Sanctuary Cities BTFO

[stabetha]

I literally just said I don't support lawlessness, and explained why. You proceeded to be willfully ignorant. Once again, that's your problem, not mine.

I do not support lawlessness. Period.

I support laws which restrict an action that actually causes harm. Simply coming to America does not cause harm.

My stance is not paradoxical. Supporting the rule of law is not a support of freedom, if that law restricts an action that does not cause harm. It's a net reduction in freedom. I fully support the rule of law when applied to a specific action which actually causes harm, such as rape and murder.

- - - Updated - - -



He has a travel ban in effect for eight countries. He got rid of DACA, he wants to push for more screening in regards to career and earnings of immigrants. You. Are. Welcome.

Are you saying those things did not happen?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/u...n.html?mcubz=0

https://www.cato.org/blog/president-...oaAgt0EALw_wcB

https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/Immi...form-Trump.pdf

travel ban has nothing to do with imagration, and he has not gotten rid of DACA which by the way was, according to glorious leader Obama, meant to be temporary.

[Machismo]

seriously? okay, so the law against murder can stand, how about theft? How about jaywalking? How about the USDA making sure the meat you buy won't give you spongiform encephalopathy? How about the laws that punish false accusations? How about the building codes, I mean the building stands, who cares if it's a tinderbox just waiting to go up in flames, it's not hurting anyone right now?

It's rather simple, if an action causes harm, it should be restricted. Murder clearly causes harm, as does rape. Jaywalking does not necessarily cause harm, neither does speeding. I would get rid of those laws, and make any incidents that occur be the result of a willful action, and prosecuted as such. If your action harms another, you should be responsible.

If it were up to me, there would be no USDA.

[kasuke06]

go it, you want people to die from preventable diseases, car accidents, so long as you present them with the illusion of choice, you just want everyone to die.

[Machismo]

travel ban has nothing to do with imagration, and he has not gotten rid of DACA which by the way was, according to glorious leader Obama, meant to be temporary.

The travel ban does have to do with immigration, it also has to do with refugees. Trump did rescind DACA, that actually happened. If you want to blame Obama for saying it was temporary, be my guest. Trump is still the one who rescinded it. You asked for reliable sources, I provided them. I gave you the words of the man himself. You. Are. Welcome.

"Immigration moderation. Before any new green cards are issued to foreign
workers abroad, there will be a pause where employers will have to hire from the
domestic pool of unemployed immigrant and native workers. This will help
reverse women's plummeting workplace participation rate, grow wages, and allow
record immigration levels to subside to more moderate historical averages. "

His own words...

- - - Updated - - -

go it, you want people to die from preventable diseases, car accidents, so long as you present them with the illusion of choice, you just want everyone to die.

People already die of preventable diseases all the time, I guess you want it to happen, as well.

Your statement is utter bullshit.

[kasuke06]

The travel ban does have to do with immigration, it also has to do with refugees. Trump did rescind DACA, that actually happened. If you want to blame Obama for saying it was temporary, be my guest. Trump is still the one who rescinded it. You asked for reliable sources, I provided them. I gave you the words of the man himself. You. Are. Welcome.

- - - Updated - - -



People already die of preventable diseases all the time, I guess you want it to happen, as well.

Your statement is utter bullshit.

How? I believe in the rule of law. Laws state that in certain situations, you are to be vaccinated against diseases(mostly to do things involving the public, like utilizing public schools) Laws mean that my food is safe to eat instead of gambling on whether or not this particular cut of beef will be my last, Laws constrain speed and pedestrian walkway areas for the safety of both pedestrians and drivers.

You do in fact believe in people having harm caused to them, you just wish to say that it's all their fault because there wasn't a law saying you can't go through a red light at 120 mph any more.

[Machismo]

How? I believe in the rule of law. Laws state that in certain situations, you are to be vaccinated against diseases(mostly to do things involving the public, like utilizing public schools) Laws mean that my food is safe to eat instead of gambling on whether or not this particular cut of beef will be my last, Laws constrain speed and pedestrian walkway areas for the safety of both pedestrians and drivers.

You do in fact believe in people having harm caused to them, you just wish to say that it's all their fault because there wasn't a law saying you can't go through a red light at 120 mph any more.

You are still trying to say I support lawlessness, which is demonstrably false. You are trying to be disingenuous, and say I support death, which is a stupid fucking comment.

I have stated my exact stance. If someone blows through a light, and kills a person, they have committed a voluntary act which led to the harm of another. In this case, they killed someone, making it murder. Since I support such laws, there is no issue.

Repeat after me, The existence of a law is never a justification for it. I don't just believe in something, simply because it is a law. I look at whether that law restricts an action that actually causes harm. That way, we don't end up with tens of thousands of useless and burdensome laws.

[Auxora]

One thing I don't like is how state's rights are being looked at very selectively. If it's a topic that benefits conservatives, they say federal trumps state's rights. But if it's a "red" state wanting to do their own thing in conflict with federal laws like bathroom bills or anti-LGBT laws then the right pushes the importance of state's rights. They can't just cherry pick the ones they like and say state>federal for these, but federal>state for these topics like sanctuary cities. If there can't be sanctuary cities that's fine, but the states doing the religious freedom, bathroom bill, gerrymandering, strict voting requirement, etc. nonsense laws where they use the excuse of state's rights need to be stopped too.

[kasuke06]

You are still trying to say I support lawlessness, which is demonstrably false. You are trying to be disingenuous, and say I support death, which is a stupid fucking comment.

I have stated my exact stance. If someone blows through a light, and kills a person, they have committed a voluntary act which led to the harm of another. In this case, they killed someone, making it murder. Since I support such laws, there is no issue.

Repeat after me, The existence of a law is never a justification for it. I don't just believe in something, simply because it is a law. I look at whether that law restricts an action that actually causes harm. That way, we don't end up with tens of thousands of useless and burdensome laws.

actually, that LAW would make it manslaughter. which is to take a life without provably malicious action, driving at that speed is irresponsible, but unless you can prove specifically, that the person in question set out specifically to kill someone, then you don't have murder.

Maybe you should read up.

[Machismo]

actually, that LAW would make it manslaughter. which is to take a life without provably malicious action, driving at that speed is irresponsible, but unless you can prove specifically, that the person in question set out specifically to kill someone, then you don't have murder.

Maybe you should read up.

Like I said, I would simplify a great many laws, including murder and manslaughter laws. I'm aware of what the current laws say in several different states.

[Thrive]

It sure does look like this administration has a problem with freedom and states' rights, what a shame.

Every administration does. It's all fun and states rights until your state disagrees with you. Honestly the double standards I've seen in these last years drives me crazy, and both conservatives and liberals are a part of it. It's ridiculous.

[Machismo]

Every administration does. It's all fun and states rights until your state disagrees with you. Honestly the double standards I've seen in these last years drives me crazy, and both conservatives and liberals are a part of it. It's ridiculous.

That's why I really don't have much support for any administration. Both liberals and conservatives are masters of hypocrisy. So long as the Electoral College remains, things are not going to change. There is no incentive to get better.

Unfortunately for me, I will probably never support a winning presidential candidate. I'm fine with that, because I'd rather be right, than win.

[Thrive]

That's why I really don't have much support for any administration. Both liberals and conservatives are masters of hypocrisy. So long as the Electoral College remains, things are not going to change. There is no incentive to get better.

Unfortunately for me, I will probably never support a winning presidential candidate. I'm fine with that, because I'd rather be right, than win.

The Electoral College is not the issue. In fact, it helps with equal state representation. The issue, in my mind, lies in the medias refusal to portray anyone but the main parties as competent or viable. People are being led on to the same path over and over. I don't know, it's all kind of a joke.

[Machismo]

The Electoral College is not the issue. In fact, it helps with equal state representation. The issue, in my mind, lies in the medias refusal to portray anyone but the main parties as competent or viable. People are being led on to the same path over and over. I don't know, it's all kind of a joke.

I'm not a fan of the EC, because it promotes the existence of only two major parties, and it limits choice. Also, I believe in equal personal representation, and don't like that a voter in Wyoming has more than three times the voting power as someone in Texas.

The issue with viability is that there is no runoff election, not really. One need not win the majority of votes in a state to get the electors, so there's really no chance for a solid third party to form. In our history, whenever a third party did arise, like with the Republicans, one of the older parties disappeared... meaning there were still only two major parties.

[Thrive]

I'm not a fan of the EC, because it promotes the existence of only two major parties, and it limits choice. Also, I believe in equal personal representation, and don't like that a voter in Wyoming has more than three times the voting power as someone in Texas.

The issue with viability is that there is no runoff election, not really. One need not win the majority of votes in a state to get the electors, so there's really no chance for a solid third party to form. In our history, whenever a third party did arise, like with the Republicans, one of the older parties disappeared... meaning there were still only two major parties.

Even without the EC that would exist though. It's the mindset of the individual, not the EC, that's causing it. And honestly, if the country was working as it was intended, IE state's having more power to govern their own state, it would make more sense.

[Machismo]

Even without the EC that would exist though. It's the mindset of the individual, not the EC, that's causing it. And honestly, if the country was working as it was intended, IE state's having more power to govern their own state, it would make more sense.

We have plenty of examples of countries with no EC, who have multiple parties. You see it throughout Europe, and it works quite well for them. They have a more-moderate approach to politics, are able to compromise far more easily, and you can actually witness proactive political discourse.

The issue with states being able to govern themselves sounds great on paper, until you get a state that really wants to stifle freedoms. A federalist system can be great, but it can also be very oppressive.

[jdbond592]

At this rate, how many years we are looking at, to purge all 100 million illegals (or is it 10?)?

[I Push Buttons]

Unfortunately for me, I will probably never support a winning presidential candidate. I'm fine with that, because I'd rather be right, than win.

Rather have a high opinion of your retarded ideological fantasy land than function in reality.*

Fixed that for you.

[Machismo]

Rather have a high opinion of your retarded ideological fantasy land than function in reality.*

Fixed that for you.

Well, I'm a big fan of being logically consistent, so yes, I to have a high opinion of myself.

I don't claim to be for small government, then press for more government in the next breath. I don't claim to be a liberal, then turn around and try to restrict personal freedoms, just because I don't like something. I don't compromise my values, just to try and get someone into office.

[niil945]

Federally enforced laws are enforced by federally funded agencies. That's what organizations like ICE do. They enforce the federal laws because the states are refusing to uphold them by reporting illegal activity to US Border Services and ICE. Every state is required to uphold federal law as well as state law, doing so should have repercussions for the state government.

No, actually, they aren't. They aren't responsible for ensuring that illegals are detained and deported. That's the jurisdiction of the federal government. They aren't funded to do it. They aren't funded to detain people for the federal government. And they aren't compensated for actions taken at the request of ICE that have financial costs associated. Hell that's a large part of why some places that refuse to do more than the bare minimum required by law regarding immigration take the stance they do. Saying otherwise doesn't actually make it so.

"In certain circumstances, Congress has expressly authorized states and localities to assist in enforcing federal immigration law. ... The ability of state and local police to make arrests for federal immigration violations is a subject of legal debate and conflicting jurisprudence.Sep 17, 2010"

Even among legal circles, it is debated about exactly who/how state and local authorities can involve themselves in the immigration process. The only unquestionable method at current is if a LEO arrests someone who is involved in breaking civil/criminal law and thus determine status of an individual in the course of their duties. The recently pardoned Sheriff who should be rotting in jail right now racially profiled and went after people solely to determine immigration status without any civil or criminal charges to enforce. He broke the law. Even still, they are not required by law to notify ICE. They are not required by law to detain someone.

[Moon-Man]

GOOD. If you are an illegal immigrant, GET THE FUCK OFF THE COUNTRY, you god damn leeches. Try migrate LEGALLY like the rest of us.

Also, jail people who made Safe cities. Ruin their lives.