Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Sanctuary Cities.

What is the boards stand on them?




http://www.pietalkpdx.com/pietalk/home_files/Coffee%20Talk%20-%20Discuss.jpg

They should lose all federal funding, San Fransisco first.

It should be against the law for "sanctuary cities" to exist.

Hate sanctuary cities. The whole country should just be welcoming to immigrants.

Originally posted by Surtur
It should be against the law for "sanctuary cities" to exist.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
They should lose all federal funding, San Fransisco first.



Agreed... and I read an article on AOL news yesterday that lawmakers were discussing doing exactly that to them. Let's hope it happens.

What happens if it happens? To the cause of the problem, i mean? Either in fact or in your opinion(s)?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hate sanctuary cities. The whole country should just be welcoming to immigrants.

25,000 Americans have been killed by illegal's and 75,000 women have been raped by illegal immigrants. Sounds like you stand for anarchy.

Originally posted by Star428
Agreed... and I read an article on AOL news yesterday that lawmakers were discussing doing exactly that to them. Let's hope it happens.

Another death report, does not matter to people like Bardock.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/21/mother-of-son-murdered-by-illegal-alien-slams-sanctuary-cities-politicians-your-silence-speaks-volumes/

Yes, that's right, I'm in favour of illegal immigrants killing people, that's my stance /s

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hate sanctuary cities. The whole country should just be welcoming to immigrants.

Yes, I believe a more welcoming attitude and options to contribute to the wealth of the country and to reap the rewards would decrease murders.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, I believe a more welcoming attitude and options to contribute to the wealth of the country and to reap the rewards would decrease murders.

How would allowing more people to come decrease murder and rape? This goes against all logic.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
How would allowing more people to come decrease murder and rape? This goes against all logic.

Changing the attitude towards immigration from Latin America and Mexico would improve the situation these immigrants are in, thereby making crime less desirable to them.

Rape is rape, you can't change mentality of people who are willing to do that. Don't you understand that?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Rape is rape, you can't change mentality of people who are willing to do that. Don't you understand that?

I completely disagree with that. Of course you can decrease rape, you can change people's attitudes and you can change their surroundings. People are not born good or evil, they develop influenced by their surroundings and react to the situations they are in.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I completely disagree with that. Of course you can increase rape, you can change people's attitudes and you can change their surroundings. People are not born good or evil, they develop influenced by their surroundings and react to the situations they are in.

I know you can increase rape by increasing the amount of illegals.

We agree.

How is letting illegals in lower their rape mentality. Do you realize how stupid this sounds.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I know you can increase rape by increasing the amount of illegals.

We agree.

How is letting illegals in lower their rape mentality. Do you realize how stupid this sounds.

I explained it in the last post.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I explained it in the last post.

Once they here, the surroundings are changed, your point is invalid.

Its easy for you to say these things, cause you don't have a flood of Russians invading your country.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Once they here, the surroundings are changed, your point is invalid.

Its easy for you to say these things, cause you don't have a flood of Russians invading your country.

Germany deals with immigration as well, and it's by no means perfect. At any rate, if people feel like they have no other way out they will lash out, that doesn't excuse it, but it explains it, and shows that it can be improved.

Do you have 10,000,000 illegals in your country that have killed 25,000 and raped 75,000 women?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I know you can increase rape by increasing the amount of illegals.

We agree.

How is letting illegals in lower their rape mentality. Do you realize how stupid this sounds.



Wouldn't bother arguing with him. He's just like all the idiots who make lame-ass excuses for people who loot and burn innocent peoples' businesses. Like the "Just doing what poor people do" excuse. Everybody who keeps making excuses for thugs' behavior sickens me.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Do you have 10,000,000 illegals in your country that have killed 25,000 and raped 75,000 women?



Exactly. It's easy for him and other foreigners to sit back, lecture, and criticize how we do things when they don't have to put up with the same shit we do.

Apologists are weak people.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, that's right, I'm in favour of illegal immigrants killing people, that's my stance /s
Dont think i implied that but, okay...

Originally posted by riv6672
Dont think i implied that but, okay...

Yeah, you didn't, TI (the guy my post followed) did.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, you didn't, TI (the guy my post followed) did.
Ah! Ignored+reading fast=confused as hell at response!

Still waiting on your answer before you were interrupted by an idiot.

Originally posted by Star428
Agreed... and I read an article on AOL news yesterday that lawmakers were discussing doing exactly that to them. Let's hope it happens.
So...cities lose funding.
Do the illegals get to stay? Does funding then depend on the city getting rid of them? How far can this be taken by the government?

I dont mean to derail what appears to be some great back and forth name calling, just curious.

Originally posted by Star428
Exactly. It's easy for him and other foreigners to sit back, lecture, and criticize how we do things when they don't have to put up with the same shit we do.

What is that called here when he does that? The "no you!?"

Originally posted by riv6672
So...cities lose funding.
Do the illegals get to stay? Does funding then depend on the city getting rid of them? How far can this be taken by the government?

I dont mean to derail what appears to be some great back and forth name calling, just curious.



Here ya go, riv:


http://www.aol.com/article/2015/07/21/congress-pursues-legislative-changes-following-pier-shooting/21212161/




I don't know anymore on the subject other than what that article lists. I had to go to a lot of trouble finding that article from yesterday again and then posting the long link here so I expect you to at least award me the "Poster of July 2015" award. I realize you will never give up "Poster of the year" though. LOL.

Again, can we stop with the posts that just attack other members without any constructive addition to the argument?

Sure as soon as those members stop trolling and baiting when it was not needed.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Do you have 10,000,000 illegals in your country that have killed 25,000 and raped 75,000 women? I'd like to see where you got these numbers from.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Sure as soon as those members stop trolling and baiting when it was not needed.

No-one here was trolling before it got personal.

Originally posted by Star428
Here ya go, riv:


http://www.aol.com/article/2015/07/21/congress-pursues-legislative-changes-following-pier-shooting/21212161/




I don't know anymore on the subject other than what that article lists. I had to go to a lot of trouble finding that article from yesterday again and then posting the long link here so I expect you to at least award me the "Poster of July 2015" award. I realize you will never give up "Poster of the year" though. LOL.
Hey thanks a lot, Star. This is a pretty interesting subject. And July is yours...

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
25,000 Americans have been killed by illegal's and 75,000 women have been raped by illegal immigrants. Sounds like you stand for anarchy.

Over how long a period of time do these numbers represent?

http://www.wnd.com/2006/11/39031/

"Twelve Americans are murdered every day by illegal aliens, according to statistics released by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa. If those numbers are correct, it translates to 4,380 Americans murdered annually by illegal aliens. That’s 21,900 since Sept. 11, 2001.

Total U.S. troop deaths in Iraq as of last week were reported at 2,863. Total U.S. troop deaths in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan during the five years of the Afghan campaign are currently at 289, according to the Department of Defense.

But the carnage wrought by illegal alien murderers represents only a fraction of the pool of blood spilled by American citizens as a result of an open border and un-enforced immigration laws.

While King reports 12 Americans are murdered daily by illegal aliens, he says 13 are killed by drunk illegal alien drivers – for another annual death toll of 4,745. That’s 23,725 since Sept. 11, 2001.

While no one – in or out of government – tracks all U.S. accidents caused by illegal aliens, the statistical and anecdotal evidence suggests many of last year’s 42,636 road deaths involved illegal aliens."

I also agree they should pass a "Kate's Law" to pull funding from these Sanctuary cities. Some might say it is wrong to do that, but it wouldn't have to be done if they actually enforced the laws in the first place.

I honestly wonder what these cities would do? Would they let their legal citizens suffer just so they can remain "sanctuaries" ? One would like to think they would not. Then again one would of liked to think something this extreme would of never been necessary.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No-one here was trolling before it got personal.

Riv was baiting/trolling, you ignored it.

Originally posted by Surtur
I also agree they should pass a "Kate's Law" to pull funding from these Sanctuary cities. Some might say it is wrong to do that, but it wouldn't have to be done if they actually enforced the laws in the first place.

I honestly wonder what these cities would do? Would they let their legal citizens suffer just so they can remain "sanctuaries" ? One would like to think they would not. Then again one would of liked to think something this extreme would of never been necessary.

Considering being a sanctuary city is illegal by federal law, I agree.

Obama could really leave office on a truly high note if he started getting laws to pull funding to these cities passed. Not to say he hasn't gotten stuff done already.

Either way we need these laws and not 5 years from now or 3 years from now. Even 1 year is too long.

Did you see the article I posted on the last page about the numbers?

Yeah the numbers are disturbing and here is what I don't even get about the mindset of some of these people: if I am here illegally I am not going to make waves or otherwise draw attention to myself. Yet some of them go out doing stuff like drinking and driving?

It's almost like these individuals who do this want to be deported. Or perhaps they just don't care because they know if deported they can just come right back again.

No accountability backed by a system that does nothing about it.

Now in that article it also says this at the end as to why a certain group opposes it:

"The group said the bill was too weak because it does nothing to address the federal government's release of tens of thousands of immigrants annually who've committed crimes."

Surely they must mean *legal* immigrants are released. But then these people are not breaking the law merely by just being here, so this is not an apt comparison.

The article is saying some also want a mandatory 5 year prison sentence for illegals who have already been deported once and re-enter. I 100% support this, as if we do not do that then we are just setting them free merely so they can come right back into the country again illegally. If we had done that the woman killed would still be alive.

Very true, what I don't get is why so many turn a blind eye to this in the case of amnesty.

What I do not understand is how the people involved still have jobs? They willingly break federal law, why haven't they just been replaced?

Originally posted by riv6672
Hey thanks a lot, Star. This is a pretty interesting subject. And July is yours...

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
http://www.wnd.com/2006/11/39031/

"Twelve Americans are murdered every day by illegal aliens, according to statistics released by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa. If those numbers are correct, it translates to 4,380 Americans murdered annually by illegal aliens. That’s 21,900 since Sept. 11, 2001.

Total U.S. troop deaths in Iraq as of last week were reported at 2,863. Total U.S. troop deaths in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan during the five years of the Afghan campaign are currently at 289, according to the Department of Defense.

But the carnage wrought by illegal alien murderers represents only a fraction of the pool of blood spilled by American citizens as a result of an open border and un-enforced immigration laws.

While King reports 12 Americans are murdered daily by illegal aliens, he says 13 are killed by drunk illegal alien drivers – for another annual death toll of 4,745. That’s 23,725 since Sept. 11, 2001.

While no one – in or out of government – tracks all U.S. accidents caused by illegal aliens, the statistical and anecdotal evidence suggests many of last year’s 42,636 road deaths involved illegal aliens."

Star just in cased you missed this.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Star just in cased you missed this.


Thanks. That's outrageous.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
http://www.wnd.com/2006/11/39031/

"Twelve Americans are murdered every day by illegal aliens, according to statistics released by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa. If those numbers are correct, it translates to 4,380 Americans murdered annually by illegal aliens. That’s 21,900 since Sept. 11, 2001.

Total U.S. troop deaths in Iraq as of last week were reported at 2,863. Total U.S. troop deaths in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan during the five years of the Afghan campaign are currently at 289, according to the Department of Defense.

But the carnage wrought by illegal alien murderers represents only a fraction of the pool of blood spilled by American citizens as a result of an open border and un-enforced immigration laws.

While King reports 12 Americans are murdered daily by illegal aliens, he says 13 are killed by drunk illegal alien drivers – for another annual death toll of 4,745. That’s 23,725 since Sept. 11, 2001.

While no one – in or out of government – tracks all U.S. accidents caused by illegal aliens, the statistical and anecdotal evidence suggests many of last year’s 42,636 road deaths involved illegal aliens." I find this number a little suspect at best.

Considering we don't know how those numbers were gotten. Also I find those numbers suspect because that is a third of the Americans killed in a year.

Originally posted by Star428
Thanks. That's outrageous.

Yea, what I don't get is how these people are allowed back in.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Yea, what I don't get is how these people are allowed back in.

They get back in because there is nothing to stop them. Other then the coyotes killing them if they can't pay.

Everyone that says they should be here, I'd like to see them invite them into their homes for sanctuary.

Originally posted by Newjak
I find this number a little suspect at best.

Considering we don't know how those numbers were gotten. Also I find those numbers suspect because that is a third of the Americans killed in a year.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/07/ illegal_aliens_murder_at_a_much_higher_rate_than_u
s_citizens_do.html


If TI wants to check this out as well

And here's one talking about how many offenders there are as well as problems and crimes (13 men gang raped and filmed a 13 year old girl for example)
http://www.constitutionparty.com/illegal-alien-crime-and-violence-by-the-numbers-were-all-victims/

Great article bran, thanks.

Originally posted by One Big Mob
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/07/ illegal_aliens_murder_at_a_much_higher_rate_than_u
s_citizens_do.html


If TI wants to check this out as well

And here's one talking about how many offenders there are as well as problems and crimes (13 men gang raped and filmed a 13 year old girl for example)
http://www.constitutionparty.com/illegal-alien-crime-and-violence-by-the-numbers-were-all-victims/ The first one doesn't work.

The second one is better.

My only problem with it is that the violent crime statistics are either estimates made by a Congressman or are biased sources such as Center for Immigration Studies.

Now because they are bias does not mean their numbers are wrong but I would definitely like official numbers from the government on illegal crime activities. Which when I try to look up violent crime numbers mostly I just find conservative organizations spewing the same numbers without any links or citations for their sources. That makes me raise an eyebrow that it is the same organizations continuing to say the same things and I can not even find anything close to verifying their numbers.

Originally posted by Newjak
The first one doesn't work.

The second one is better.

My only problem with it is that the violent crime statistics are either estimates made by a Congressman or are biased sources such as Center for Immigration Studies.

Now because they are bias does not mean their numbers are wrong but I would definitely like official numbers from the government on illegal crime activities. Which when I try to look up violent crime numbers mostly I just find conservative organizations spewing the same numbers without any links or citations for their sources. That makes me raise an eyebrow that it is the same organizations continuing to say the same things and I can not even find anything close to verifying their numbers.

Just out of curiosity..if you did somehow get confirmation the numbers were 100% legit what would your reaction be in terms of what should be done about illegal immigration?

Originally posted by Surtur
Just out of curiosity..if you did somehow get confirmation the numbers were 100% legit what would your reaction be in terms of what should be done about illegal immigration? IF, and at this point that is an extremely big if, Then most illegal immigrants are not violent offenders. Effort would need to be made to make sure that violent offenders are dealt with though. And changes would need to be made to make sure we can deal with them.

As it stands though those numbers are extremely suspect and most other things I have seen showcase that there have been no correlation between immigration into areas and increased crime on any meaningful level. As in they can not say that crime increases in an area because of immigration.

Originally posted by Surtur
Just out of curiosity..if you did somehow get confirmation the numbers were 100% legit what would your reaction be in terms of what should be done about illegal immigration?

The numbers are legit, multiple sources talk about the numbers. These people will never change their mind and if they did, it will be "put them in Ameican jail" so we can pay for it.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
The numbers are legit, multiple sources talk about the numbers. These people will never change their mind and if they did, it will be "put them in Ameican jail" so we can pay for it. I'm sorry time but some numbers from non-vetted sources is not great evidence to an entire movement on.

I mean how do you know they are legit?

Also Surtur ICE let go 36,000 illegal criminals, murders, sexual assaults, theft, and so one. One killed a public office. Guess what, they were not deported. They were just let go in the street.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Also Surtur ICE let go 36,000 illegal criminals, murders, sexual assaults, theft, and so one. One killed a public office. Guess what, they were not deported. They were just let go in the street.

Originally posted by Newjak
I'm sorry time but some numbers from non-vetted sources is not great evidence to an entire movement on.

I mean how do you know they are legit?

The news just isn't getting any better. This illegal raped a girl while free on bond.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/22/thanks-aclu-illegal-alien-allegedly-rapes-14-year-old-while-free-on-bond/

http://www.latimes.com/local/crime/la-me-sex-offender-immigration-20150721-story.html

Still don't get how these people have kept their jobs in San Francisco.

Originally posted by Newjak
IF, and at this point that is an extremely big if, Then most illegal immigrants are not violent offenders. Effort would need to be made to make sure that violent offenders are dealt with though. And changes would need to be made to make sure we can deal with them.

As it stands though those numbers are extremely suspect and most other things I have seen showcase that there have been no correlation between immigration into areas and increased crime on any meaningful level. As in they can not say that crime increases in an area because of immigration.

Fair enough, but what about these Sanctuary cities? Do you feel these cities have the right to tell the federal government to essentially piss off..and yet still expect funding? Isn't that a little ballsy, for them to not expect consequences?

For me that is like a man telling his wife he can cheat on her, but still expecting her to be faithful and getting all pissy at the mere suggestion he should have to be faithful if he expects faithfulness in return.

Obama said he would veto any legislation to defund sanctuary cities. Even though sanctuary cities are illegal by federal law.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Obama said he would veto any legislation to defund sanctuary cities. Even though sanctuary cities are illegal by federal law.



Well, that's a big surprise. LOL... NOT.


Of course, he would veto it. He wants to keep them all here so Hillary and other future dumbocrats will be assured of winning any Presidential elections. Those criminals is where most of their votes come from.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Obama said he would veto any legislation to defund sanctuary cities. Even though sanctuary cities are illegal by federal law.

Wow, this sounds like a sick joke. He has now sanctioned people with the right to break the law. Are you still giving Obama another chance?

I'm staying objective. I'm more wondering why no one else cares, actually worried. This is dictatorship of you ask me.

House just passed a bill 241-179, to punish sanctuary cities.

Originally posted by Surtur
Still don't get how these people have kept their jobs in San Francisco.



Fair enough, but what about these Sanctuary cities? Do you feel these cities have the right to tell the federal government to essentially piss off..and yet still expect funding? Isn't that a little ballsy, for them to not expect consequences?

For me that is like a man telling his wife he can cheat on her, but still expecting her to be faithful and getting all pissy at the mere suggestion he should have to be faithful if he expects faithfulness in return. Well any city or state can tell the government to go piss off. Of course that has always come with the known stipulation that federal funds would get caught off.

I am concerned about the notion of people being able to still demand federal funds though. Of course this is only allowed as long as the government is willing to go along with it. So while I am not totally against the idea of Sanctuary Cities I am concerned about the possible abuse/precedence that it could be hijacked for by other causes in name of equality. So it makes me weary.

Of course it still comes back to the government only allows it to happen but I could see that causing even more strife for cities and states that would want to abuse that system but are denied it.

Ultimately I think it is to early to tell what effect these cities are going to have. So perhaps a wait and see approach is best for now.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I'm staying objective. I'm more wondering why no one else cares, actually worried. This is dictatorship of you ask me. It's not a dictatorship because the veto is well within his rights as president to use. Now if Congress were to overturn his veto and he still went ahead with his objectives then I think you would have a case.

Originally posted by Surtur
Wow, this sounds like a sick joke. He has now sanctioned people with the right to break the law. Are you still giving Obama another chance?

Check this out

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/07/23/house-bill-sanctuary-cities/30581643/

It passed in house.

I'm glad it passed in house and I hope if Obama vetoes it Congress undoes it.

At its core this can be summed up real easy: this is about life versus quality of life. A shaman did not place a curse on various Mexican citizens that will literally kill them unless they get across the border. They come here to improve their quality of life. If Obama is against this it means he is favoring their quality of life..over the overall life of American citizens here legally that will no doubt be killed in the future, even if its just a small percentage of illegals doing this..if we stop even one death it is worth it and from the stats we know we won't stop just one death or rape, etc.

Now with the specific case with this Kate lady..the illegal should of never been released. There is *no* excuse and someone needs to be fired/sued over it. Actually you know what someone needs to be in jail over it, but that will never happen.

Also I would honestly just have them change the law instead of our friggin president basically saying "thumbs up on breaking that federal law". What does that say about our country if we have a President saying that? It's not like we want to be isolated, we just want people to come here legally.

Would it not be dictatorship to veto something that restricts funding that is already against federal law?

I don't know what you'd call it, but he'd be more or less officially saying it is okay to break federal law.

Why do I get the strange feeling though that this doesn't apply to all federal law?

We impeached Clinton because the dude lied about getting a blowjob and I find this much worse if Obama vetoes it. So much for the whole "will of the people" thing. It's the will of Obama.

It seems the laws have been torn up.

Originally posted by Surtur
I'm glad it passed in house and I hope if Obama vetoes it Congress undoes it.

At its core this can be summed up real easy: this is about life versus quality of life. A shaman did not place a curse on various Mexican citizens that will literally kill them unless they get across the border. They come here to improve their quality of life. If Obama is against this it means he is favoring their quality of life..over the overall life of American citizens here legally that will no doubt be killed in the future, even if its just a small percentage of illegals doing this..if we stop even one death it is worth it and from the stats we know we won't stop just one death or rape, etc.

Now with the specific case with this Kate lady..the illegal should of never been released. There is *no* excuse and someone needs to be fired/sued over it. Actually you know what someone needs to be in jail over it, but that will never happen.

Also I would honestly just have them change the law instead of our friggin president basically saying "thumbs up on breaking that federal law". What does that say about our country if we have a President saying that? It's not like we want to be isolated, we just want people to come here legally. Saying if immigration costs the life of even one American is a terrible argument in this case Surtur. By that logic there should be no immigration, legal or otherwise, to America ever because you can not guarantee they won't commit a violent crime. In fact there should be no new births in America either because any one of those children could grow up to commit a violent crime. Unless you want to say it's fine as long as it is only Americans killing other Americans. In fact you're more likely to be killed by an American than an illegal. So you shouldn't interact with an American. All Americans should be on house arrest.

Now I understand that I'm taking this slightly to the extreme but I feel you did that already. Statistically any group coming into or already in America has a percentage that will commit a violent crime. We can not currently get rid of all violent crime. Now I will admit that if the percentage of illegal immigrants committing violent offenses were high then something should be done about it. The problem is there is no reliable/credible evidence to support that claim currently.

So I'm not going to say one life is more important than another or that the people who have been negatively impacted by illegals should not seek justice. I'm just going to say that saying even if one life is taken we should do something about a group of people is not realistic to me. There is always going to be some form of crime at least in the foreseeable further.

To me this is not an issue of life vs quality of life. This is about how open and embracing America is to new groups of people wanting to come to our country. Should our immigration standards be more lax or more restrictive.

Now you could say that being open to illegals has caused more crime/poverty and that we need to be more restrictive until we find a way to handle these new elements. I'm willing to listen to those arguments as legitimate ones because they are not absolutes. They are within the realm of problem solving. And we can realistically ask how much violent crime is too much before we need to nix it. And like I said the notion of no additional violent crime is simply not a realistic one because anyone already in the country legally or not could break that standard.

Lol "I'm willing to listen to those arguments."

Like who died and made this guy king.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Lol "I'm willing to listen to those arguments."

Like who died and made this guy king. I'm not king of anything. You can choose to do whatever you want in regards to my comments. I am just giving my criteria.

And it doesn't involve unrealistic expectations surrounding group behavior so I think it is a more than reasonable way to look at the situation.

Never seen anyone use of the word "I" as much as when reading your posts.

Yawn

Newjak being open to counter-ideas isn't a bad thing. It's a facet of proper debating.

So Rob, do you think SF should be a sanctuary city. And do you think Obsma saying he is going to veto a law to close this loophole that is already against the law is dictatorship?

Originally posted by Robtard
Newjak being open to counter-ideas isn't a bad thing. It's a facet of proper debating. Shut your whore mouth j/k

I like to be open to new ideas, but when your statement is so unrealistic that it would shut down any type of communication from that point on what should I do.

When someone says if any illegals/immigrants commit a violent crime then all of them should be treated as violent offenders that needs to be dealt with. That seems like such a sensationalist statement that I have no idea where a compromise or discussion can go with a viewpoint like that. Where do you go from there?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So Rob, do you think SF should be a sanctuary city. And do you think Obsma saying he is going to veto a law to close this loophole that is already against the law is dictatorship?

I have no problem with Sanctuary cities, as I feel police officers shouldn't have a right to walk around and ask brown people for their citizenship status, it's discrimination.

iirc, the President can veto laws if he(she) feels they're illegal to begin with.

But it's against federal law to allow sanctuary cities in the first place.

Originally posted by Newjak
Shut your whore mouth j/k

I like to be open to new ideas, but when your statement is so unrealistic that it would shut down any type of communication from that point on what should I do.

When someone says if any illegals/immigrants commit a violent crime then all of them should be treated as violent offenders that needs to be dealt with. That seems like such a sensationalist statement that I have no idea where a compromise or discussion can go with a viewpoint like that. Where do you go from there?

Point and laugh at their nonsense?

Originally posted by Robtard
Point and laugh at their nonsense? Okay I could do that

"I" "I" "I"

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
But it's against federal law to allow sanctuary cities in the first place.

Actually, what is this law, can you name it and what it entails?

Illiegals shall be detained and deported. That's the law.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Illiegals shall be detained and deported. That's the law.

Yeah, that's not the same. Also, illegals get detained and deported from "sanctuary cities" too.

A "sanctuary city" is a city were a cop can't randomly (ie because you're brown) come up to you and ask for citizenship status.

How on earth did the guy that killed Kate slip through the cracks?

Originally posted by riv6672
Hey thanks a lot, Star. This is a pretty interesting subject. And July is yours...




I see your a man of your word, riv. Which probably rules out you being a democrat. Kudos to you!

I refer you to my anger translator, FlyAttractor...

Originally posted by Newjak
Saying if immigration costs the life of even one American is a terrible argument in this case Surtur. By that logic there should be no immigration, legal or otherwise, to America ever because you can not guarantee they won't commit a violent crime. In fact there should be no new births in America either because any one of those children could grow up to commit a violent crime. Unless you want to say it's fine as long as it is only Americans killing other Americans. In fact you're more likely to be killed by an American than an illegal. So you shouldn't interact with an American. All Americans should be on house arrest.

I don't see it as using the logic to say all immigration should be illegal. Those who enter the country legally I am pretty sure go through background checks, etc. Doesn't mean they can't still end up a criminal.

With illegals..we just do not know. We don't know who is a criminal and who is not until we get them into actual custody..and then we just let them go.



But for me this is about quality of life. They are saying it is worth allowing all these illegals to come in and go to Sanctuary cities because they will be able to have better lives.

Thing is, we can't prevent people from having babies. We can't always prevent legal citizens from committing crimes. We can, however, prevent deaths at the hands of illegals by not allowing Sanctuary cities to exist. This won't prevent people from entering the country, but it will prevent people from releasing illegals who have been deported FIVE TIMES already. Five times, there should of been no chance of releasing him and yet he was.



But I am more or less saying we need to be more restrictive. We can't prevent all illegals from coming here. We can try to prevent them from committing some crimes though, and getting rid of Sanctuary Cities would help. If San Francisco was not a Sanctuary city the woman who was killed would still be alive and with her family today. But because we allow these cities to exist...she is dead and she wasn't the first or last.

I feel we need to be a lot tougher by doing the following: zero tolerance on Sanctuary cities, period. They need to go. Pull ALL federal support from these places and place pressure on the state the city is located in to fix this damn mess. Mandatory jail time for any illegals who are picked up and have been previously deported, with sentences for those picked up who have committed actual crimes while here being double the amount of jail time they'd normally get. Better/more security on the border. Oh and fire anyone who is involved with releasing illegals from custody due to being in a Sanctuary city and do not ever let them hold government jobs again.

Thats pretty intense. Would definitely send a message.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yeah, that's not the same. Also, illegals get detained and deported from "sanctuary cities" too.

A "sanctuary city" is a city were a cop can't randomly (ie because you're brown) come up to you and ask for citizenship status.

That sounds like a good place to me.

Since this thread in a way has to do with illegal immigrants, thought I'd express this thought here:

Anyone seen the controversy with Kelly Osbourne? She was bashing Donald Trump and said something along the lines of "without illegals who will clean your toilets?" or something along those lines. Well, people flipped out..lost their shit, called her racist, called her ignorant.

I get it..but I don't get it. Isn't one very common defense of illegals the whole "they do jobs nobody else wants to do" ? I always hear this said, even by other latino's. Nobody labels them racist or ignorant. The only difference I see is Kelly named a specific shitty job with the cleaning toilets remark, but come on..when someone says "they will do the jobs nobody else will" they are more or less saying "they will do the shitty jobs nobody else will do".

So whether she is right or wrong, isn't Kelly just spouting the same shit she has heard others, including other latino's..spout? I don't mean random latino's online since you don't know their background, but you have educated Latino's I've seen giving interviews on CNN or other news places, who use more or less this same argument of "they do the jobs nobody else wants to do". It is not the only argument they use, mind you, but it DEFINITELY gets used a lot. So is the problem that she named a specific shitty job or just that she is white?

Originally posted by Knife
That sounds like a good place to me.

Agreed.

The kicker, those against "sanctuary cities" are often the very same people who cry about "big government" and intrusion on personal freedoms. At least in my experience.

Originally posted by Surtur
Since this thread in a way has to do with illegal immigrants, thought I'd express this thought here:

Anyone seen the controversy with Kelly Osbourne? She was bashing Donald Trump and said something along the lines of "without illegals who will clean your toilets?" or something along those lines. Well, people flipped out..lost their shit, called her racist, called her ignorant.

I get it..but I don't get it. Isn't one very common defense of illegals the whole "they do jobs nobody else wants to do" ? I always hear this said, even by other latino's. Nobody labels them racist or ignorant. The only difference I see is Kelly named a specific shitty job with the cleaning toilets remark, but come on..when someone says "they will do the jobs nobody else will" they are more or less saying "they will do the shitty jobs nobody else will do".

So whether she is right or wrong, isn't Kelly just spouting the same shit she has heard others, including other latino's..spout? I don't mean random latino's online since you don't know their background, but you have educated Latino's I've seen giving interviews on CNN or other news places, who use more or less this same argument of "they do the jobs nobody else wants to do". It is not the only argument they use, mind you, but it DEFINITELY gets used a lot. So is the problem that she named a specific shitty job or just that she is white?

Not heard of this. But she expressed her point in a poor fashion.

Originally posted by Robtard
Agreed.

The kicker, those against "sanctuary cities" are often the very same people who cry about "big government" and intrusion on personal freedoms. At least in my experience.

To be fair aren't they talking about the government intruding in on legal citizens?

If you want to say "it prevents them from approaching brown people and asking them to prove citizen status" the problem is that is not all they do. They do shit like..refuse to deport people they know are illegal. You say they deport some illegals from these cities, but that isn't good enough. They should be deporting them all, not letting some go.

I don't want a cop to be able to come up to random people on the street and do that. But I also don't want a city to say "no" when it comes to deporting known illegals.

UcWQVQzLvHg

A harsh way of dying. Quick blow to the head with a hammer and then raping of nearly dead old woman. Its time to send them packing!