Should sanctuary cities be tolerated?

TomB said:
Did you read the whole article or just the section on budgetary impact?

From the same wikipedia article you quoted:

The question of whether illegal aliens contribute more or less in taxes than they consume in services is not cut and dry. I think it's a bit of a complicated thing to measure well.

But regardless....
If the illegal aliens disappeared tomorrow, the jobs they fill would still be needed. I think I saw somewhere that they represent around 5% of the work force. We would still need those workers. (No, I don't think those jobs would be snatched up by U.S. Citizens.)

Imagine that those jobs were filled with legal immigrants here as guest workers. would that significantly affect the math?
Do you think significantly more would be collected in taxes?
How would that affect the cost of services?

To me, the problem is not that we have too many immigrant workers, but rather that those workers are here illegally. Their status also makes them vulnerable to criminals and abuse.

Which brings me back to "sanctuary cities."
First, they really aren't sanctuary cities. They don't "protect" illegal immigrants from deportation. they just don't participate in that process for reasons that are largely intended to keep everyone safe.
  • They want immigrants to feel safe talking to the police to report a crime, whether they are the victim or a witness. It's to break the "I didn't see nothing." response.
  • A corollary of that is that they want these witnesses (or victims) to be able to appear in court without fear of consequences. Again, this helps us get criminals off the street.
  • They want everyone to be able to visit a doctor without fear.
  • Or call an ambulance.
  • Or the fire department.
From what I've seen, they will assist with criminal apprehensions. They won't stop ICE from apprehending or deporting anyone, but in the case of New York, at least, in the name of assisting the judicial system and law enforcement, they want a few places to be (mostly) open. And they want a firewall between local law enforcement and immigration actions.

Is it possible some "sanctuary city" laws go too far? Absolutely. But I also think that state and local government has legitimate discretion over the scope of their law enforcement's duties.
Click to expand...
By that logic you feel that states have the right to choose to not enforce the Civil Rights Act.
 
Hercules56 said:
If the GOPers and MAGArs do not immediately demand Trump completely reverse his exemption of farm workers and hotel workers and restaurant workers from immigration enforcement, then they are proved to be absolutely hypocrite liars who don't give a damn about the immigration issue. It's really disgusting that day would allow an exemption so as to make sure their poll numbers are not hurt.
Click to expand...

Let us know the results of your rigorous investigation into this. The rest of us remain unclear on how much MAGA is built on lies and hypocrisy. Luckily, your bold inquiry could finally shed some light on this murky topic.
 
Hercules56 said:
By that logic you feel that states have the right to choose to not enforce the Civil Rights Act.
Click to expand...
That is *not* how that works. States and cities have long maintained the right to deny enforcing federal statutes that fall well out of their purview. It's why the Federal government had to rely on the Treasury Department to enforce Prohibition. It's how some states were able to sue the Obama administration to remove the requirement to expand Medicaid under the ACA.
 
Last edited:
Hercules56 said:
We are talking about ILLEGAL immigration.

I completely support the USA having a large and generous legal immigration and asylum policy.
Click to expand...

No, we’re talking about providing a pathway to citizenship for the millions of immigrants labeled “illegal” who positively contribute to our country, You called that “national suicide” and it remains a disgustingly racist position.
 
johnny karate said:
No, we’re talking about providing a pathway to citizenship for the millions of immigrants labeled “illegal” who positively contribute to our country, You called that “national suicide” and it remains a disgustingly racist position.
Click to expand...
Thats a lie, I never called that national suicide.
 
Hercules56 said:
Thats a lie, I never called that national suicide.
Click to expand...

This is starting to seem like a humiliation kink:
arthwollipot said:
The answer to the problem of illegal immigration is not to detain them and kick them out, it's to help them to become legal.

Most illegal immigrants aren't saying to themselves "Oh, well I could either get in legally or illegally, I think I'll choose illegal because reasons".
Click to expand...
Hercules56 said:
That's national suicide.
Click to expand...
 
Hercules56 said:
By that logic you feel that states have the right to choose to not enforce the Civil Rights Act.
Click to expand...
Well, I put the question "do states have to enforce the civil rights act?" into Google, and it's AI returned the following:
States are not required to enforce the Civil Rights Act. The Act is primarily enforced by the federal government through the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. While states have the authority to enforce their own civil rights laws, the federal government's role is to ensure that the civil rights protections are upheld across the nation. The federal government's enforcement is guided by the Civil Rights Division's procedures and special procedures for various civil rights statutes.
Click to expand...
My impression is that primary enforcement of the Civil rights Act is, in fact, a Federal responsibility. However, the state itself is subject to the law and can be prosecuted (sued?) for violations. this takes place in Federal court.

Most states, I think, have elected to participate in some scope of enforcement, of course, but it's a Federal responsibility. Also, states have their own civil rights laws, which they enforce.

Separate source:
In the United States, the federal government and state governments share power, often working in parallel. While federal law supersedes state law in many cases of conflicting laws, the federal government cannot force state and local law enforcement offices to enforce federal laws. However, the federal government can withhold federal funds from states that do not comply with federal law, which creates an incentive for states to adopt federal laws. The Supreme Court has ruled that state courts must generally hear federal law claims unless state law bars a state court from doing so through a 'neutral rule of judicial administration'.link
Click to expand...
 
For the record, the "sanctuary" law for Illinois was signed into law by Bruce Rauner, a Republican. (not Pritzger)
In August 2017, Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner signed a bill into law that prohibited state and local police from arresting anyone solely due to their immigration status or due to federal detainers. Some fellow Republicans criticized Rauner for his action, claiming the bill made Illinois a sanctuary state. The Illinois associations for Sheriffs and Police Chiefs stated that the bill does not prevent cooperation with the federal government or give sanctuary for illegal immigrants. Both organizations support the bill.link
Click to expand...
 
Hercules56 said:
You do realize this is the 21st Century, right? We have machines that do that.
Click to expand...
They haven't quite gotten to the point of machines that check the udders for mastitis, clean the manure off, and put the milker on and that sort of stuff. I don't know what your agricultural experience is, but I can pretty well guarantee that a self-attaching milking machine would be a fearsome thing to behold. Of course in the new order out department of health will probably deny the existence of bovine disease, and declare that a little manure in our milk is good for our immunity, at least until Elon and his techbro buddies come up with a self-milking ecow.
 
bruto said:
I would not guarantee that he does. It's been pointed out in more than one way already, with little to indicate that the difference makes a difference.
Click to expand...
Someone, probably here, used to always say: "Words mean things."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom