Should sanctuary cities be tolerated?

johnny karate said:
Claiming that the Trump administration isn’t making indiscriminate arrests after acknowledging that they’ve arrested innocent people is some kicked-in-the-head-by-a-horse level of cognitive dissonance.
Click to expand...
This isn't an issue of innocent vs guilty.
 
Hercules56 said:
Wrong.

Try again.
Click to expand...

You literally argued that if enough people believe something, it makes that belief a valid point of view.

People believe the Trump administration is fascist because it engages in objectively fascist behavior.

People believed the Obama or Clinton administrations were fascist because they are delusional partisans.

One point of view is based on evidence, the other is not.

You are equating the two.
 
Hercules56 said:
This isn't an issue of innocent vs guilty.
Click to expand...

It is an issue of the Trump administration indiscriminately arresting people. When they arrest people without a valid justification, that is definitionally indiscriminate.
 
Late to this thread, and I have only glanced at the first post, when I notice that the idea of sanctuary cities is considered a "bad precedent to set."

Without bothering to dilate on the subject of today's sanctuary cities, I, being a Vermonter, must note that it is not all that much of a precedent, as at a much earlier time a similar approach was taken by the Vermont government (and a few others in varying degrees) with regard to the fugitive slave law. They passed a law forbidding State officials from participating in commandeering of the people considered citizens of the state, and invoked the principle of habeas corpus. Yes, good old habeas corpus! The history of that time eerily reflects that of today, with the advocates of slavery accusing the nullifiers of various sins, the greatest of which was radicalism, and calling on the President to force them back into line.

So if you're looking for dangerous precedents, you'd better look a little further back. By many accounts of the time, they were wrong to express their principles so. In fact, a significant portion of the nation thought so much so that many, including some of my ancestors, died for it.
 
bruto said:
Late to this thread, and I have only glanced at the first post, when I notice that the idea of sanctuary cities is considered a "bad precedent to set."

Without bothering to dilate on the subject of today's sanctuary cities, I, being a Vermonter, must note that it is not all that much of a precedent, as at a much earlier time a similar approach was taken by the Vermont government (and a few others in varying degrees) with regard to the fugitive slave law. They passed a law forbidding State officials from participating in commandeering of the people considered citizens of the state, and invoked the principle of habeas corpus. Yes, good old habeas corpus! The history of that time eerily reflects that of today, with the advocates of slavery accusing the nullifiers of various sins, the greatest of which was radicalism, and calling on the President to force them back into line.

So if you're looking for dangerous precedents, you'd better look a little further back. By many accounts of the time, they were wrong to express their principles so. In fact, a significant portion of the nation thought so much so that many, including some of my ancestors, died for it.
Click to expand...
It is a crime and should be a crime, to obstruct the apprehension of illegal aliens. This NY law is doing just that.
 
Hercules56 said:
Again, I dont think he was a fascist or Communist. But millions of idiots did.
Click to expand...

Hercules56 said:
It is a crime and should be a crime, to obstruct the apprehension of illegal aliens. This NY law is doing just that.
Click to expand...
No, not necessarily. Any and all methods of apprehension of illegal aliens is not acceptable. And states have every right to hamper such tactics.
 
acbytesla said:
No, not necessarily. Any and all methods of apprehension of illegal aliens is not acceptable. And states have every right to hamper such tactics.
Click to expand...
It is not immoral to grab illegals going to and from court. The New York law makes it a crime.

This is unacceptable.
 
johnny karate said:
Claiming that the Trump administration isn’t making indiscriminate arrests after acknowledging that they’ve arrested innocent people is some kicked-in-the-head-by-a-horse level of cognitive dissonance.
Click to expand...
Well I suppose there's somewhere between indiscriminate and making a few mistakes.

IMO ICE are definitely the former.
 
johnny karate said:
Claiming that the Trump administration isn’t making indiscriminate arrests after acknowledging that they’ve arrested innocent people is some kicked-in-the-head-by-a-horse level of cognitive dissonance.
Click to expand...
I dont think you know what "indiscriminate" means.
 
Hercules56 said:
It is not immoral to grab illegals going to and from court. The New York law makes it a crime.

This is unacceptable.
Click to expand...
The State of New York has an interest that its laws, traffic and otherwise are obeyed. Given that the Federal government is using these procedures as traps hampers the state's ability to administer those laws. It will result in people driving without insurance, ignoring summons and breaking further laws.

And given that this administration routinely ignores every other law at its personal convenience, they continue to demonstrate they are untrustworthy.
 
acbytesla said:
The State of New York has an interest that its laws, traffic and otherwise are obeyed. Given that the Federal government is using these procedures as traps hampers the state's ability to administer those laws. It will result in people driving without insurance, ignoring summons and breaking further laws.

And given that this administration routinely ignores every other law at its personal convenience, they continue to demonstrate they are untrustworthy.
Click to expand...
Bull ◊◊◊◊.

Obstruction of Government Administration is not acceptable. Should be prosecuted to the full extent, and sanctioned if a a municipality is the guilty party.

Bet you would not support a government obstructing Title III, VII or IX of the Civil Rights Act and call for sanctions.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
The State of New York has an interest that its laws, traffic and otherwise are obeyed. Given that the Federal government is using these procedures as traps hampers the state's ability to administer those laws. It will result in people driving without insurance, ignoring summons and breaking further laws.

And given that this administration routinely ignores every other law at its personal convenience, they continue to demonstrate they are untrustworthy.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you don't think it's a problem that people are illegally in the USA. Sounds like you think the problem is really people trying to remove them.
 
Hercules56 said:
Bull ◊◊◊◊.

Obstruction of Government Administration is not acceptable. Should be prosecuted to the full extent, and sanctioned if a a municipality is the guilty party.

Bet you would not support a government obstructing Title III, VII or IX of the Civil Rights Act and call for sanctions.
Click to expand...
Then why does Trump do that? He obstructed government constantly.
 
People are illegally in the USA? Old stuff. Is it a problem? Somebody is always saying so, and they have been since I was a child. But isn't it time, finally, to describe this problem, with evidence and quantifying statistics,
i.e., rational and objective methods?

Hey, herq, why don't you try tackling that one? There must be literature on the subject, so you wouldn't have to start entirely from scratch. What do you say?
 
sackett said:
People are illegally in the USA? Old stuff. Is it a problem? Somebody is always saying so, and they have been since I was a child. But isn't it time, finally, to describe this problem, with evidence and quantifying statistics,
i.e., rational and objective methods?

Hey, herq, why don't you try tackling that one? There must be literature on the subject, so you wouldn't have to start entirely from scratch. What do you say?
Click to expand...
Xenophobia and racism is strong with some.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom