Should sanctuary cities be tolerated?

LOL, I know because FOX News told me.

I am an enlightened centrist.
 
Hercules56 said:
Pathetic, desperate, ignorant strawman.
Click to expand...
If you don't want your view distorted, then I would recommend holding a coherent view. When immigrants apply for asylum, your priority is crime, not rights. When citizens commit crimes, then your priority is rights, not crime. Any coherent critique of what you have said will necessarily be inaccurate. That's the price you pay for talking bout of both sides of your mouth.

You've been given a thousand opportunities to examine your biases, but you apparently feel more at ease with your old, self-destructive habits. Stay mad, then.
 
Hercules56 said:
Anyways...

Sanctuary Cities should not refuse to assist with the enforcement of federal laws.

Criminalizing the enforcement of federal law, that must bring sanctions.
Click to expand...
You are saying two very different things there. Can a Federal agency dictate the job requirements of everyone? One of the issues involved here is the question of whether local enforcement agencies should be obligated to determine the immigrant status of those they encounter, when their immigrant status is not the cause of the encounter. Think about this. This is "show us your papers" stuff. Once upon a time, we had a Constitution. In that Constitution are certain protections. One of them is in the fourth amendment, suggesting that probable cause must be present for an arrest to take place, and the other is in the fifth, protecting against self-incrimination. In theory, if ICE has probable cause to suspect an immigration violation, they are empowered to do their job. If it is a crime not to provide them with probable cause, then nobody is really safe.

What the enemies of sanctuary cities see as a crime might well be seen by others as the opposite, forbidding their own personnel to violate the Constitutional rights of their citizens.

I recall way back when, a popular song about the John Birch Society, with the line "if your mommie is a commie then you gotta turn her in." Once upon a time it was a joke. The joke's on us now, I guess.
 
bruto said:
You are saying two very different things there. Can a Federal agency dictate the job requirements of everyone? One of the issues involved here is the question of whether local enforcement agencies should be obligated to determine the immigrant status of those they encounter, when their immigrant status is not the cause of the encounter. Think about this. This is "show us your papers" stuff. Once upon a time, we had a Constitution. In that Constitution are certain protections. One of them is in the fourth amendment, suggesting that probable cause must be present for an arrest to take place, and the other is in the fifth, protecting against self-incrimination. In theory, if ICE has probable cause to suspect an immigration violation, they are empowered to do their job. If it is a crime not to provide them with probable cause, then nobody is really safe.

What the enemies of sanctuary cities see as a crime might well be seen by others as the opposite, forbidding their own personnel to violate the Constitutional rights of their citizens.

I recall way back when, a popular song about the John Birch Society, with the line "if your mommie is a commie then you gotta turn her in." Once upon a time it was a joke. The joke's on us now, I guess.
Click to expand...
All law enforcement officers in the USA take a sworn oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
 
Hercules56 said:
Thank you for admitting to distorting my views, I appreciate your honesty.
Click to expand...
Because your view is incoherent, any coherent critique is going to get it wrong. You understand this, right?

If I accuse you of crashing your car into my mailbox in Tennessee while you were on vacation in Peru, how could you possibly address the accusation fairly? Give it a shot.
 
Hercules56 said:
Thank you for admitting to distorting my views, I appreciate your honesty.
Click to expand...
IATS didn't "admit to distorting your views". He said that if you perceive your views as being distorted, you need to be more clear. Otherwise, posters read the words you post and interpret them as the generic MAGA talking points that they are.

Do you get that? If you speak MAGA, you will be heard as MAGA. Pretty straightforward stuff.
 
Hercules56 said:
Cant deport US citizens. Nor should we ever unless I guess convicted of treason.
Click to expand...
So why do you keep mentioning a group of people who commit fewer actual crimes than the general population as a whole? And you do it as if they are more of a threat to us than anyone else.
 
Thermal said:
IATS didn't "admit to distorting your views". He said that if you perceive your views as being distorted, you need to be more clear. Otherwise, posters read the words you post and interpret them as the generic MAGA talking points that they are.

Do you get that? If you speak MAGA, you will be heard as MAGA. Pretty straightforward stuff.
Click to expand...
Supporting the apprehension and deportation of illegal aliens is not inherently "MAGA".

One can be a Moderate and support such things.
 
acbytesla said:
So why do you keep mentioning a group of people who commit fewer actual crimes than the general population as a whole? And you do it as if they are more of a threat to us than anyone else.
Click to expand...
If they weren't here, they'd commit no crimes against us.
 
Hercules56 said:
Supporting the apprehension and deportation of illegal aliens is not inherently "MAGA".

One can be a Moderate and support such things.
Click to expand...
One can, obviously. I do. The far left does, too. Pretty much everybody does. You even acknowledge as much in the OP, saying a sanctuary city will not flip someone over to the Feds unless there is a warrant.

The rest of your posts are straight outta Fox News. You deliberately avoided addressing that in your reply. Here, I'll say it again:

If you don't want to give the impression that you are MAGA, don't parrot MAGA talking points. If you want to be seen as a moderate, get on the moderate spectrum.
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
One can, obviously. I do. The far left does, too. Pretty much everybody does. You even acknowledge as much in the OP, saying a sanctuary city will not flip someone over to the Feds unless there is a warrant.

The rest of your posts are straight outta Fox News. You deliberately avoided addressing that in your reply. Here, I'll say it again:

If you don't want to give the impression that you are MAGA, don't parrot MAGA talking points. If you want to be seen as a moderate, get on the moderate spectrum.
Click to expand...
Not my fault if some people use "MAGA" as an insult when they dont want to simply have a polite discussion.
 
Hercules56 said:
Not my fault if some people use "MAGA" as an insult when they dont want to simply have a polite discussion.
Click to expand...
Are you starting to get it? Great!

Yes, MAGA are anti-American views. When you post them, you are perceived as anti-American, and politeness is very optional and at the discretion of the replier.
 
Thermal said:
Are you starting to get it? Great!

Yes, MAGA are anti-American views. When you post them, you are perceived as anti-American, and politeness is very optional and at the discretion of the replier.
Click to expand...
I haven't posted any MAGA views.

And no, being polite is a requirement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom