Should sanctuary cities be tolerated?

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...
As I rather expected, though, you missed the point of my post entirely. I am addressing your statement that the nullification inherent in sanctuary cities is a precedent. It is not. If you want to argue about the issue in question, then by all means do so. The issue of whether the action sets a precedent, though, is irrelevant to whether it is right or wrong in its own right. Legally speaking, the nullification of Federal laws regarding fugitive slaves is equivalent to the nullification of federal laws regarding fugitive immigrants. The action has a precedent, and I think you'll find most of the arguments about it do too.

This of course is a complicated issue, complicated in part by the fact that the law in its unhumanized form makes no distinction between undocumented children, refugees refused recognition, and financial opportunists, gang members, drug cartels, and so forth, and in its current practice, aside from ignoring any such distinctions, also is demonstrably careless about the finer points of the law, and the rights of legal immigrants, refugees discriminated against by the government, children, and documented citizens.

You may well disagree, but there are some who believe that the lawlessness of our current administration, and the demonstrated, public lawlessness of its organs such as ICE, are more seriously and permanently damaging to the nation than the nullification efforts of sanctuary cities. When discussing this issue you also, I think, need to be very careful not to equate actual defiance and material obstruction from the very different action of refusing to cooperate. The philosophical basis and intention might be quite the same, but there is a world of difference, at least in a state that is not already down the fascist rabbit hole, between staying a policeman's hand and refusing to lend him yours.
 
Hercules56 said:
The vast majority of ICE detentions are very on target and discriminating. But mistakes happen.
Click to expand...
That may be true, but the mistakes of ICE these days are pretty conspicuous, and there is a fundamental carelessness that I think makes your complacent faith unwarranted. After all, in an attempt to demonstrate how it's done, Kristy Noem herself, after having already made it clear in public that she does not understand habeas corpus, and that she believes the goal of ICE is to rescue cities from what she and her bosses consider bad management, went on an ICE raid looking for the wrong suspect, conducting what appears to be an unwarranted search, and terrorizing a citizen and her citizen children!

Sure, mistakes happen. But in this bizarro sector of the bizarro world, they don't just happen, they're celebrated.
 
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...
If you think this issue is about "innocent vs guilty", you have no clue about this issue and should leave the discussion.
 
bruto said:
As I rather expected, though, you missed the point of my post entirely. I am addressing your statement that the nullification inherent in sanctuary cities is a precedent. It is not. If you want to argue about the issue in question, then by all means do so. The issue of whether the action sets a precedent, though, is irrelevant to whether it is right or wrong in its own right. Legally speaking, the nullification of Federal laws regarding fugitive slaves is equivalent to the nullification of federal laws regarding fugitive immigrants. The action has a precedent, and I think you'll find most of the arguments about it do too.

This of course is a complicated issue, complicated in part by the fact that the law in its unhumanized form makes no distinction between undocumented children, refugees refused recognition, and financial opportunists, gang members, drug cartels, and so forth, and in its current practice, aside from ignoring any such distinctions, also is demonstrably careless about the finer points of the law, and the rights of legal immigrants, refugees discriminated against by the government, children, and documented citizens.

You may well disagree, but there are some who believe that the lawlessness of our current administration, and the demonstrated, public lawlessness of its organs such as ICE, are more seriously and permanently damaging to the nation than the nullification efforts of sanctuary cities. When discussing this issue you also, I think, need to be very careful not to equate actual defiance and material obstruction from the very different action of refusing to cooperate. The philosophical basis and intention might be quite the same, but there is a world of difference, at least in a state that is not already down the fascist rabbit hole, between staying a policeman's hand and refusing to lend him yours.
Click to expand...
Illegal immigration is a real problem, most of them need to be found and deported. Local municipalities standing in the way of dealing with this problem while BEGGING the federal govt for more funds to deal with the issue, is the height of hypocrisy.

Its also national suicide to ignore illegal immigration.
 
Hercules56 said:
Illegal immigration is a real problem, most of them need to be found and deported. Local municipalities standing in the way of dealing with this problem while BEGGING the federal govt for more funds to deal with the issue, is the height of hypocrisy.

Its also national suicide to ignore illegal immigration.
Click to expand...
Not really. In the scheme of things it is minor. There are certainly municipalities that have leaders that are xenophobic and where white people are frightened by people that don't look like them.

A far bigger problem facing the country today is the increase of the cost of food because farmers lack the labor supply. This is the equivalent of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
 
acbytesla said:
budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu

The Effects of Immigration on the United States’ Economy — Penn Wharton Budget Model

While some policymakers have blamed immigration for slowing U.S. wage growth since the 1970s, most academic research finds little long run effect on Americans’ wages. The available evidence suggests that immigration leads to more innovation, a better educated workforce, greater occupational speci
budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu

There have been many studies showing significant economic benefits of immigrants, even illegal immigrants on the US economy.
Click to expand...

Thankee kindly. Read it. It's a general view, but adequate.
I noticed that the authors didn't make a distinction between documented and as-yet undocumented immigrants. Neither does ICE, it would appear.

Well: The US has been profiting from the inflow of immigrants for generations, in a sloppy, confused, and, too often, inhumane way. At the present time, we see a pack of unprofessional fascists trying to use immigrants to their dirty, rotten, chickens' ◊◊◊◊ advantage, stirring up the mudsill class (my people, I'm afraid) to back them in their dull-witted power grab. That they can attempt this shows luridly how bad our immigration processes are, and how much they need to be updated and upgraded.

And, finally, after all these racist centuries, made decent and humane.
 
Hercules56 said:
Illegal immigration is a real problem, most of them need to be found and deported. Local municipalities standing in the way of dealing with this problem while BEGGING the federal govt for more funds to deal with the issue, is the height of hypocrisy.

Its also national suicide to ignore illegal immigration.
Click to expand...
Which is exactly, precisely, 100 percent, not the issue I was addressing, an issue you seem to be unable to grasp or unwilling to let go of. You said, with the implication if not the denotation that this was a relevant issue to consider, that the nullification of sanctuary cities is a "dangerous precedent." It is not a precedent. It has happened before. It may be dangerous and it may be wrong, and it may be all sorts of other things, but one thing it is not is a precedent.

I also, it hardly needs to be said, disagree with you on other points, including how dangerous and suicidal the current immigration situation is. Nobody on any side is saying it should be ignored. Don't fall into that right wing crap about how Biden and his folks ran open borders, which is a stupid lie.

I just erased a long paragraph on my own viewpoint about many things, ends justifying means and such, but forget this. I'm quite willing to continue to differ on all sorts of issues, and to let someone else care about what your views are or aren't. I prefer to deal with one issue at a time. And that issue is that this is not a precedent.

The willingness of cities and states to defy what they consider odious Federal intrusions and laws is not new. It is a significant part of our history as a nation. We may always disagree on what is right and wrong. But at a time when the more conventional checks and balances are being thrown out, and when our national leadership is drifting deeper toward the precipice of racist revisionism, xenophobia, lawlessness, and policies based on ignorance and delusion, let us not be bamboozled into slippery slope arguments about imagined precedents.
 
Hercules56 said:
....Its also national suicide to ignore illegal immigration.
Click to expand...

Hooray! At last! Now we can stem, even strangle off, this flood of impure genes that menaces the purity of our wimmen! The mothers of our children shall not, while THIS whit
THIS true-blooded warrior stands, be forced to birth a mongrel swarm!

Cue the band to strike up the Horst Wessel Lied. Cmon, goddammit. I feel like dancing!
 
Hercules56 said:
Thats cuz we had a nation to build.
Click to expand...
No, it isn't. Most European nations had relatively lax immigration control in the 18th century, too. The UK adopted formal border control later than the US did.

The reality is that there was a series of panics about too many of those people contaminating our precious bodily fluids. Which, as far as I can tell, is still what drives anti-immigrant sentiment today.

Hercules56 said:
And no massively expensive social programs.
Click to expand...
I think this idea is just kind of laughable--our social programs are dog ◊◊◊◊. But immigrants (both legal and illegal) are in the black in any case.
 
Last edited:
sackett said:
Hooray! At last! Now we can stem, even strangle off, this flood of impure genes that menaces the purity of our wimmen! The mothers of our children shall not, while THIS whit
THIS true-blooded warrior stands, be forced to birth a mongrel swarm!

Cue the band to strike up the Horst Wessel Lied. Cmon, goddammit. I feel like dancing!
Click to expand...
It's amusing as hell. The mongrelization of the races.

Unless you're ancestry is native American you're part of those impure genes.
 
mumblethrax said:
No, it isn't. Most European nations had relatively lax immigration control in the 18th century, too. The UK adopted formal border control later than the US did.

The reality is that there was a series of panics about too many of those people contaminating our precious bodily fluids. Which, as far as I can tell, is still what drives anti-immigrant sentiment today.


I think this idea is just kind of laughable--our social programs are dog ◊◊◊◊. But immigrants (both legal and illegal) are in the black in any case.
Click to expand...
And yet you dont give two ◊◊◊◊◊ about most of the world having MUCH stronger immigration policies than the USofA.

I wonder why that is?
 
Hercules56 said:
Nope, that aint it.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is. I do not live under the jurisdiction of France, so I have relatively little to say about French law. This should not be taken as endorsement, or a refusal to critique egregiously unjust laws.

But this is an idiotic defense in any case. The goal is to justify our laws, not to complacently assert (with zero evidence) that our middle-of-the-pack status is good enough.
 
mumblethrax said:
Yes, it is. I do not live under the jurisdiction of France, so I have relatively little to say about French law. This should not be taken as endorsement, or a refusal to critique egregiously unjust laws.

But this is an idiotic defense in any case. The goal is to justify our laws, not to complacently assert (with zero evidence) that our middle-of-the-pack status is good enough.
Click to expand...
So you want us to be an open-border country. Got it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom