Are sanctuary cities/states traitors to the union?

[dank69]

What should be the punishment for the one crime they did commit?

Death by snu-snu.

 

[nixium]

I will agree with you 100% if it's really taking that long to become a citizen, both by itself and compared to illegal immigrants. Certainly illegal immigrants shouldn't become citizens more quickly than those seeking legal entry.

There's no *if* about it. This fact would have been true if the 2013 reform had passed, and liberal politicians (and conservative for that matter) don't give a fuck.

Why? Why is a "simple" crime like crossing the border considered the same thing as being a felon, which is currently the only way a native citizen would be barred from voting?

Except the law the illegal immigrant is violating is crossing a line, a border on top soil. Still illegal, yes. Akin to felonies such as rape or murder? How about no? See how the punishment doesn't really fit the crime, right?

Legal immigrant stories are very important, and I don't see anyone downplaying them (well, unless you're a certain type of conservative maybe).

But you still haven't answered my question; why are illegal immigrants crossing? When you can answer that, we can continue the discussion. Because, as you'll see, denying civic participation to illegal immigrants who are crossing for very specific reasons, is jumping the shark. It's not attempting to make the system "fairer", it's an over-reaction (I'm putting this gently).

I think this is where we fundamentally disagree, and will never see each other's point.

To me, crossing the border isn't some simple line on the ground. It's the representation of a country's sovereignty, the very definition of the U.S.A. People have fought for drawing this line, have died for it, and are still dying.

To willfully cross that line, flout that country's laws, is a *serious* crime, not one that can be brushed away. Sure, they might have really good reasons, there's no denying that - escaping desperate poverty, tyranny, what not.

But you know what? if I went to a grocery store and stole food to feed my starving family, it's still a crime. The judge is likely to be lenient, but I'm not getting off scot free.

Similarly, the punishment for violating a fundamental tenet of what makes a country has to be loss of citizenship rights in that country.

And I'm not even an American citizen. I'm an immigrant too. I'm aghast at how glib liberals are with issues regarding border sanctity. Don't they emphasize nationalism in your schools?

Now I have a question for you. Why is it important that these people get citizenship? What bothers you with it being halted to permanent residency? It's definitely not "second class" status; you are entitled to every right except for voting and holding office. Their children can be american citizens.

 

[First]

There's no *if* about it. This fact would have been true if the 2013 reform had passed, and liberal politicians (and conservative for that matter) don't give a fuck.

Speculative, as I don't think that document necessarily says what you think it does, and since the Senate bill didn't go to conference it's not finalized anyway.

I think this is where we fundamentally disagree, and will never see each other's point.

To me, crossing the border isn't some simple line on the ground. It's the representation of a country's sovereignty, the very definition of the U.S.A. People have fought for drawing this line, have died for it, and are still dying.

To willfully cross that line, flout that country's laws, is a *serious* crime, not one that can be brushed away. Sure, they might have really good reasons, there's no denying that - escaping desperate poverty, tyranny, what not.

But you know what? if I went to a grocery store and stole food to feed my starving family, it's still a crime. The judge is likely to be lenient, but I'm not getting off scot free.

Similarly, the punishment for violating a fundamental tenet of what makes a country has to be loss of citizenship rights in that country.

And I'm not even an American citizen. I'm an immigrant too. I'm aghast at how glib liberals are with issues regarding border sanctity. Don't they emphasize nationalism in your schools?

Indeed people have fought and died for drawing those lines. Perhaps someone crossing the border to feed their family, work hard and live a better life is just as American as those born in the USA? Should the punishment for striving for those American ideals be loss of civic participation that would allow them to have a say in laws, ordinances, etc.? Should people who worry about border sovereignty and lack of assimilation of these illegal immigrants really be denying them the citizenship status that would undeniably allow them to assimilate more fully? Seems counterproductive and way out of wack.

Now I have a question for you. Why is it important that these people get citizenship? What bothers you with it being halted to permanent residency? It's definitely not "second class" status; you are entitled to every right except for voting and holding office. Their children can be american citizens.

It bothers me they don't have a say in laws being passed. Again, how can you deny them civic participation but associate yourself with those worried they won't assimilate, given citizenship undeniably would strengthen their assimilation in US culture. If you don't have a say in how the country's future is formed, you are 2nd class by definition (unless you are one of the millions of Americans who don't vote at all, which of course is their right). That should bother anyway who cares at all about fairness. Legal status is great, but citizenship delegates full rights. Americans have long fought for enhancing and restoring full rights to their fellow neighbors.

 

[chucky2]

Ah the Heart Bleed, so predictable...

 

[cabri]

Indeed people have fought and died for drawing those lines. Perhaps someone crossing the border to feed their family, work hard and live a better life is just as American as those born in the USA? Should the punishment for striving for those American ideals be loss of civic participation that would allow them to have a say in laws, ordinances, etc.? Should people who worry about border sovereignty and lack of assimilation of these illegal immigrants really be denying them the citizenship status that would undeniably allow them to assimilate more fully? Seems counterproductive and way out of wack.



It bothers me they don't have a say in laws being passed. Again, how can you deny them civic participation but associate yourself with those worried they won't assimilate, given citizenship undeniably would strengthen their assimilation in US culture. If you don't have a say in how the country's future is formed, you are 2nd class by definition (unless you are one of the millions of Americans who don't vote at all, which of course is their right). That should bother anyway who cares at all about fairness. Legal status is great, but citizenship delegates full rights. Americans have long fought for enhancing and restoring full rights to their fellow neighbors.

There is the defined legal way.

If one chooses to not abide by the laws; they should not get any benefits from the country compared to those that abided by the laws to arrive.

The laws were setup for a reason; until they are legally revised and/or declared unconstitutional; they stay and need to be followed

 

[First]

There is the defined legal way.

If one chooses to not abide by the laws; they should not get any benefits from the country compared to those that abided by the laws to arrive.

The laws were setup for a reason; until they are legally revised and/or declared unconstitutional; they stay and need to be followed

Nobody smart takes you seriously.

FYI.

 

[chucky2]

LOL

 

[nixium]

Speculative, as I don't think that document necessarily says what you think it does, and since the Senate bill didn't go to conference it's not finalized anyway.

Are you referring to the visa bulletin or the senate 2013 bill as described on Wikipedia? If the visa bulletin, I'm 100% correct on the way priority dates work. There's no room for ambiguity there.

Indeed people have fought and died for drawing those lines. Perhaps someone crossing the border to feed their family, work hard and live a better life is just as American as those born in the USA? Should the punishment for striving for those American ideals be loss of civic participation that would allow them to have a say in laws, ordinances, etc.? Should people who worry about border sovereignty and lack of assimilation of these illegal immigrants really be denying them the citizenship status that would undeniably allow them to assimilate more fully? Seems counterproductive and way out of wack.

This is why I mentioned that you and I will never see eye-to-eye on this.
It is not counterproductive, and yes, they lost the right to participate as full members of society when they spit on the laws of the country entering it illegally, for "better lives" or not.

It bothers me they don't have a say in laws being passed. Again, how can you deny them civic participation but associate yourself with those worried they won't assimilate, given citizenship undeniably would strengthen their assimilation in US culture. If you don't have a say in how the country's future is formed, you are 2nd class by definition (unless you are one of the millions of Americans who don't vote at all, which of course is their right). That should bother anyway who cares at all about fairness. Legal status is great, but citizenship delegates full rights. Americans have long fought for enhancing and restoring full rights to their fellow neighbors.

What you see as fair and assimilation I see the exact opposite. I see a bunch of self-serving people who ignore laws when convenient for them. Why would I want such people (unassimilated, no less) to have a say about laws and ordinances that they like to ignore when they feel like?

And as cabri mentioned, it's ridiculous that someone who followed the laws and someone who entirely violated them essentially are the same 20 years later. That's unjustifiable.

 

[nixium]

Ah the Heart Bleed, so predictable...

So I'm not calling out First on this, but it seems to me that in general the liberal heart bleed isn't real pity; it's actually a method of condescension and patronization hidden behind sympathy.

Notice that the heart bleed isn't applied universally; only to people that the bleeding hearts feel deserve such sympathy. Law abiding immigrants aren't one such set deserving the heart bleed, as we can see by repeated CIR-or-bust scenarios.

Also, the heart bleed is almost always associated with knowing what's best for the "victim", and pushing for that, against what the victim himself/herself want. Take CIR for example; I believe CIR without ultimate citizenship might pass, and would actually have helped illegal immigrants by now. Instead, there's this constant need to provide them full citizenship, one of the reasons for CIR constantly being kicked down the can. I would venture to say most undocumented don't care about citizenship as much as just getting out of the shadows.

 

[JockoJohnson]

I don't get it with some of the people posting in this thread. Are you saying that we shouldn't even bother having border enforcement? Just let everyone in who can get here and then make them citizens. No background check, no verifying that they are who they say they are. You know who you are. Please explain the rationale in this type of thinking.

 

[dank69]

I don't get it with some of the people posting in this thread. Are you saying that we shouldn't even bother having border enforcement? Just let everyone in who can get here and then make them citizens. No background check, no verifying that they are who they say they are. You know who you are. Please explain the rationale in this type of thinking.

In order to answer that I would need more information. Mainly, how many more people would relocate to the US permanently if everyone was free to do so?

 

[CZroe]

I still don't understand: if he was deported 5 times, in what way was he receiving "sanctuary?" Someone was doing their job right by deporting him and someone else wasn't do their job by letting him back in. If San Francisco didn't deport him then it sure seems like their providing sanctuary wasn't much help. Even if he had never been to San Fran before, how long was he there? Did it extend his most recent stint in the U.S. any longer than the prior ones?

I am against sanctuary cities but I fail to see how this case applies.

 

[werepossum]

I don't get it with some of the people posting in this thread. Are you saying that we shouldn't even bother having border enforcement? Just let everyone in who can get here and then make them citizens. No background check, no verifying that they are who they say they are. You know who you are. Please explain the rationale in this type of thinking.

There is a way of thinking among the very far left that America is an evil, racist nation. Therefore anyone not American who comes here, by any means, cannot help but improve the nation. This is not something they often admit, but they are extremely consistent about it.

I still don't understand: if he was deported 5 times, in what way was he receiving "sanctuary?" Someone was doing their job right by deporting him and someone else wasn't do their job by letting him back in. If San Francisco didn't deport him then it sure seems like their providing sanctuary wasn't much help. Even if he had never been to San Fran before, how long was he there? Did it extend his most recent stint in the U.S. any longer than the prior ones?

I am against sanctuary cities but I fail to see how this case applies.

It applies because he should have been deported a sixth time, but you make a good point. We are not allowed to enforce our border, so the difference between Obama sending a "deport thyself" letter which is ignored and physically deporting someone is a few weeks. He probably would have murdered some other innocent American a few weeks later. After his experience with our immigration laws, he probably still doesn't really believe we're serious about murder either.

 

[boomerang]

San Francisco is a city that the wise should put on their 'do not visit' list. Their policies endanger the residents and visitors alike.

San Francisco Deputies Union Takes on Sheriff Over Immigration Stance

 

[fskimospy]

San Francisco is a city that the wise should put on their 'do not visit' list. Their policies endanger the residents and visitors alike.

San Francisco Deputies Union Takes on Sheriff Over Immigration Stance

So sad, you're missing out! One of the most fun cities in the US to visit.

I sincerely doubt they will miss you or other similarly 'wise' people who wouldn't visit a city based on its immigration policies.

 

[JockoJohnson]

Death by snu-snu.

I would cross the border illegally to receive that kind of punishment.

 

[werepossum]

So sad, you're missing out! One of the most fun cities in the US to visit.

I sincerely doubt they will miss you or other similarly 'wise' people who wouldn't visit a city based on its immigration policies.

I wouldn't mind seeing the places the Dead hung out. And I'm rabidly anti-illegal immigrant and still wouldn't rule out visiting any city based on its political leadership or immigration policies. (Not that I like visiting cities anyway.)

I would cross the border illegally to receive that kind of punishment.

lol

 

[piasabird]

It is the job of the Federal government and the Military to secure our borders, not the states. We had 300k troops in Iraq at one time, but we cant police our southern border and out ports.

What happens is ICE will not come and get the illegals when they are apprehended by the police.

 

[First]

Are you referring to the visa bulletin or the senate 2013 bill as described on Wikipedia? If the visa bulletin, I'm 100% correct on the way priority dates work. There's no room for ambiguity there.

You may be 100% right, and terrible if so.

This is why I mentioned that you and I will never see eye-to-eye on this.
It is not counterproductive, and yes, they lost the right to participate as full members of society when they spit on the laws of the country entering it illegally, for "better lives" or not.

You use a verb like "spit" but I don't think you really understand how it's out of wack with both the crime itself (crossing a border) and the purpose behind it (work, freedom, etc.). You say we won't see eye-to-eye, but I just wonder why you get so riled up about a person's genuine attempt to make a living, especially when they're not harming you or anyone else in the process. You can see how the punishment you propose, lose of citizenship, doesn't seem to fit the crime they've committed.

What you see as fair and assimilation I see the exact opposite. I see a bunch of self-serving people who ignore laws when convenient for them. Why would I want such people (unassimilated, no less) to have a say about laws and ordinances that they like to ignore when they feel like?

Again, your logic is inconsistent; if you feel as stated above, then please tell me why we shouldn't strip citizenship from Americans born here if it's discovered they break laws for self-serving reasons? Can you tell me why your logic is consistent if you don't think we should strip native-born Americans of their citizenship for breaking laws to enhance their freedom or protect their families? Perhaps now you'll think a little bit about the types of laws that are being broken, the frequency with which they are broken, a little more carefully in your assessment now that you've been given this little thought experiment.

And as cabri mentioned, it's ridiculous that someone who followed the laws and someone who entirely violated them essentially are the same 20 years later. That's unjustifiable.

In terms of cutting in line, I am in agreement with you that illegal immigrants should not get priority over legal immigrants. We agree.

 

[dank69]

Are you referring to the visa bulletin or the senate 2013 bill as described on Wikipedia? If the visa bulletin, I'm 100% correct on the way priority dates work. There's no room for ambiguity there.




This is why I mentioned that you and I will never see eye-to-eye on this.
It is not counterproductive, and yes, they lost the right to participate as full members of society when they spit on the laws of the country entering it illegally, for "better lives" or not.



What you see as fair and assimilation I see the exact opposite. I see a bunch of self-serving people who ignore laws when convenient for them. Why would I want such people (unassimilated, no less) to have a say about laws and ordinances that they like to ignore when they feel like?

And as cabri mentioned, it's ridiculous that someone who followed the laws and someone who entirely violated them essentially are the same 20 years later. That's unjustifiable.

I hate people that are hardcore lawful alignment. Many of our laws are just as flawed as the humans that made them.

 

[chucky2]

I love the Open Borders trolls, so so desperate in their desires they need to start from an Open Border position and have everyone else explain just why oh why that can't happen, never the other way around. Maybe they should ask every other developed country (even Mexico), all of them feel that borders should be respected but shazzam!, not the US/Mexico border...that one needs to be wide open! So strange though, given how all those illegals will contribute to boost global pollution levels, global warming, resource usage, help suppress wages, actually fill jobs US Citizens could/should be doing (if we didn't pay to placate them to sit at home), etc. The mind of pro-Open Borders haha...

 

[zinfamous]

I wouldn't mind seeing the places the Dead hung out.

Hey, my family over there now lives 2 blocks from their house! And that was pure serendipity.

 

[werepossum]

Hey, my family over there now lives 2 blocks from their house! And that was pure serendipity.

That's pretty cool. Closest I've ever come was ordering a 105MB Quantum hard drive and having the guy tell me he had just that morning sold four of those same drives to Jerry Garcia.