• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

DeSantis Martha's Vineyard Stunt

phiwum said:
Massachusetts is a "sanctuary state" due to a state Supreme Court ruling.
Click to expand...
No it isn't.

There are some effectively sanctuary cities in Massachusetts, but it is not a "sanctuary state". The state Supreme Court did not make it a sanctuary state officially. Certainly, Martha's Vineyard is not any "sanctuary" anything.

In 2017, Massachusetts' top state court ruled that Massachusetts court officers do not have the authority to arrest someone suspected of being in the U.S. illegally if that person is not facing criminal charges, the state's highest court ruled Monday. That's effectively gave the state sanctuary status.

But for years, advocates have tried to get a bill that would codify sanctuary status in Massachusetts, and it hasn't passed, despite Democrats, who tend to support sanctuary status more than Republicans, controlling the Legislature.
Click to expand...

https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/is-massachusetts-a-sanctuary-state/2835474/
 
smartcooky said:
Moot!



Whether or not Massachusetts is a sanctuatry state is completely irrelevant. These are not illegal immigrants, they are asylum seekers awaiting a court decision on their status
Click to expand...
Agreed, but I was responding to two posts that raised the issue and got it wrong.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
 
Warp12 said:
Oh, ok. So it is only "effectively" a sanctuary state, but not an official one.

Glad we cleared that up. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Glad you agree. Because Florida is also a "sanctuary state", in that there are cities in Florida which are "sanctuary cities", despite what DeSantis says. In fact, in opposition to what DeSantis says.

A federal judge has ruled that a Florida law banning municipalities from adopting "sanctuary" policies for immigrants in the U.S. illegally is unconstitutional, with her decision relying in part on support for the law among "anti-immigrant hate groups."

U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom in Miami said in a 110-page ruling on Tuesday the 2019 law championed by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution because it was adopted with discriminatory motives.
Click to expand...
https://www.reuters.com/legal/litig...sanctuary-cities-unconstitutional-2021-09-22/


So if DeSantis wanted to tweak the libz, he should have shipped the LEGAL migrants from Texas to Miami-Dade. That's a sanctuary city in his own state.

But he didn't. Because he's a putrid ****.
 
Norman Alexander said:
No it isn't.



There are some effectively sanctuary cities in Massachusetts, but it is not a "sanctuary state". The state Supreme Court did not make it a sanctuary state officially. Certainly, Martha's Vineyard is not any "sanctuary" anything.







https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/is-massachusetts-a-sanctuary-state/2835474/
Click to expand...
The wired passage says that the court effectively ruled its a sanctuary state, whether or not a law was passed saying the same.


Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
 
Norman Alexander said:
Glad you agree. Because Florida is also a "sanctuary state", in that there are cities in Florida which are "sanctuary cities", despite what DeSantis says. In fact, in opposition to what DeSantis says.





https://www.reuters.com/legal/litig...sanctuary-cities-unconstitutional-2021-09-22/





So if DeSantis wanted to tweak the libz, he should have shipped the LEGAL migrants from Texas to Miami-Dade. That's a sanctuary city in his own state.



But he didn't. Because he's a putrid ****.
Click to expand...
No. The court ruled that MA cops can't arrest someone just for their immigration status. Isn't that the heart of the sanctuary movement?

Florida is not the same.

(As smartcooky says, none of this applies to asylum seekers. )

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
 
Warp12 said:
I'm not sure if you are aware, but the claim is that DHS did the above.




Basically, as soon as I see the above highlighted, I know I'm not bothering to answer you. The "internet interrogator" method of debate is amusing, though.
Click to expand...

And this coming from the guy who kept demanding we answer his question 'yes or no' about a hypothetical law for a situation that doesn't exist.:eye-poppi
 
Stacyhs said:
And this coming from the guy who kept demanding we answer his question 'yes or no' about a hypothetical law for a situation that doesn't exist.:eye-poppi
Click to expand...


You have really missed the point. Posing 5-10 different "yes or no" questions, followed by a "answer and only then have you earned the right to elaborate" is quite a different animal. It is a stupid and bullying debate tactic. There was nothing "hypothetical" about the single question I was posing.
 
Last edited:
Warp12 said:
You have really missed the point. Posing 5-10 different "yes or no" questions, followed by a "answer and only then have you earned the right to elaborate" is quite a different animal. It is a stupid and bullying debate tactic.
Click to expand...

 
Stacyhs said:
And this coming from the guy who kept demanding we answer his question 'yes or no' about a hypothetical law for a situation that doesn't exist.:eye-poppi
Click to expand...

Warp12 said:
You have really missed the point. Posing 5-10 different "yes or no" questions, followed by a "answer and only then have you earned the right to elaborate" is quite a different animal. It is a stupid and bullying debate tactic.
Click to expand...

And we can't forget that once cornered on a subject our guy says he isn't going to talk about it anymore.
 
arayder said:
And we can't forget that once cornered on a subject our guy says he isn't going to talk about it anymore.
Click to expand...


"Cornered" on what, exactly? I've already said that I am ok with what DeSantis did, as I see it as minor compared to what the Dems are endorsing with sanctuary states and cities.

I also said that it is not something I would have done personally, and that I am glad the migrants are being cared for.

I can't help it if certain parties refuse to read what has been posted prior, or even research the source material.
 
Last edited:
Warp12 said:
I would suggest you get your facts in order before proclaiming falsehoods. Look at the source material, and prior posts. Then you won't be asking redundant questions. I've more than answered the questions you posed. In fact, I have made numerous comments on the DHS issue, which I consider more outrageous than what DeSantis has done. The involvement of a federal agency in document falsification is pretty curious.
Click to expand...

I have looked at the source material, it says the DHS intentionally inserted false entries on their documentation, listing their addresses as randomly chosen homeless shelters all over the USA? These are facts that are not in dispute.

So, rather than keep dodging the question, give us your honest answer... are you OK with what the DHS did in inserting false addresses into the asylum seeker's records... yes or no.
 
smartcooky said:
I have looked at the source material, it says the DHS intentionally inserted false entries on their documentation, listing their addresses as randomly chosen homeless shelters all over the USA? These are facts that are not in dispute.

So, rather than keep dodging the question, give us your honest answer... are you OK with what the DHS did in inserting false addresses into the asylum seeker's records... yes or no.
Click to expand...


Hard to make it more clear: I am not losing sleep over any of it. The line items don't matter.

As I have also said before, if the law was broken, those individuals should be held accountable. If that isn't going to happen, I don't want to hear any whining about it. As you are fond of saying, someone needs to "put up or shut up", from a legal standpoint.
 
Warp12 said:
"Cornered" on what, exactly? I've already said that I am ok with what DeSantis did, as I see it as minor compared to what the Dems are endorsing with sanctuary states and cities.

I also said that it is not something I would have done personally, and that I am glad the migrants are being cared for.

I can't help it if certain parties refuse to read what has been posted prior, or even research the source material.
Click to expand...

Nope, all you have done is dodged, but since you are repeating this assertion that you are OK with what was done, then I can only assume that your answers to all the questions I posed in post #152, namely....

smartcooky said:
Yes or No: Are you OK with the Florida Government directly lying to them about where they were being sent to and what was waiting for them at their destination?

Yes or No: Are you OK with the Florida Government giving them documentation with deliberately misleading instructions?

Yes or no: Are you OK with the DHS intentionally inserting false entries on their documentation, listing their addresses as randomly chosen homeless shelters all over the USA?

Yes or no: Are you OK with the Florida Government deliberately giving them the wrong agency with which to update their addresses?

Yes or No: Are you OK with the Florida Government arranging for them to have court appearances all over the country that they could not possibly have any way to get to.
Click to expand...

... would be "yes". I'll take any failure to answer as your agreement!

PS: I know you think this is bullying tactics, but bullying tactics seem to be the only thing you understand - everyone else has been more that reasonable in trying to engage with you, but to no avail.
 
I should also add, most of what is being reported is from claims made by "angry Jane Curtin", from the twitter vid that was linked. Lets see how those claims are supported by evidence that stands up in court, and the legality of the actions, before we proclaim them as fact.

If it ever gets to court, that is. And if it doesn't, or does without successful prosecution, I don't want to hear any more of this weakling whining from the left.
 
It's telling that Republicans will automatically dismiss anything they don't like if it's done so "angrily", but everything they do like gets extra credibility with it's pronounced angrily.
 
Warp12 said:
I should also add, most of what is being reported is from claims made by "angry Jane Curtin", from the twitter vid that was linked. Lets see how those claims are supported by evidence that stands up in court, and the legality of the actions, before we proclaim them as fact.
Click to expand...

What part of "the woman's name is Rachel Self", which I told you on page 2, don't you understand? I can only assume you continue to use "angry Jane Curtin" deliberately to be offensive. At least you've moved on from "split tail" and "hag"...for now.

If it ever gets to court, that is. And if it doesn't, or does without successful prosecution, I don't want to hear any more of this weakling whining from the left
Click to expand...

What? You've drunk enough liberal tears?

Damn Lefties and their concern for other people! How weak is it to care that people who risked their lives to get to this country for a better life for them and their children were lied to by DeSantis and his recruiters? It's OK to lie to them and use them for his own personal political games as long as he's never prosecuted for it! Stupid libs don't get it: it's ok if you get away with it. It's their own fault if they believed it when they were told they would be given jobs. Idiots should have known they're not legally able to even apply for work authorization until six months after applying for asylum!

Everlides Dela Hoz, a mother and grandmother, recalled the grueling journey to the U.S. during which she saw people in her group of travelers die from heart attacks, drowning and a snake bite.

After finding themselves in Martha's Vineyard, many expressed feelings of uncertainty as they wondered what may come next for them. Others, promised jobs and housing, felt lied to.

“When we got on the plane, they told us they would give us jobs, a place to live, everything,” Dela Hoz said through a translator. “The whole group is pretty upset. But they did take us to a nice place.”

"I simply feel misled because they told a lie and it has come to nothing," Pedro Luis Torrelaba, 36, said Friday.
Click to expand...
 
phiwum said:
The wired passage says that the court effectively ruled its a sanctuary state, whether or not a law was passed saying the same.


Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
This is the soft version of "Yeah, you gonna make me?"

The subsequent paragraph says it is not OFFICIALLY, LEGALLY a sanctuary state, despite various efforts to make it so. So when it comes down to legalities, it is not. Abbott and DeSantis saying so does not make it so.
 
phiwum said:
No. The court ruled that MA cops can't arrest someone just for their immigration status. Isn't that the heart of the sanctuary movement?

Florida is not the same.

(As smartcooky says, none of this applies to asylum seekers. )

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
No it did not. Are you having trouble reading? Do I have to spell this out for you? Try again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom