• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

What's the point of sanctuary cities?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
pcgeek11 said:
I think that the biggest contention isn't local cops actively enforcing immigration law. It is that they release illegal immigrants that they have in custody after the feds ask them to detain them until they can be picked up. Case in point San Francisco.
Click to expand...

That costs money.
 
The gardeners and housemaids of the rich need protection.

It is turning into a 21 century version of Downton Abbey in the US, without the bother of the living on the downstairs bother even on a lot of manufacturing areas, irregardless if they actually know nothing more than hitting a button.

But that is why it has been in place for a long time to begin with.
 
thraashman said:
You know, you often make me wonder if you are legitimately retarded. Your post has literally nothing to do with mine. It's like I said "this is how pizza is made" and you started ranting about how I'm attacking Heinz Ketchup.
Click to expand...
Well then let me explain it to you. Your post boils down to a position that harboring illegals is actually a money saving, cost effective means of operating a city. I'm simply asking if you are adopting the same policy in your personal life.

Sorry if I made it too complex for you.
 
Maxima1 said:
Why do people always make this excuse? If you round them up, less illegals and anchor babies around and less reason for them to come over if we don't offer hospitality. Their offspring also commit crimes above the rate of the white population, so there's that, too. As is, police do BS work racking up traffic tickets and going after marijuana users.
Click to expand...
This has been tested before in many locations. Making less strict immigration checks leads to 3% to 5% LESS crime. That is why people bring it up. If a local community wants to do BS work, they can. The debate is whether the federal government can force local governments to do BS work.
 
boomerang said:
Well then let me explain it to you. Your post boils down to a position that harboring illegals is actually a money saving, cost effective means of operating a city. I'm simply asking if you are adopting the same policy in your personal life.

Sorry if I made it too complex for you.
Click to expand...

Were you attempting to confirm that you're retarded? If so you're well on your way, haha.
 
dullard said:
This has been tested before in many locations. Making less strict immigration checks leads to 3% to 5% LESS crime. That is why people bring it up. If a local community wants to do BS work, they can. The debate is whether the federal government can force local governments to do BS work.
Click to expand...

Care to show the studies? Short-term, long-term, half-***ed? Go look at Pew. Their offspring commit more crime (see below). Any attempt of this, btw, will always be to a certain extent half-***ed because some think we should give anyone who was born here citizenship, even though among developed countries that is unusual, and it is stupid policy.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ond-generation-immigrants-as-they-assimilate/
 
Starbuck1975 said:
So let me get this straight. You are appalled at the idea of local law enforcement dollars being spent to enforce federal law and remove those here illegally, but you find it acceptable for your tax dollars to go towards providing them with social services, education and health care?
Click to expand...

I guess people like to save a little $$ on extra policing and then spend a ton of $$$$ on the care and feeding of those they didn't want to police.
 
and since you are probably stupid what Im referring to is "its cheaper to police people than feed them"
 
JSt0rm said:
Do you live in my state or county or city? If not what do you care what we do with our money?
Click to expand...
We could very well live in the same state or county or city. My preference would be for my tax dollars to go towards helping citizens and legal residents of this country. You are entitled to demand that OUR government piss away your tax dollars on amnesty and the services that posturing assumes.
 
Starbuck1975 said:
We could very well live in the same state or county or city. My preference would be for my tax dollars to go towards helping citizens and legal residents of this country. You are entitled to demand that OUR government piss away your tax dollars on amnesty and the services that posturing assumes.
Click to expand...

You assume that this is the most expensive route. And you assume wrong.
 
JSt0rm said:
You assume that this is the most expensive route. And you assume wrong.
Click to expand...

It is more expensive. Why do you think some small countries have far higher GDP per capita? Obviously more and more illegals coming in and breeding unlike a high skills immigration focus like Canada erodes the standard of living for the native population here.
 
pcgeek11 said:
It also gets people killed as in Kathryn Steinle. I think it is worth a few local dollars.

We can all argue about it until our heads fall off, but time will surely tell.
Click to expand...

It is a statistical fact that illegal immigrants commit violent crimes at a lower rate than citizens. We'd be safer using cells to detain actual violent criminals than using them as holding cells for ICE.
 
The 10th amendment. Otherwise, we're talking about a huge unfunded mandate to cities and states to enforce federal immigration law.
 
Maxima1 said:
It is more expensive. Why do you think some small countries have far higher GDP per capita? Obviously more and more illegals coming in and breeding unlike a high skills immigration focus like Canada erodes the standard of living for the native population here.
Click to expand...

So you think rounding up all illegals and making sure their are no illegals in Los Angeles county is cheaper then blankets, food and medical for the % of the illegals that take advantage of that?

I dont think you know what you are talking about.
 
dullard said:
This has been tested before in many locations. Making less strict immigration checks leads to 3% to 5% LESS crime. That is why people bring it up. If a local community wants to do BS work, they can. The debate is whether the federal government can force local governments to do BS work.
Click to expand...

At the end of the day, they only do less crime if you don't include the crime of them being here illegally. If you include that, then there is a lot more crime to speak of. Regardless, it isn't a debate of local LEO's knocking on doors, rounding up illegals. It is a matter of honoring a request from Federal agents to hold onto someone already in custody. That is not an unreasonable request. If you (or anyone) wants to talk about reimbursement for holding these illegals, then that is a discussion that should be had. However, I think that is probably just a straw man argument at this point.
 
JSt0rm said:
So you think rounding up all illegals and making sure their are no illegals in Los Angeles county is cheaper then blankets, food and medical for the % of the illegals that take advantage of that?

I dont think you know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

Seriously? Having them stay here is not a fixed cost, so that's ludicrous. Obama deported almost 3 million. Across the border, less have been coming here because it's getting less appealing. If Republicans stopped appeasing lobbyists of businesses who want cheap labor and Democrats stopped trying to use them for votes, it would be even simpler i.e. less hospitality = less appealing to come over. What's more getting rid of the anchor baby amendment would give them much less reason to come here.
 
Maxima1 said:
But their offspring don't.
Click to expand...

Their offspring and your offspring have the same chance of being a criminal or the next great doctor, scientist, or inventor. And they're more likely to be one of the latter in this country, which is better for everyone.

Kicking out brown people and building walls isn't going to make yours or anyone's life better. People who tell you it will are likely trying to distract you from something they're doing that will screw you over.
 
dainthomas said:
It is a statistical fact that illegal immigrants commit violent crimes at a lower rate than citizens. We'd be safer using cells to detain actual violent criminals than using them as holding cells for ICE.
Click to expand...

One is too many. Kathryn Steinle.
 
Last edited:
The feds are not asking the local police to round up or hunt down illegals. All they are asking them to do is when one is jailed for a crime and found to be illegal, inform ICE and hold them until they are picked up.

All the rest of the spewing in this thread is garbage.
 
dainthomas said:
Their offspring and your offspring have the same chance of being a criminal or the next great doctor, scientist, or inventor.
Click to expand...

What? You think everyone is equal genetically?

And they're more likely to be one of the latter in this country, which is better for everyone.
Click to expand...

We're at the “player piano” stage of technological development.

Kicking out brown people
Click to expand...

I don't care about what color skin they are. You can still have a country with a TON of legal immigration, you know.

and building walls isn't going to make yours or anyone's life better.
Click to expand...

No need to build a wall. Get rid of sanctuary cities and the asinine anchor baby policy and the border flow would dry up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top