriving here.

Increased welfare. Correct. Why are the citizens of this country spending billions on these invaders in welfare costs, Medical costs. Education, etc.

Yes. Correct. Unintended consequences.

If their lives are so bad in their own country then they need to correct the problem. Instead they come here and expect... No... DEMAND we change to suit their desires.

Your crying towel needs wringing.

Go homeland fix your own house. Not come here and destroy ours.

Yes. You are correct. Unintended consequences.

The one issue I never see discussed (outside of when I'm screaming about it) is the fact that Mexican "leaders" are so proud to help their people escape their miserable, corrupt country. The fact that people are trying to escape and come here comes before all the people here who are fine with it.

Also, it appears that the primary reason people who support sanctuary cities provide is as follows:

We should have sanctuary cities because it's too expensive to hold and prosecute the people we're attracting by being sanctuary cities.

I have no idea how to respond to that.
.

No one with any intelligence can respond to a policy that is utter nonsense. The radical left is most illogical, so trying to debate them is a terrible waste of time.

There is no debate.

Just emotion, hyperbole and excuses.

Point. Laugh. Ridicule. Repeat.

 

[gipper]

Here's the deal you meatheads . These cities DO turn over immigrants accused of felonies and dangerous crimes .

But they ain't gonna hold in their jails , at their expense , some guy caught driving without insurance .

You never think of the unintended consequences of your roundup . Public mistrust , people NOT reporting crime, people not cooperating with the police , families being broken up , increased welfare to suppprt broken families .

Unintended consequences?

Public mistrust. Correct. I don't trust the government to forcefully take my hard earned wages to give them to someone who violated Federal law to feed, clothe and, educate and house those and their families while they make these demands under the color of their own Country's flag, while they assault our citizens and riot input cities.

Reporting crime and not cooperating with Police. Correct. They are not reporting the crimes committed amongst their own and cooperating with Police.

Families broken up. Correct. You didn't think of this when the parents of these children sent their children North, to take up residence in the hated United States, with the intent of getting a free ride for the rest of their family once their children made it here, so that we could feed, clothe , house and educate them with no participation from them, other than arriving here.

Increased welfare. Correct. Why are the citizens of this country spending billions on these invaders in welfare costs, Medical costs. Education, etc.

Yes. Correct. Unintended consequences.

If their lives are so bad in their own country then they need to correct the problem. Instead they come here and expect... No... DEMAND we change to suit their desires.

Your crying towel needs wringing.

Go homeland fix your own house. Not come here and destroy ours.

Yes. You are correct. Unintended consequences.

The one issue I never see discussed (outside of when I'm screaming about it) is the fact that Mexican "leaders" are so proud to help their people escape their miserable, corrupt country. The fact that people are trying to escape and come here comes before all the people here who are fine with it.

Also, it appears that the primary reason people who support sanctuary cities provide is as follows:

We should have sanctuary cities because it's too expensive to hold and prosecute the people we're attracting by being sanctuary cities.

I have no idea how to respond to that.
.

No one with any intelligence can respond to a policy that is utter nonsense. The radical left is most illogical, so trying to debate them is a terrible waste of time.

There is no debate.

Just emotion, hyperbole and excuses.

Point. Laugh. Ridicule. Repeat.

Agreed. All they can do in defending their absurd position, is scream racist. Sadly many Americans are too brainwashed by government schooling or afraid of being called a racist, to argue with these idiots.

The Left has a long history of silencing their opposition with ridicule, accusations, and violence.

 

[imawhosure]

Here's the deal you meatheads . These cities DO turn over immigrants accused of felonies and dangerous crimes .

But they ain't gonna hold in their jails , at their expense , some guy caught driving without insurance .

You never think of the unintended consequences of your roundup . Public mistrust , people NOT reporting crime, people not cooperating with the police , families being broken up , increased welfare to suppprt broken families .

dude, it's fking easy. Here again:

what we expect is for someone here illegally and picked up during a crime by local police, are held in a jail cell, ICE contacted, ICE picks up and leaves, we call it a day and the criminal illegal is deported back to his/ her country. See how easy that is?

What is it you don't get? BTW, that's all it takes to get funding.

Does (do) the local police get to expect anything??? Such as ICE being there in 72 hours or so to pick up the illegal alien?

Further,
How long should the local police be on the hook for storing the arrested person. Also, in smaller cities, there are no federal courts, much less prisons. So where do you hold the arrested illegal alien whilst a hearing is being held? For example, if he commits robbery in Fort Hancock, TX then is found out to be an illegal alien…the DA in Fort Hancock is going to put him through a trial. Usually he would be bonded out awaiting trial. With the immigration enhancement…can’t let him out on bail so it’s 3 hots and a cot at the expense of whom?

Mac1958 …. you tell us….how long should someone be held here and at the expense of whom?

They should be held for the required time by the appropriate jurisdiction.

Who is the appropriate jurisdiction in this case? Is he a federal prisoner or a State inmate?

I don't know either. That's why I said "the appropriate jurisdiction".
.

Here's the deal you meatheads . These cities DO turn over immigrants accused of felonies and dangerous crimes .

But they ain't gonna hold in their jails , at their expense , some guy caught driving without insurance .

You never think of the unintended consequences of your roundup . Public mistrust , people NOT reporting crime, people not cooperating with the police , families being broken up , increased welfare to suppprt broken families .

Unintended consequences?

Public mistrust. Correct. I don't trust the government to forcefully take my hard earned wages to give them to someone who violated Federal law to feed, clothe and, educate and house those and their families while they make these demands under the color of their own Country's flag, while they assault our citizens and riot input cities.

Reporting crime and not cooperating with Police. Correct. They are not reporting the crimes committed amongst their own and cooperating with Police.

Families broken up. Correct. You didn't think of this when the parents of these children sent their children North, to take up residence in the hated United States, with the intent of getting a free ride for the rest of their family once their children made it here, so that we could feed, clothe , house and educate them with no participation from them, other than arriving here.

Increased welfare. Correct. Why are the citizens of this country spending billions on these invaders in welfare costs, Medical costs. Education, etc.

Yes. Correct. Unintended consequences.

If their lives are so bad in their own country then they need to correct the problem. Instead they come here and expect... No... DEMAND we change to suit their desires.

Your crying towel needs wringing.

Go homeland fix your own house. Not come here and destroy ours.

Yes. You are correct. Unintended consequences.

The one issue I never see discussed (outside of when I'm screaming about it) is the fact that Mexican "leaders" are so proud to help their people escape their miserable, corrupt country. The fact that people are trying to escape and come here comes before all the people here who are fine with it.

Also, it appears that the primary reason people who support sanctuary cities provide is as follows:

We should have sanctuary cities because it's too expensive to hold and prosecute the people we're attracting by being sanctuary cities.

I have no idea how to respond to that.
.

No one with any intelligence can respond to a policy that is utter nonsense. The radical left is most illogical, so trying to debate them is a terrible waste of time.

There is no debate.

Just emotion, hyperbole and excuses.

Point. Laugh. Ridicule. Repeat.

Agreed. All they can do in defending their absurd position, is scream racist. Sadly many Americans are too brainwashed by government schooling or afraid of being called a racist, to argue with these idiots.

The Left has a long history of silencing their opposition with ridicule, accusations, and violence.

Gotta love these excuses. Got a question-------->

QUESTION: If I drive through (pick a state) drunk, or with a concealed handgun on me where it is not legal, how long if I sit there before they let me go? What if I do not come back to court, what happens? If they issue a bench warrant for my arrest and I am arrested, think I will be let go wherever I am arrested at? Does this mean all Americans should ignore the law? I thought what created a working society, was adherence TO the LAWS!

P.S. Need to change my sig, but to all you DEPLORABLES, think about avoiding California at all costs, for any reason, every time you can! They want to flip American citizens the bird, then keep your DEPLORABLE cash firmly in your pocket, and out of reach of the law breakers in California. Give them a 5% dump in tourism, and that state will be financially devastated! Just keep YOUR deplorable cash away from those bastions of wonderfulness known as far leftists, besides, I am sure they do not want any of your DEPLORABLE cash anyway, right leftist, law breaking loving, Californians-)

 

[SavannahMann]

Could someone provide one?

Thanks.
.

First let me begin by saying I personally believe that illegal immigration is a big issue and we need to strive to reduce those numbers to the lowest possible numbers. In other words I think the illegals should be deported.

Now as to the justification. We must begin with this truth. An elected representative is honor bound to represent the people who are covered by the office. In other words if your constituents are opposed to abortion you should be as well.

The people in those cities believe that it is wrong to deport someone. They may have many reasons and I personally may disagree but the reality is that the elected officials should represent the views of the majority as much as possible.

If you are concerned with the moral aspect then that is also easy. St. Augustine taught that an unjust law is no law at all. That means an immoral law should be refused.

So that is the foundation of the mentality of disobedience of a Federal Law. You may disagree with that, but remember the cops who spoke up and said that they would not participate in confiscating weapons. The Right cheered them. There was no argument from the right about how they had to enforce the law.

Sheriffs Refuse to Enforce Laws on Gun Control

250 Police Officers Refuse To Enforce Gun Laws in Connecticut - Truth And Action

So how hypocritical are you on the far right?

 

[OldLady]

I've read through most of this thread, and I'm surprised that no one has gotten it yet.

There's one major reason for sanctuary cities that hasn't been mentioned yet (or I missed it) - and its the primary logistical reason why the laws have been adopted by various cities.

Sanctuary cities exist so illegal immigrants won't be afraid of talking to cops.

That's it.

That has been mentioned. If that is the only reason, it is an extremely expensive law enforcement program, isn't it? Especially since it apparently ends up allowing criminals to go free? (I don't mean the crime of being here illegally.)
Why don't police just not ask people if they are citizens? No cop has ever asked me. Why does it come up at all?

 

[Mac1958]

Could someone provide one?

Thanks.
.

First let me begin by saying I personally believe that illegal immigration is a big issue and we need to strive to reduce those numbers to the lowest possible numbers. In other words I think the illegals should be deported.

Now as to the justification. We must begin with this truth. An elected representative is honor bound to represent the people who are covered by the office. In other words if your constituents are opposed to abortion you should be as well.

The people in those cities believe that it is wrong to deport someone. They may have many reasons and I personally may disagree but the reality is that the elected officials should represent the views of the majority as much as possible.

If you are concerned with the moral aspect then that is also easy. St. Augustine taught that an unjust law is no law at all. That means an immoral law should be refused.

So that is the foundation of the mentality of disobedience of a Federal Law. You may disagree with that, but remember the cops who spoke up and said that they would not participate in confiscating weapons. The Right cheered them. There was no argument from the right about how they had to enforce the law.

Sheriffs Refuse to Enforce Laws on Gun Control

250 Police Officers Refuse To Enforce Gun Laws in Connecticut - Truth And Action

So how hypocritical are you on the far right?

Obviously you don't know my politics, but feel free to jump to conclusions.

If we don't like a law, we go through the proper channels to change the law, the ballot box. And if we can't get it done that way, we lose. To ignore the law, especially as municipality or a state, begins the breakdown of law in general.
.

 

[SavannahMann]

Could someone provide one?

Thanks.
.

First let me begin by saying I personally believe that illegal immigration is a big issue and we need to strive to reduce those numbers to the lowest possible numbers. In other words I think the illegals should be deported.

Now as to the justification. We must begin with this truth. An elected representative is honor bound to represent the people who are covered by the office. In other words if your constituents are opposed to abortion you should be as well.

The people in those cities believe that it is wrong to deport someone. They may have many reasons and I personally may disagree but the reality is that the elected officials should represent the views of the majority as much as possible.

If you are concerned with the moral aspect then that is also easy. St. Augustine taught that an unjust law is no law at all. That means an immoral law should be refused.

So that is the foundation of the mentality of disobedience of a Federal Law. You may disagree with that, but remember the cops who spoke up and said that they would not participate in confiscating weapons. The Right cheered them. There was no argument from the right about how they had to enforce the law.

Sheriffs Refuse to Enforce Laws on Gun Control

250 Police Officers Refuse To Enforce Gun Laws in Connecticut - Truth And Action

So how hypocritical are you on the far right?

Obviously you don't know my politics, but feel free to jump to conclusions.

If we don't like a law, we go through the proper channels to change the law, the ballot box. And if we can't get it done that way, we lose. To ignore the law, especially as municipality or a state, begins the breakdown of law in general.
.

Daniel and his friends were thrown into the fire pit, and the Lions Den because they broke man's law. They were protected by God because they kept faith with a higher law.

Rosa Parks disobeyed mans law, but is seen as a heroine because she kept faith with a higher law, one written in the Declaration of Independance, that all men were created equal.

History is repeat with heroes who disobeyed and flaunted mans law because it was immoral, unethical, or a violation of a higher law, or principle. When a law is wrong, it must be resisted. That is the genesis of the classic quote. All that is needed for evil to win is good men to do nothing. Good men do not obey an immoral, or unjust law. Good men resist.

Going to the ballot box is a good answer, but it is only part of the answer. Because even if you lose at the ballot box, the law remains unjust or immoral.

Gandhi is known the world over because he resisted an immoral practice. He did not obey the law blindly and say that was enough. He flaunted the law, and who is lionized by History? Not the British who tried to make him get back in line and obey.

Standing up for what you believe is right is the moral duty of every citizen. The entire purpose behind a Jury Trial was to insure that the law was applied justly. Not only did the defendant commit the action he or she is accused of, but is the law just, or justly applied? The Jury can find that the law is unjust, or unjustly applied, and find the defendant not guilty based upon that. Unjust laws must be resisted.

Nelson Mandella was in prison for decades because he would not obey an unjust and immoral law. Nelson Mandella is a hero in history because he did not obey the law as you say must happen.

There are heroes in history who fought to enforce the law. Elliot Ness is but one example from a long list. But that list of admirable persons in history includes those who refused to obey an unjust or immoral law.

We are a species who is guided by conscience in many cases. We believe that doing the right thing is admirable. Sometimes, doing the right thing is allowed in the law, and sometimes it isn't.

Let's say you see a child in a car at high noon in July. The engine is off, the windows are rolled up, and the child looks listless, perhaps even close to death. You take action, smashing a window and opening the door and remove the child from imminent peril.

You have just committed a number of felonies, and you won't be prosecuted. You broke into a car, and you kidnapped a child. By the letter of the law you claim to have utmost respect for, you have broken the law. But you took that action to save a life. You took that action for a higher purpose than just breaking in and taking the child.

Grand Juries and Juries in court recognize that. They would not charge you, and even if charged, you wouldn't be found guilty. Despite violating the letter of the law, you did the right thing for the right reason.

Obedience of a law, when the law is wrong, is the worst thing you can do. Waiting for a change through political channels means you are doing the evil, a good man doing nothing to stop injustice or immoral abuses.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Could someone provide one?

Thanks.
.

whether or not someone is deported is subject to the discretion of law enforcement. if a city decides that law-abiding people, whether documented or not, are contributing societally, that city should have the right to decide those people should stay in it's borders without federal interference.

just so you know, i don't have a particular position on them one way or another and could make an argument either way.

what i do find amazing is that all the rightwing states' righters suddenly go all federalist and supremacy clause when it comes to enforcing their bigotry.

Two Identical Wings Supporting This Invasion

A Right Wing slogan is that we are a republic, not a democracy. So letting the city government make private deals against the will of the majority is Right Wing. I doubt if the majority of legal Miamians favor harboring illegal aliens. And even if they do, this is a national issue and Miami cannot betray the nation, even if it does so democratically within its own city.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The worse unintended consequence is that some bastard that has no legal right to be here kills you, family or friend. One of these smug politician enablers should have it happen to them, they won't wake up any other way.

If Their Sons Have a Future, Our Sons Won't

We won't live free until those who thrive in a republic live in fear of a democracy rising up against them.