Originally posted by Time-ImmemorialI'm not king of anything. You can choose to do whatever you want in regards to my comments. I am just giving my criteria.
Lol "I'm willing to listen to those arguments."Like who died and made this guy king.
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.
Originally posted by RobtardShut your whore mouth j/k 😛
Newjak being open to counter-ideas isn't a bad thing. It's a facet of proper debating.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?