4
   

What, exactly, is the rationale for establishing "sanctuary cities?"

 
 
layman
 
Reply Fri 19 Jan, 2018 04:58 am
I really don't expect this thread to go anywhere, because this strikes me an an emotional-based position, not a rational one, but who knows?

I would think that few people actually support the position that we should have truly open borders. Taken to it's extreme, this would mean to advocate the position that every single citizen of China, Pakistan, Argentina, Egypt, the Congo, and every other country in the world should have the unrestricted right to walk, fly, or cruise into the U.S. If billions of people from all over the world entered our country tomorrow, then they would all have the right to stay forever.

If you don't take this position, then you would presumably agree (as surely almost everyone does) that laws regulating immigration are appropriate, desirable and, in fact, absolutely necessary.

Given that, what should be done with people who violate our laws in this regard? Nothing? Should they just be allowed to stay as long as they want, at least if they don't commit felonies?

If you say, yes, they should be allowed to stay,with no interference whatsoever, then you are, in effect, advocating a truly open borders policy, aren't you?

So how do you reconcile your rejection of an open borders policy with your support for sanctuary cities?

These cities (and States) generally make it illegal for any law enforcement officer to even ask a person if he has legal papers. The enact laws punishing people who do. They pay 6-figure awards to illegal immigrants if they are detained by ICE and if anyone in authority has in any way co-operated with ICE in that detention. They have established, at taxpayer expense, huge slush funds to be used to hire private attorneys to represent illegal aliens who are subject to deportation proceedings, etc.

If you are not actually an advocate for truly open borders, then how and why would you object to immigration laws being enforced?
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Jan, 2018 06:12 am
Quote:
California State Senate President Pro Tem Kevin De Léon (D-Los Angeles) introduced a bill into the California State Senate that would make California a sanctuary state.

“Someone simply who received or purchased a [fraudulent] Social Security card down at McArthur Park, or elsewhere in my district would be eligible immediately for mass deportation,” De Léon said.

"I can tell you half of my family would be eligible for deportation under [President Donald Trump’s] executive order, because if they got a false Social Security card, if they got a false identification, if they got a false driver’s license prior to us passing AB60, if they got a false green card, and anyone who has family members, you know, who are undocumented knows that almost entirely everybody has secured some sort of false identification."


http://beta.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-census-latinos-20150708-story.html

It is a felony to create or use such false documents. Now, I can understand why this particular individual, who just happened to get elected to the State Senate and become the "president" of the senate, would be 100% behind refusing to punish his family and all his other homeys for their felonies.

Don Corleone would feel the same about his "family" and would use all the political influence that his money could buy to enact it into law if he thought there was a chance in hell of succeeding. But it wouldn't succeed. Because no one apart from members of his crime family would vote for it.

So why is California a sanctuary state? Is this the explanation?:

The Los Angeles Times wrote:
It's official: Latinos now outnumber whites in California

The official confirmation had to wait until new population figures were released by the Census Bureau this summer. The new tally, released in late June, shows that as of July 1, 2014, about 14.99 million Latinos live in California, edging out the 14.92 million whites in the state.

California is a harbinger of the national rise in Latinos. The nation's Latino population has grown 57% since 2000. "It is going to accelerate," Suro said. "This is really the beginning of a new phase that will play out over another generation."


I suppose that before long, Spanish, not English, will be the official language of California.
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Fri 19 Jan, 2018 06:12 am
@layman,
I think some of the rationale is strictly based on sentiment. People see news stories where a bunch of illegal aliens with crying children are being hauled out of their homes in the dead of night by armed government agents dressed in black, or maybe it's an employer who can't fulfill some contract because armed government agents dressed in black decimated his work force by deporting them all. I think people say, "Hey, they're already here, might as well make them legal and put them to work."

It's not that much different from the resentment factor on the other side — people see Fox News stories where a bunch of armed government agents dressed in black nab some illegal alien who runs an illegal dog-fighting ring, sells drugs, and insulted a homeless vet. "Hey, that thug shouldn't even be here, it's illegal, he ought to be kicked out."

I'd be surprised if "sanctuary cities" ends up being anything more than a temporary phenomenon which grew out of a particular confluence of conditions:
1. poor economies in the source countries
2. a big market for unskilled, docile labor in the USA
3. inadequate border security

The DACA situation is unique — the sentiment/resentment factor is out of control.
Quote:
I suppose that before long, Spanish, not English, will be the official language of California.

Might be a different kind of "sanctuary city" emerging in the future...
layman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Jan, 2018 06:29 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

I think some of the rationale is strictly based on sentiment. People see news stories where a bunch of illegal aliens with crying children are being hauled out of their homes in the dead of night by armed government agents dressed in black...


Yeah, I agree, and that's really why I started this thread, i.e., to see what rational, logicial, arguments there are to be made in favor of sanctuary cities. The emotional component is obvious, but not the logical components.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Jan, 2018 06:55 am
@layman,
This type of tribalism presumably also explains why the Mexican team was wildly cheered, and the American team was soundly booed, when the two teams met, at the Rose Bowl in Pasendena, California, for the world cup championship. The USA team was even booed when it was announced that it had come in second (to Mexico) in the world cup finals.

Are these "patriots?" What country do they actually pledge their allegiance to, I wonder? Many of them don't even speak English. Long ago separate classes were legally mandated to be offered in Spanish. Same for street signs, voting ballots, etc., because many couldn't read them unless they were in Spanish.

Such are the consequences when the vast majority of our (legal) immigrants come in due to chain migration (family connections) as opposed to merit and/or any assessment of the likelihood that they will "assimilate."
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Jan, 2018 07:23 am
@layman,
I don't care who they cheer for or how patriotic they are. But guess what? I do want everyone who lives here to speak English and I don't believe that just because you managed to enter the country legally your brother-in-law's roommate gets to come in as well.
Quote:
Such are the consequences when the vast majority of our (legal) immigrants come in due to chain migration (family connections) as opposed to merit and/or any assessment of the likelihood that they will "assimilate."

I got sick of the issue when it erupted in the Sierra Club back in '04 and seldom discuss it because it almost immediately results in accusations of racism. I'd prefer a total moratorium though.

How the Sierra Club was Hijacked By Open Borders Radicals


Strategic Negligence: How the Sierra Club’s Distortions on Border and Immigration Policy Are Undermining Its Environmental Legacy
layman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Jan, 2018 08:00 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

I don't care who they cheer for or how patriotic they are.


Really? I do.

Quote:
The Reconquista ("reconquest") is a term that is used (not exclusively) to describe the vision by different individuals, groups, and/or nations that the U.S. Southwest should be politically or culturally conquered by Mexico.

In a 2001 article on Latin American web portal Terra entitled "Advancement of the Spanish language and Hispanics is like a Reconquista (Reconquest)," Elena Poniatowska said:

"A U.S. media outlet recently stated that in some places like Los Angeles, if you didn't speak Spanish, you were 'out.'...The people of the cockroach, of the flea, who come from poverty and misery, are slowly advancing towards the United States and devouring it".

The Nationalist Front of Mexico opposes what it sees as "Anglo"-American cultural influences[ and rejects the "American occupation" of territory formerly belonging to Mexico and now form the southwestern United States.

On its website, the front states:

The Nationalist Front of Mexico wrote:
We demand that our claim to all the territories occupied by force by the United States be recognized in our Constitution, and we will bravely defend, according to the principle of self-determination to all peoples, the right of the Mexican people to live in the whole of our territory within its historical borders, as they existed and were recognized at the moment of our independence.


A prominent advocate of Reconquista was Chicano activist and adjunct professor Charles Truxillo (1953–2015)[7] of the University of New Mexico (UNM), who envisioned a sovereign Hispanic nation called the República del Norte (Republic of the North) that would encompass Northern Mexico, Baja California, California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. He supported the secession of U.S. Southwestern states to form an independent Chicano nation, arguing that the Articles of Confederation gave individual states full sovereignty and thus the legal right to secede."

In an interview with In Search of Aztlán on August 8, 1999, Jose Angel Gutierrez, a political science professor at the University of Texas at Arlington, stated that:

"We are a captive people, in a sense, a hostage people. It is our political destiny and our right to self-determination to want to have our homeland [back]. Whether they like it or not is immaterial. If they call us radicals or subversives or separatists, that's their problem. This is our home, and this is our homeland, and we are entitled to it. We are the host. Everyone else is a guest."

"I believe that in the next few years, we will see an irredentists movement, beyond assimilation, beyond integration, beyond separatism, to putting Mexico back together as one. That's irridentism [sic]. One Mexico, one nation.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconquista_(Mexico)

Many of the members of this "movement" have stated that they will not be satisfied until every "anglo" has either left "their territory" or has been exterminated.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Jan, 2018 08:28 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

I got sick of the issue when it erupted in the Sierra Club back in '04 and seldom discuss it because it almost immediately results in accusations of racism.


Accusations of racism!? Who knew? I've never heard of such a thing before.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Jan, 2018 08:59 am
Notice how little it takes for this self-righteous, fanatical, arrogant, thieving little bitch to say "**** your laws," "Free speech is genocide," and ultimately, "I hate this ******* country!" Part of her argument is that the "majority of students" on campus are people of color. She makes it known that this country has been "stolen." Of course she also suggests that her antagonist is lucky that he is in a university (and not, for example, in the barrio or out in the street), with the implication that he would be violently "straightened out" otherwise.



Also of note is how quick the cheese-eating university employee is to tell her "I understand" when she points out to him that "this (hat) represents genocide." It is these kind of stooges that are complicit in enacting sanctuary state laws.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Jan, 2018 09:19 am
I don't know if you are looking for a rationale, or a fight. I will give you a rationale. This is personal for me, someone I care very much is currently on DACA.

The main issue is the rights of local communities versus the power of the Federal government. In these communities there are millions of American citizens who have friends, neighbors and family members who are undocumented. We want them to be protected. That is what Sanctuary Cities are... American citizens exercising our right to not cooperate with the Federal government.

The police don't work for the Federal Government. They work for me. I don't want them to cooperate with the Federal government on an issue I go to my local government and my state representatives and tell them to set the policy (which I have personally done). The police policy is set by local government.

Sanctuary policies are being established because American citizens living in these cities and states want them.



layman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Jan, 2018 09:21 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
This is personal for me, someone I care very much is currently on DACA.

Nuff said, right there, Max.
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Fri 19 Jan, 2018 09:26 am
@layman,
You are asking for the reason that so many American cities are setting sanctuary policies. There are tens of millions of American citizens who have personal connections to this issue.

If that answers your question... then good.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Jan, 2018 09:29 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

I don't know if you are looking for a rationale, or a fight. I will give you a rationale. This is personal for me, someone I care very much is currently on DACA.

The main issue is the rights of local communities versus the power of the Federal government. In these communities there are millions of American citizens who have friends, neighbors and family members who are undocumented. We want them to be protected. That is what Sanctuary Cities are... American citizens exercising our right to not cooperate with the Federal government.

The police don't work for the Federal Government. They work for me. I don't want them to cooperate with the Federal government on an issue I go to my local government and my state representatives and tell them to set the policy (which I have personally done). The police policy is set by local government.

Sanctuary policies are being established because American citizens living in these cities and states want them.


Quote:
The main issue is the rights of local communities versus the power of the Federal government.


I see. That's what George Wallace, Bull Connor, Lester Maddox, et al, said too, eh?

The right of the federal government, and ONLY the federal government to dictate immigration law is explicitly set forth in the constitution. So is (after amendment) it's right to dictate to states such things as "lynching is illegal."

Sorry, but the George Wallace types can't just sit back, crack a beer, and watch a lynching while saying: "If you want someone to stop that, call in a fed. I aint no fed." Even less can they make it illegal for anyone to even call a fed under those circumstances.


I guess you don't care much for our constitution, eh? Join the girl in the video who said "**** your laws," and "I hate this country."

0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Jan, 2018 09:31 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

You are asking for the reason that so many American cities are setting sanctuary policies. There are tens of millions of American citizens who have personal connections to this issue.

If that answers your question... then good.


As I said at the outset, I am seeking a logical, not merely an emotional, explanation. Strong emotions may be an explanation, but standing alone they do not constitute a REASON for doing something (or not).
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Jan, 2018 09:33 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
I don't know if you are looking for a rationale, or a fight. I will give you a rationale. This is personal for me, someone I care very much is currently on DACA.

Just as I said, sentiment plays a big role here.

And Max, before you start fighting with me, I also pointed out that DACA is a special case, as these immigrants didn't decide to enter the country illegally, the decision was made by their parents.
Quote:
...American citizens exercising our right to not cooperate with the Federal government.

How does that work within the legal framework that layman has outlined? If you want open borders, wouldn't changing the law be a better tactic than encouraging people to break the law?

Quote:
Sanctuary policies are being established because American citizens living in these cities and states want them.

Well people also wanted national boundaries and a path to citizenship for legal immigrants, laws that are on the books. Seems to be a contradiction here as we can't have both.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Jan, 2018 09:35 am
@layman,
You are looking for a fight not an rationale. If I wanted a fight, I would respond to your idiotic video with a video of some white guy with a misspelled anti-immigrant sign shouting something clearly racist.

But I don't feel like fighting. The fact is that there are millions of American Citizens who feel as I do who are passing Sanctuary laws. That is how democracy works. There is nothing illegal with citizens passing laws to prevent local police from cooperating with federal agencies on an issue.

If you want to understand the position, I am here for you man to help you understand. If you just want someone to yell at, I am out of here.


layman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Jan, 2018 09:45 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
There is nothing illegal with citizens passing laws to prevent local police from cooperating with federal agencies on an issue.


Like I done said, Max:
Quote:
Sorry, but the George Wallace [law enforcement] types can't just sit back, crack a beer, and watch a lynching while saying: "If you want someone to stop that, call in a fed. I aint no fed." Even less can they make it illegal for anyone to even call a fed under those circumstances.


Do you actually disagree with me about that?
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Jan, 2018 09:46 am
@hightor,
1. I don't get you point about "sentiment". In a democracy, every law and every policy depends on the sentiment of the voters. The laws you support are equally sentiment.

2. I don't get your point about "legal framework". The Constitution is pretty clear. The Federal Government has certain power and responsibility. The State and Local government have other powers and responsibilities.

As an American Citizen I vote for Federal Government. As a Resident of Massachusetts and a resident of my town I vote for State and Local government.

I would like the Federal Government to have a rational immigration policy. What that means doesn't matter in this context... but suffice to say I think that the current immigration policy is ridiculous. You are going throw the "open borders" slur at me, but it doesn't really matter to the point. I have voted for and support local and state government.

The voters in my local city want to protect "illegal immigrants". The Federal government wants to clamp down on them (Massachusetts is still waffling but I am working on that). Democracy is messy sometimes.

The legal framework under the Constitution is pretty obvious... no one questions it.

The police are appointed by the local governments and are accountable to only the residents of the city and state where they serve.


maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Jan, 2018 09:47 am
@layman,
I thought it was funny Layman.

State's rights are still being used to support racial discrimination. I don't like that, but it is reality.

In this case state's rights are in my favor. That's democracy.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Jan, 2018 09:57 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
The legal framework under the Constitution is pretty obvious... no one questions it.


You are quite wrong about this glib assertion if you think it means that states can obstruct and ignore federal law.

You seem to think that just because no person in authority HAS been charged with federal crimes, they can't be. You really should think again.

Max, what I always find fascinating and amazing, actually, is how little it takes for a person to convince themselves that there own personal emotional views make "right," irrespective of the rights of others. Their contortions might be quite difficult for others, but like a yoga master, they are quite simple for them. Very easy, actually. Just ask George Wallace, for example.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » What, exactly, is the rationale for establishing "sanctuary cities?"
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/16/2018 at 09:50:00