Racism runs pretty deep in the TRUMP administration....this concerns the proposed citizenship question

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Feb 15, 2002
13,659
619
126
You can tell it's close to election season by the new faces and some others becoming more active.
 
Oct 15, 1999
13,529
573
126
State & local govts are powerless to enforce immigration law. The people who live there don't deserve to be punished for failures of the federal govt.
Now add sanctuary city's and states into the mix. Some areas are refusing to support immigration law, and even shielding illegal immigrants. Why does the federal government have to support services and representation for those illegals? This isn't a sane position.
 
Feb 15, 2002
13,659
619
126
Now add sanctuary city's and states into the mix. Some areas are refusing to support immigration law, and even shielding illegal immigrants. Why does the federal government have to support services and representation for those illegals? This isn't a sane position.
It's not their job to "support" immigration law. Immigration is a federal job and always has been
 
May 15, 2000
24,142
1,389
126
Is it their job to shield illegals?
They don't shield them, they simply don't lock them up until immigration officials have the time to do whatever it is the need to do or until they are picked upped.

How is it you are able to have an opinion on the subject and not know some basic facts?

Well we know how so I guess the question is why do you bother giving your opinion without knowing basic facts?
 
Oct 15, 1999
13,529
573
126
Bullshit. They just treat illegals like they treat everybody else.
They aren't like everybody else, they're in the country illegally.
This is part of the general immigration clusterfuck. I don't want to uproot decent people and throw them out, but that's what their entitled to under their current status, and that sucks.
 
May 15, 2000
24,142
1,389
126
They aren't like everybody else, they're in the country illegally.
This is part of the general immigration clusterfuck. I don't want to uproot decent people and throw them out, but that's what their entitled to under their current status, and that sucks.
You do realize that the people who don't want to respond to the question aren't just people here illegally, right?
 
Last edited:
Nov 4, 2004
24,445
1,487
126
They aren't like everybody else, they're in the country illegally.
This is part of the general immigration clusterfuck. I don't want to uproot decent people and throw them out, but that's what their entitled to under their current status, and that sucks.
If only, IF only there were people in Congress that wanted to change this.
 
Oct 15, 1999
13,529
573
126
There hasn't been for the last 30 years, and yes, this is both sides. A few play lip service to the issue when they know it's not going anywhere. No one cares about a real answer.
 
Nov 4, 2004
24,445
1,487
126
There hasn't been for the last 30 years, and yes, this is both sides. A few play lip service to the issue when they know it's not going anywhere. No one cares about a real answer.
mmmhmmm, sure.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
53,038
2,877
126
They aren't like everybody else, they're in the country illegally.
This is part of the general immigration clusterfuck. I don't want to uproot decent people and throw them out, but that's what their entitled to under their current status, and that sucks.
They're just like everybody else for the purposes of local law enforcement.

Maybe the citizenship question is a good idea. When illegals won't answer it, we can all just assume there aren't any & go on our merry way.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
53,038
2,877
126
There hasn't been for the last 30 years, and yes, this is both sides. A few play lip service to the issue when they know it's not going anywhere. No one cares about a real answer.
Bullshit. Left to our own devices, Dems would hand out a whole shitpile of green cards to illegals who've lived peaceably among us for many years, particularly if they have American citizen spouses or children. We'd do the same for the dreamers & the TPS refugees who've been here for long periods.

We'd also set out to change things in central America so that people would feel safe living there.
 

DarthKyrie

Senior member
Jul 11, 2016
686
489
116
Bullshit. Left to our own devices, Dems would hand out a whole shitpile of green cards to illegals who've lived peaceably among us for many years, particularly if they have American citizen spouses or children. We'd do the same for the dreamers & the TPS refugees who've been here for long periods.

We'd also set out to change things in central America so that people would feel safe living there.
I'm sure most of those that are coming here would love to stay home if it was safer and they had more opportunities but we can't help make their countries safer because our corporate overlords want those countries unstable.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
62,107
3,503
126
Now add sanctuary city's and states into the mix. Some areas are refusing to support immigration law, and even shielding illegal immigrants. Why does the federal government have to support services and representation for those illegals? This isn't a sane position.
Those areas are not shielding anyone, they are declining to expend state resources to enforce federal law. If the federal government wishes to enforce federal law and remove those people it is welcome to do so and no state can stop it.

What you seem to be arguing though is that the federal government fiscally punish states for exercising their sovereign rights under the 10th amendment not to have state resources commandeered to enforce federal law. This is RADICALLY authoritarian and is not only unconstitutional, but in direct opposition to what conservatives have claimed to believe right up to when they got control of the federal government.

The idea that we should only count citizens for the purposes for fiscal appropriation and representation is also a radical anti-immigrant position that would strip funding from the areas that are most attractive to foreign talent, attacking our most valuable and productive areas.

You should stop for a minute and think what the sane position is. It’s definitely not repealing the 10th amendment and trying to punish areas for being attractive to foreigners. That’s absolutely nuts.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
62,107
3,503
126
There hasn't been for the last 30 years, and yes, this is both sides. A few play lip service to the issue when they know it's not going anywhere. No one cares about a real answer.
Absolute nonsense. In 2013 there was a bipartisan bill that passed the senate overwhelmingly and had the support of Democrats in the House and President Obama. Republicans refused to even bring it up for a vote out of fear that it would pass.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bor...ty,_and_Immigration_Modernization_Act_of_2013

So once again you’re trying to #bothsides something that is the fault of conservatives. If you just turn around and blame democrats when republicans act badly they have no incentive to act better.
 
Jul 13, 2005
25,700
568
126
I think you give them more credit than they deserve.
Actually that's not the true at all! You seems to think they deserve zero . zilch no credit whatsoever!
Trust me when I say get in the governments xcrosshairs and see just how "incompetent" they are!
 
Oct 15, 1999
13,529
573
126
Absolute nonsense. In 2013 there was a bipartisan bill that passed the senate overwhelmingly and had the support of Democrats in the House and President Obama. Republicans refused to even bring it up for a vote out of fear that it would pass.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bor...ty,_and_Immigration_Modernization_Act_of_2013

So once again you’re trying to #bothsides something that is the fault of conservatives. If you just turn around and blame democrats when republicans act badly they have no incentive to act better.
That was it? In the last thirty years the democrats never had another opportunity to take action? The republicans have been running roughshod over them for thirty years?
 
Oct 15, 1999
13,529
573
126
Those areas are not shielding anyone.
I cut out everything after this sentence because anything based on that thought is demonstrably incorrect.
Sanctuary, a place of refuge and protection.
It's not a place where you will be ignored. It's not a place that's trying to save a buck by not alerting the feds of criminal activity (are phone calls still a dime?). It's a place of refuge and protection. I can define refuge and protection for you if you'd like.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
62,107
3,503
126
I cut out everything after this sentence because anything based on that thought is demonstrably incorrect.
Sanctuary, a place of refuge and protection.
It's not a place where you will be ignored. It's not a place that's trying to save a buck by not alerting the feds of criminal activity (are phone calls still a dime?). It's a place of refuge and protection. I can define refuge and protection for you if you'd like.
False. You do not understand how law enforcement works.

Declining to expend resources to alert someone else is not shielding them. This is common sense.

Are you saying that states have an obligation to enforce federal law? This is the most radical reinterpretation of the Constitution in US history.
 
May 15, 2000
24,142
1,389
126
I cut out everything after this sentence because anything based on that thought is demonstrably incorrect.
Sanctuary, a place of refuge and protection.
It's not a place where you will be ignored. It's not a place that's trying to save a buck by not alerting the feds of criminal activity (are phone calls still a dime?). It's a place of refuge and protection. I can define refuge and protection for you if you'd like.
What an idiot you are.


Just so everyone is clear, this idiot believes that because Republicans and righties decided to call cities that won't use their own resources to enforce federal law, "sanctuary cities", must mean that these cities are indeed providing protection and refuge to illegals.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
62,107
3,503
126
That was it? In the last thirty years the democrats never had another opportunity to take action? The republicans have been running roughshod over them for thirty years?
So to be clear your argument is that it is #bothsides because the Republicans only torpedoed one?
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
53,038
2,877
126
That was it? In the last thirty years the democrats never had another opportunity to take action? The republicans have been running roughshod over them for thirty years?
So dishonest. Other than a brief period in 2009 the GOP held either a leading or blocking position in govt since Reagan and they used it for all it was worth. Immigration is one of their fave wedge issues so they have no intention and no way to create solutions acceptable to their base. We can go with broad based amnesty, hold to the current mess or go with Stephen Miller's immigration Gestapo. Of the three, they'll take it the way it is. Keeps 'em nicely irrational & voting for that good old trickle down feeling every time.
 
May 15, 2000
24,142
1,389
126
That was it? In the last thirty years the democrats never had another opportunity to take action? The republicans have been running roughshod over them for thirty years?
Holy shit you are on one today!!

See if you can spot the last time Democrats had an opportunity and then ask yourself what, if anything they did to address immigration.

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS