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

@maxdancona,

Quote:

In my opinion the best reasons for immigration laws are economic. Building a.vibrant multi-erhnic society and being humane to refugees and.families important.

Why have any immigration laws at all, Max? What laws further your "building" plans?

0 Replies

Under Obama, all some MS-13 gang member had to do to get in the U.S. "legally" was walk up to border guards with tats all over his sorry face, claim he was a minor, and say he was seeking refuge.

Border patrol was then obligated to process the boy, give him a "hearing date" on his refugee claim (often 4 years away, and for which 90% never showed up anyway) and then bus him off to Long Island or some other gang-infested haven. He would be given free housing, free food, financial support, and all the idle time in the world to hook-up with his MS-13 homeys then get busy hacking people to death, and ****.

Thank God, Trump, he don't play dat.

One good thing, though, eh, Max? Long island became more "diversified," ya know?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

The fact is that the US had practically open borders for the first 100 years

Sounds like you're saying: "As it has been, so shall it be."

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Ok Glenn, there are two ways to understand that question.

1. The immigration laws are as they are because of politics. You have several ideologies that have worked over the past 100 years in a push and pull that have brought us to the mishmash of immigration laws we have today. We can discuss this if you want to go the historical route.

2. If you are asking on a philosophical level, that would also be interesting. The fact is that the US had practically open borders for the first 100 years and the first immigration laws were called the Asian Exclusion Act.

In my opinion the best reasons for immigration laws are economic. Building a vibrant multi-ethnic society and being humane to refugees and.families important.

Of.course these are my values and values are personal.

So you cherry-picked one partial phrase out of what I wrote? You didn't even quote an entire sentence...

It is hard to have a conversation of any depth if you are going to do this.

3 Replies

@maxdancona,

He asked you a simple question, Max. If you really wanted to discuss the issue, it seems that you would elaborate rather than whine about his response.

What's up with that?

And I notice that you completely ignore my exploratory question, too.

Let me make it simple for you:

Do you advocate open borders? Yes or no.

1 Reply

@layman,

That wasn't for you Layman. I am trying to have an adult conversation with Glennn.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

You don't seem to be "trying" too hard. Why don't you just answer my simple question--or his, or say anything other than trying to give reasons to say nothing of substance?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

So you cherry-picked one partial phrase out of what I wrote?

I assume that you wrote it for some reason. And if not, then what is it doing in your post?

A hundred years ago has no bearing on today's immigration issue. So, yeah, do you advocate open borders or not?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Max, you frequently say things, off the cuff, which sound good to you at the time, but which have not really thought about and can't defend.

When challenged, you quickly retreat. I understand that. I would too, under the circumstances.

If you're reluctant to get involved, you should just say nothing. But you don't generally do that. You just keep saying you want to discuss the issue, but you seldom do. Instead you concoct some reason to dismiss whoever responds as being unworthy of talking to.

It's a game you play, but it really aint no fun.

0 Replies

@Glennn,

You asked a question. I gave you two answers. In the partial sentence, I was talking about the philosophical underpinnings of immigration laws.

I am looking for a deeper conversation than this silly back and forth. I wrote two points that were thoughtful and raised two different issues. Would you like to discuss one in more depth?

I am not interested in this partisan bickering. There are deeper issues if anyone would like to explore them. Otherwise I will just leave this thread to you and Layman.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

As a "philosophical" matter, do you advocate open borders, Max?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Maxdancona wrote:

I wrote two points that were thoughtful and raised two different issues. Would you like to discuss one in more depth?

Glenn wrote:

...do you advocate open borders or not?

You've been asked this question three times, Max. This is the type of discussion that you said (yesterday) you thought would be interesting on a "philosophical level."

Yet, hours have passed, and you refuse to address it. No longer "interesting" to you, that it? Or are you just, as usual, reluctant to say anything of substance?

0 Replies

http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/23/tucker-carlson-daca-kathy-sheehan/?utm_medium=email

iLLEGAL ALIENS DON'T HAVE RIGHTS!!

How hard is that to understand?

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

iLLEGAL ALIENS DON'T HAVE RIGHTS!!

That is factually incorrect, no matter what strange capitalization rules you follow. There have been several SCOTUS cases that have said the exact opposite.

Is there anyone here who can express an intelligent thought instead of partisan yelling?

2 Replies

After cutting off all aid, criminal prosecutions will presumably follow, eh?

Quote:

DOJ threatens to subpoena sanctuary cities

The Justice Department on Wednesday threatened to subpoena 23 jurisdictions if they don’t turn over information about their "sanctuary" policies.

In letters to New York City, Chicago, San Francisco and other jurisdictions, the Justice Department demanded records relating to whether these localities are "unlawfully restricting information sharing by law enforcement officers with federal immigration authorities."

The letters from the Justice Department state that jurisdictions that fail to respond will be subject to a DOJ subpoena.

The jurisdictions that received letters on Wednesday, according to the Justice Department: Chicago; Cook County, Ill; New York City; the state of California; Albany, N.Y.; Berkeley, Calif.; Bernalillo County, N.M.; Burlington, Vt.; the city and county of Denver, Colo.; Fremont, Calif.; Jackson, Miss.; King County, Wash.; Lawrence, Mass.; City of Los Angeles, Calif.; Louisville, Ky.; Monterey County, Calif.; Sacramento County, Calif.; the city and county of San Francisco; Sonoma County, Calif.; Watsonville, Calif.; West Palm Beach, Fla.; the state of Illinois and the state of Oregon.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Do you want open borders?

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Geez, Finn. You are really falling in with Layman. No, I do not want Open Borders (however you define open borders).

Now let me explain why Layman's question (and now your question) is idiotic. The supposition here is that there are only two positions one can take.

You understand how absolutism works; either you are in favor of abortion... or you want women to die. Either you accept gay marriage, or you hate gays. Either you accept affirmative action, or you are a racist.

It is the same game, either you accept such and such immigration laws, or you are for "open borders". It is a ridiculous, and absolutist dichotomy. Obviously there are several positions that one could take, each of which have benefits and challenges. That is how real life works.

I would discuss this if there were anyone here who wanted to engage in an intelligent discussion instead of these ridiculous partisan talking points.

Now someone... please say something that is a little more deep than the partisan talking points you get from political ideologues. I am bored with this discussion; and you and Glennn so far have disappointed.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

That is factually incorrect, no matter what strange capitalization rules you follow. There have been several SCOTUS cases that have said the exact opposite.

Completely wrong, yet again, eh, Max? I made several longs posts on this, citing Supreme Court decisions, many times.

1. Aliens in their own country do not have ANY rights under our constitution. They certainly don't have the right to enter our country.

2. If they are on U.S. soil they do have constitutional rights to due process, and things like that.

3. But they do NOT have all the rights of a citizens--such as the right to free speech.

1 Reply

@layman,

And, most certainly, they do NOT have the right to stay just because they entered illegally.

Nor do the have the "right" not to be put straight into a detention center.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

First let's establish one thing: While I am not about to defend layman's posts, neither am I going to agree, at all, with you that they are horrific. Stop this silly line of argument.

So sorry we've bored you but there is every reason, based on your comments, to believe that you do believe in open borders.

You have consistently taken up for those who have crossed our border illegally.

You can't have it both ways

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know