TheGreatBuzz Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 25 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said: If the ideas are 1) detain all the illegals in shelters and put their kids into foster homes. 2) ship illegals to cities that want them, keeping the families intact we should all be in agreement that option two is a good option. It’s even a better idea that just letting them go wherever they are detained at. Sure, some degree of coordination would be necessary, and I think that that would have happened if the plan was implemented (until the governors and mayors in sanctuary cities refused to play ball). I agree here. These places want to be sanctuaries, then let them be exactly that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 When even the attorneys at ICE say it’s a dumb idea, perhaps some of you should pause and think for a second before letting the caveman part of your brain take over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 1 minute ago, No Excuses said: When even the attorneys at ICE say it’s a dumb idea, perhaps some of you should pause and think for a second before letting the caveman part of your brain take over. To be clear, I think it is a dumb idea also. I just think it is as dumb as declaring yourself a sanctuary city. But it a city wants to declare itself to be that, then lets test them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 6 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said: If the ideas are 1) detain all the illegals in shelters and put their kids into foster homes. 2) ship illegals to cities that want them, keeping the families intact we should all be in agreement that option two is a good option. It’s even a better idea that just letting them go wherever they are detained at. Sure, some degree of coordination would be necessary, and I think that that would have happened if the plan was implemented (until the governors and mayors in sanctuary cities refused to play ball). You're just joking around this morning, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 21 minutes ago, Hersh said: You're just joking around this morning, right? No she isn't. I'd bet she looks at history and thinks the American Japanese internment camps were appropriate in WWII also. You know..for their protection. Also..."Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free so that I can separate their families, sell their children, and dump the adults in the cities of my political enemy. " -Quote from the GOPs Statue of Liberty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 2 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said: No she isn't. I'd bet she looks at history and thinks the American Japanese internment camps were appropriate in WWII also. You knwo..for their protection. Also..."Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free so that I can separate their families, sell their children, and dump the adults in the cities of my political enemy. " -Quote from the GOPs Statue of Liberty. That part reminds me of many wealthy Blue areas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momma There Goes That Man Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 27 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said: To be clear, I think it is a dumb idea also. I just think it is as dumb as declaring yourself a sanctuary city. But it a city wants to declare itself to be that, then lets test them. And i suppose there is no difference in having any agency of your own to live in a sanctuary city versus being rounded up, bused, and dropped in the middle of a city, as a real living person that is regarded as nothing more than a dehumanized political weapon to wield against somebody's perceived enemies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 9 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said: And i suppose there is no difference in having any agency of your own to live in a sanctuary city versus being rounded up, bused, and dropped in the middle of a city, as a real living person that is regarded as nothing more than a dehumanized political weapon to wield against somebody's perceived enemies. I don't know if that part is a typo or what but I'm not sure what you were trying to say there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 32 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said: To be clear, I think it is a dumb idea also. I just think it is as dumb as declaring yourself a sanctuary city. But it a city wants to declare itself to be that, then lets test them. You may not like the concept of a "sanctuary city" but these policies are there to make the undocumented community more likely to approach local law enforcement and actually turn in the bad guys. The opposite result is that bad seeds in these communities continue to go unreported because no one wants police attention. And it's not like sanctuary cities become havens of crime because they shelter the undocumented. If there was data to support the notion that sanctuary cities harm the general public, great end the policies. No evidence indicates this much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 8 minutes ago, No Excuses said: And it's not like sanctuary cities become havens of crime because they shelter the undocumented. If there was data to support the notion that sanctuary cities harm the general public, great end the policies. No evidence indicates this much I did not mean to imply that they become havens of crime. If that is the way it came of, then I apologize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 4 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said: I did not mean to imply that they become havens of crime. If that is the way it came of, then I apologize. Just curious, why the opposition to them then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CousinsCowgirl84 Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 46 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said: No she isn't. I'd bet she looks at history and thinks the American Japanese internment camps were appropriate in WWII also. You know..for their protection. What are you talking about? I’m arguing against detainment centers and arguing for releasing them. Unless of course, you consider sanctuary cities to be “internment camps” where illegal immigrants are treated as slaves, eg, the “cheap labor” argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 2 minutes ago, No Excuses said: Just curious, why the opposition to them then? Because they are refusing to assist the federal government in the enforcement of laws. If they feel that is the best way to run their city by allowing illegal immigrants to live in their community unchecked, then lets test their resolve on the matter. For the record, I think the federal laws and practicies are all ****ed up. We need major immigration process reform. The process for a person to legally immigrate to our country needs to be streamlined. However, the vast majority of people coming here to "seek asylum" do not meet the standard and their claim is denied. I think it is clear that people are coming here and using that claim so they can get their foot in the door and then wait the process out and fly under the radar hoping they won't get deported. So let these cities deal with them if that is how they want to run things. Quote USCIS approved 11,729 affirmative asylum applications in FY 2016, representing slightly more than 10 percent out of the 115,399 affirmative asylum applications filed with the agency. https://immigrationforum.org/article/fact-sheet-u-s-asylum-process/ ***If we are to discuss this more, we should probably go to the immigration thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 20 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said: What are you talking about? I’m arguing against detainment centers and arguing for releasing them. Unless of course, you consider sanctuary cities to be “internment camps” where illegal immigrants are treated as slaves, eg, the “cheap labor” argument. No you were ok with the plot to release the people in question in targeted cities. Specific sanctuary cities that are viewed by some in this administration as political opposites (of the current administration). You were ok with releasing the people in question solely for the reason of attempting to cause political and societal harm (which isn't data driven proven to my knowledge) and not because you actually care where the people in question were trying to get to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 7 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said: Because they are refusing to assist the federal government in the enforcement of laws. 1). Something which is not their job, and is not even within their authority. 2). Kinda like not setting up a health care exchange, and not expanding Medicaid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CousinsCowgirl84 Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 9 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said: No you were ok with the plot to release the people in question in targeted cities. Specific sanctuary cities theat are viewed by some in this administration as political opposites (of the current administration). You were ok with releasing the people in question solely for the reason of attempting to cause political and societal harm (which isn't data driven proven to my knowledge) and not because you actually care where the people in question were trying to get to. You are saying that it’s bad to release illegals into cities which welcome them in because it would bring “societal harm” which you believe doesn’t exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 As of March 1, 2019 there were 178 sanctuary cities and counties in the US. They exist in the following states. California Colorado Connecticut Florida Georgia Illinois Iowa Kansas Louisiana Massachusetts Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Nebraska New Jersey New Mexico Nevada New York North Carolina Ohio Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island Vermont Virginia Washington Want to guess where the plot was to relocate the people in question to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 13 minutes ago, Larry said: 1). Something which is not their job, and is not even within their authority. 2). Kinda like not setting up a health care exchange, and not expanding Medicaid. Law enforcement agencies should cooperate with other law enforcement agencies. They are refusing to do so. Quote There’s no single definition of what is a sanctuary city, but generally speaking, it’s a city (or a county, or a state) that limits its cooperation with federal immigration enforcement agents in order to protect low-priority immigrants from deportation, while still turning over those who have committed serious crimes. This is why we prefer the term “safe cities”. https://americasvoice.org/blog/what-is-a-sanctuary-city/ They protect people who are here illegally; also known as against the law. That is an undisputable fact. If they decide they want to protect these people, then we'll give them plenty of people to protect. Maybe that strain on their system will make them reconsider if it is still in their best interest. EDIT: Oh and I'm not going to address your health care exchange and Medicaid comment because that is not the topic being discussed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 2 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said: You are saying that it’s bad to release illegals into cities which welcome them in because it would bring “societal harm” which you believe doesn’t exist. I'm saying it bad to abandon the people in question in cities in which they weren't going to in the first place. Especially when done so with the intent that you might cause harm to your "enemies" (which is I also said wasn't proven to my knowledge). This is some bizzaro level **** here. People are really ok with forcing these people in question on specific cities because the current administration doesn't agree with that cities political leanings? Shouldn't the real emphasis be on successfully transitioning them into productive lives rather than just dumping them into some random liberal coastal city? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 3 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said: They protect people who are here illegally; also known as against the law. That is an undisputable fact. They really don’t. All they do is make sure that law enforcement has access to these communities and that criminals within them don’t prey on vulnerable people. You are entirely basing your argument on the emotional need for punishing people who came here undocumented. Cities are doing the practical thing which is to make sure that we don’t have enclaves where people are afraid of the police and as a result, more unsafe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 2 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said: They protect people who are here illegally; also known as against the law. That is an undisputable fact. They protect them? They stand between the illegals and the feds and prevent them getting together? Isn't that obstruction of justice? Or do they choose not to expend local resources on laws that aren't in their jurisdiction? Maybe that's the "indisputable fact"? Just out of curiosity, do you feel the same way about jurisdictions choosing not to spend local resources enforcing marijuana laws? (And would you be in here pretending to support a federal proposal to take all arrested drug gangs, bus them to "pot legal" jurisdiction, and turn them loose?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llevron Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 While you have this discussion lets not act like this is isnt completely political, that we dont know who Stephen Miller and Donald Trump are, and that we dont know for a fact that this is some kind of political retribution. We know all of those things. They should be in the calculations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CousinsCowgirl84 Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 9 minutes ago, Llevron said: While you have this discussion lets not act like this is isnt completely political, that we dont know who Stephen Miller and Donald Trump are, and that we dont know for a fact that this is some kind of political retribution. We know all of those things. They should be in the calculations. No doubt it is political.. just like most things.. but it would have been a great political move. It would force democrats to argue against allowing illegal immigrants into their cities. It says a lot about Donald Trump that he had a strategy like this layed our before him and failed to capitalize on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 2 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said: If the ideas are 1) detain all the illegals in shelters and put their kids into foster homes. 2) ship illegals to cities that want them, keeping the families intact we should all be in agreement that option two is a good option. It’s even a better idea that just letting them go wherever they are detained at. Sure, some degree of coordination would be necessary, and I think that that would have happened if the plan was implemented (until the governors and mayors in sanctuary cities refused to play ball). I'm seriously concerned about your physical well being with the shapes you're attempting to contort yourself into with your defense of this. There are multiple issues with your reasoning, many that others have pointed out so I won't rehash those. But one of my main problem is that you're ascribing a potentially logical and altruistic (if perhaps misguided) thought process to a man (and, by extension, the people who surround him) who has repeatedly and consistently shown that he follows absolutely no real thought process besides his instincts/emotions regarding what happens to be right in front of him at the moment, that he is completely and utterly amoral in pretty much every conceivable arena, and that he does absolutely everything with regard to how it will benefit him politically or personally with his base. And the kicker is that you yourself have admitted the above traits of Trump and his cronies in the past and spoken out against it. But now you're suddenly assuming that with this they've totally changed their stripes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.