usmbguest5318
Gold Member
Many have tried relentlessly to use the word "immigrants" in an attempt to keep things ambiguous with hopes to package Mexican illegals in with other productive "immigrants" but let's be candid...we all know the assault on immigration is aimed right at a Mexican illegals.
I've yet to hear a logical explanation from these cities as to how or why they believe it is truly in the best interest of this country to harbor Mexican illegals.
Is the reason really political in nature? Is it really to harvest party support?
I've yet to hear a logical explanation from these cities as to how or why they believe it is truly in the best interest of this country to harbor Mexican illegals.
Odds are you won't hear an explanation that derives primarily from logos. The heart of the argument for sanctuary cities is found in the leaders and residents of those cities sublimating extant Kantian mandates to moral subjectivism. Doing so is "all about" pathos and ethos.
Now, you can take them on by arguing from the Kantian perspective and that it's "better" or more apt as a model for dealing with the matter of illegal aliens. Have fun doing so for that will be nothing other than a rhetorical "tug of war," and likely not productive if you and your opponent equally well understand your respective schools of philosophical thought and application.
Question 1: Only if one opposing sanctuary cities' decision makes it be so.Is the reason really political in nature? Is it really to harvest party support?
Question 2: No. That is not a consideration in moral subjectivism. It's a consideration in conspiracy theorizing.