5
   

Sanctuary cities start to cave

 
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2017 02:49 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

As you ask the question, no. As to the intent of your question, yes.

Illegal immigration affects everyone. Being in America illegally is a crime and each individual illegal immigrant knows that they may be shipped out any day now.

Tell me though, what kind of migrant workers do you have in Boston? You guys have a lot of farms down there by the water front? Lots of cabbages needing to be picked?


Our politicians hire them to clean their houses.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  3  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2017 02:51 pm
@McGentrix,
Quote:
Tell me though, what kind of migrant workers do you have in Boston? You guys have a lot of farms down there by the water front? Lots of cabbages needing to be picked?


There is food service, janitorial work, child care, home health care (taking care of the elderly and sick in their homes) and construction. These immigrants care for our children, clean our houses, take care of our elderly and build our buildings. Are you really suggesting that there isn't a need for these workers in urban centers? These undocumented workers are at least as much of an important part of our economy in big cities as they are in rural areas.

There is a reason that many people in Boston and New York support the rights of undocumented workers. They are an important part of our economy and our community.

Of course, if there was meaningful immigration reform... they wouldn't need to be undocumented.

0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2017 02:58 pm
@Linkat,
Quote:
I agree I am spelling deficient.


That isn't just a spelling problem Linkat. You said that you had "lost creditability" which is apparently a mispelling of credibility. Even if you fixed the spelling mistake... I don't think your words would say what you meant to say.

Your pettiness made this funny. Rather than responding to the issue with any intelligence, you had to attack a silly mistake... and you did it in a way that was laughably inept.

I love irony.


0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2017 03:26 pm
@layman,
Quote Layman:
Quote:
Back to Washington, eh [for politically motivated disaster relief turndowns]? That would be a long walk. Back to Obama is plenty far enough.


Your own link disagrees. From your own link:
Quote:
Between 1991 and 2011, presidents approved more than 85 percent of governors' disaster requests. During that period, the states most likely to be denied disaster declarations were Connecticut (39 percent), Arizona (37 percent), Texas (35 percent) and Rhode Island (33 percent), according to a Stateline analysis of documents obtained under the federal Freedom of Information Act.

Disappointed governors may see politics at work when their requests fall flat, but the numbers tell a different story. According to Stateline's analysis, Democratic presidents denied requests from Republican governors 53 times and Democratic governors 44 times. Republican presidents turned down requests from fellow Republicans 49 times and from Democrats 43 times. Republicans held the majority of governorships between 1995 and 2007, and again after the 2010 elections.


Of the four states most often turned down for disaster relief, two are Republican and two are Democratic. And who can forget the partnership Republican Governor Chris Christie and President Obama had during Hurricane Sandy? You're making something out of nothing.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2017 05:55 pm
@Blickers,
Well, Layman is right that since it is the power of the president to give out these funds, arguments about which denials were politically motivated are not useful.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2017 06:39 pm
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:

Quote Layman:
Quote:
Back to Washington, eh [for politically motivated disaster relief turndowns]? That would be a long walk. Back to Obama is plenty far enough.


Build many straw men, Blicky? The part you inserted in brackets was NOT in the question Max, asked, and was therefore not part of the question I responded to.

I didn't then, nor do I now, claim to know which denials, if any, were, in whole or part, denied for politically motivated reasons. The point was merely that they can be, and have been, denied in the sole discretion of the President. A state governor is not "automatically entitled" to relief just because he asks for it.

0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2017 07:46 pm
I politely disagree that you were not arguing that the President was withholding relief funds for political purposes.

Quote oralloy:
Quote:
The federal government often withholds funding from states that do not do what the feds want.


In response, quote max:
Quote:
Can you name one time time the federal government has withheld disaster relief funds from any state under any administration (you can go back as far as George Washington)?


In response, quote layman:
Quote:
Disaster Declaration Denials Exasperate Governors

Earlier this summer, a wildfire near Yarnell, Ariz., killed 19 firefighters and destroyed 109 homes at an estimated cost of $6.8 million. When Gov. Jan Brewer asked President Barack Obama to declare a federal disaster, he turned her down.

...experts in the field say the disaster standards are unclear—and often ignored. The result is that disaster decisions can seem arbitrary or politically motivated.

In Texas, Perry asked for a disaster declaration after more than 15 inches of rain fell on the south Texas city of Roma in 2008....After Hurricanes Humberto in 2007 and Hermine in 2010, Perry also unsuccessfully petitioned for disaster declarations...Perry has plenty of company.


Back to Washington, eh? That would be a long walk. Back to Obama is plenty far enough.


Considering that the debate was originally about oralloy's comment about the Federal government withholding relief funds for states that supposedly don't do what the Federal government wants, your quote of an article on the topic with the bits mentioning how some governors think disaster relief is politically motivated being emphasized, and the parts of the article showing that overall statistics show it is NOT politically motivated were omitted, add up to you arguing that the President withholds relief funds for states he doesn't feel friendly towards.

Otherwise, why would you include the parts of the article which show that some people say the funds are withheld for political purposes, and omit the parts of the article which statistically show they are not withheld for political purposes?
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  3  
Reply Tue 14 Feb, 2017 08:29 am
It suprises me at the extent to which white women, many who identify as feminists, buy into Trump's anti-immigrant nonsense. Trump won 53% of the white woman vote (against Hillary no less), and much of it was based on xenophobia and hatred of immigrants.

What these White women don't understand is that their progress is very much tied up with the progress of immigrants and ethnic minorities. Suffragettes certainly broke the law and are now praised for it by some of the same people who are now attacking immigrants for trying to provide a better life for their family. Social justice movements have all worked together to make a better society for all... it never has been all about White women.

Now, thanks in large part to anti-immigrant hatred cheered by many White women, we will have a president who celebrates sexual harassment, restricts reproductive rights and breaks up immigrant families. You can't have one without the others... and white women have chosen a conservative supreme court with all that entails just so they don't have to face immigrant families.

Linkat may pretend that harassment of immigrants doesn't go along with harassment of women....but she is kidding herself.

I hope she is happy with the next four years. I am not very happy.
McGentrix
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 14 Feb, 2017 09:06 am
@maxdancona,
My main issue is that otherwise normal people like you actually believe this.

STOP conflating illegal immigration with immigration.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 14 Feb, 2017 09:23 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
I hope she is happy with the next four years. I am not very happy.

Actually the Republicans are going to hold the White House for at least 20 years.

And even after 20 years, the Democrats will only regain the White House by purging their Leftists and nominating a "Trump-lite" (sort of like how Clinton won in the Reagan era by being a "Reagan-lite").

Liberalism is essentially over in this country. The 2013 gun control debacle killed it for good.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Feb, 2017 09:33 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

My main issue is that otherwise normal people like you actually believe this.

STOP conflating illegal immigration with immigration.


First of all, I don't think I like being called "otherwise normal".

Second of all.... that last post wasn't written for you who I assume will be happy with Trump's Supreme court pick and the resulting possible loss of reproductive rights (correct me if I am wrong)... but if it will help, you can replace every instance of the word "immigrant" in my post with "illegal immigrant". It doesn't change my point at all.

Third of all... your view on immigration is rather simplistic if you think that you can draw a bright line between "legal" and "illegal" and ignore the history of immigration, family migration and ethnic discrimination in the US.

I am pretty sure my European great-grandparents were illegal immigrants in the early 1900s. We know they were in Canada one time, they were in upstate New York a little later. Lots of people did this. It is unlikely that at the time they would have made it through Ellis island due to ethnic profiling. Thankfully my grandmother was born an American citizen (and here I am).

Does this matter at all?
McGentrix
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 14 Feb, 2017 09:34 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

maxdancona wrote:
I hope she is happy with the next four years. I am not very happy.

Actually the Republicans are going to hold the White House for at least 20 years.

And even after 20 years, the Democrats will only regain the White House by purging their Leftists and nominating a "Trump-lite" (sort of like how Clinton won in the Reagan era by being a "Reagan-lite").

Liberalism is essentially over in this country. The 2013 gun control debacle killed it for good.


Do you have this somewhere you can just copy and paste it?

Just curious.
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Tue 14 Feb, 2017 09:38 am
@oralloy,
wanna post odds and take bets??

McGentrix
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 14 Feb, 2017 09:47 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

My main issue is that otherwise normal people like you actually believe this.

STOP conflating illegal immigration with immigration.


First of all, I don't think I like being called "otherwise normal".


Too bad.

maxdancona wrote:
Second of all.... that last post wasn't written for you who I assume will be happy with Trump's Supreme court pick and the resulting possible loss of reproductive rights (correct me if I am wrong)... but if it will help, you can replace every instance of the word "immigrant" in my post with "illegal immigrant". It doesn't change my point at all.


Yes, I will be happy with the current nominee. Why do you think that reproductive rights would suddenly be in peril? Do you believe the USSC would just suddenly decide that this is a good year for that to happen? The absolute most they could even do is to give it back to the states to decide and even then there would have to be a case. Quit with the sky is falling routine.

maxdancona wrote:
Third of all... your view on immigration is rather simplistic if you think that you can draw a bright line between "legal" and "illegal" and ignore the history of immigration, family migration and ethnic discrimination in the US.

I am pretty sure my European great-grandparents were illegal immigrants in the early 1900s. We know they were in Canada one time, they were in upstate New York a little later. Lots of people did this. It is unlikely that at the time they would have made it through Ellis island due to ethnic profiling. Thankfully my grandmother was born an American citizen (and here I am).

Does this matter at all?


Does it matter? No. This isn't 1900 and immigration (legal) is working just fine. There is a HUGE, BRIGHT, FLUORESCENT line between legal and illegal immigration. We don't have an Ellis Island anymore and the US has very lax immigration rules compared to most country in the world.
maxdancona
 
  3  
Reply Tue 14 Feb, 2017 09:49 am
@McGentrix,
Quote:
There is a HUGE, BRIGHT, FLUORESCENT line between legal and illegal immigration.


On which side of this line does Melania Trump fit? The fact is that being White, and having access to money and legal resources has a lot to do with which side of the line you are on.

This may be your definition of "working fine". It isn't mine.


McGentrix
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 14 Feb, 2017 10:04 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
There is a HUGE, BRIGHT, FLUORESCENT line between legal and illegal immigration.


On which side of this line does Melania Trump fit? The fact is that being White, and having access to money and legal resources has a lot to do with which side of the line you are on.

This may be your definition of "working fine". It isn't mine.


Don't know, don't care. Which does she fit for you? Does it only matter that she is Trump's wife to you?
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Tue 14 Feb, 2017 10:09 am
@McGentrix,
Quote:
Don't know, don't care. Which does she fit for you? Does it only matter that she is Trump's wife to you?


The point is that the line isn't as "fluorescent" as you are pretending it to be. The fact that some immigrants who break our laws are celebrated while others are deported means to me that the system is screwed up. If Melania had darker skin as an immigrant who broke our laws, she likely wouldn't be living in the US (let alone the White House).

McGentrix
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 14 Feb, 2017 10:10 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
Don't know, don't care. Which does she fit for you? Does it only matter that she is Trump's wife to you?


The point is that the line isn't as "fluorescent" as you are pretending it to be. The fact that some immigrants who break our laws are celebrated while others are deported means to me that the system is screwed up.




Yeah, that's bullshit. Show me some illegal immigrants being celebrated.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Feb, 2017 10:11 am
@McGentrix,
Quote:
Show me some illegal immigrants being celebrated.


You aren't paying attention McGentrix. Here is an immigrant who broke our laws and is now being celebrated.

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTuAloWArMhY8NGcFFTalaLUsFhzeJmuAe2N2IeWDWdPVVsAMIWbNax2CpT

And here is an immigrant who broke our laws and is now being deported (can you see the difference?).

http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/files/entryimages/Garcia1-800.jpeg
McGentrix
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 14 Feb, 2017 10:23 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
Show me some illegal immigrants being celebrated.


You aren't paying attention McGentrix. Here is an immigrant who broke our laws and is now being celebrated.

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTuAloWArMhY8NGcFFTalaLUsFhzeJmuAe2N2IeWDWdPVVsAMIWbNax2CpT

And here is an immigrant who broke our laws and is now being deported (can you see the difference?).

http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/files/entryimages/Garcia1-800.jpeg


A legal immigrant vs an illegal immigrant.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/03/2024 at 06:22:44