Convince me I am wrong

[OrphanSlug]

Yes, they do. Crossing the border illegally IS a crime.


Still harboring lawbreakers...


Still harboring lawbreakers...


Exactly. They are harboring lawbreakers...

You need to look up the legal term for harboring then.

 

[srexob715]

You need to look up the legal term for harboring then.

Thats too far above his education level.

 

[gfm7175]

Let me try to explain. If you support trump everything is a witch hunt and he has broken no laws. All these career people who work in law and order are just plain crazy and don't know what they are talking about. It's all a big conspiracy.

Not interested in your bigotry... I'll try one more time:

List the Constitutional language and explain why he is in violation of it...

 

[RaleBulgarian]

And I don't talk to people who post incoherent garbage......but it does make me laugh at them. Lmao

What do you find incoherent?

As expected, no response. Your comment was nothing more than a feeble reflexive defense to being slapped down for posting a vague (idiotic) question.

BTW - You may want to ease up on the “Lmao”. If your ass falls off, your head will go with it.

 

[joko104]

Lastly, during the 1930s there were a lot of German families that were guilty of harboring criminals. The German government at the time considered their ethnicity alone to be a crime. They said the Jews were coming to Germany from other places, undermining their culture and taking their jobs. Sound familiar?

Ethnicity is not a crime in the USA, illegal immigrants are not taken to death camps, and the rationale was NOT that the Jews were "coming to Germany from other places, undermining their culture and taking their jobs."

 

[joko104]

Its clear you are just not smart enough. Lmao

A personal attack is not debating.

 

[manofknowledge]

Sanctuary cities are actually guilty of harboring criminals. That is against the law. If a private citizen did it they would be arrested.

You clearly don't understand what a sanctuary city is. They don't harbor criminals they just don't turn people over to immigration officials. To harbor is to provide home or shelter. Immigration officials operate freely in sanctuary cities and can arrest anyone the choose to.

 

[Logical1]

Sanctuary cities and states feel that they are taking the moral high road.

They feel that they are following the example of Northern states before the Civil War that refused to return runaway slaves.

Like it or not, the federal government (under President Trump or a President Biden) will NOT try to stop those sanctuary cities and states. There are simply too many people who support those cities and states.

If I had my druthers, I would cut off all federal money to those cities and states, but that simply is never going to happen.

Moral to protect criminals??????????? How quaint.

 

[Logical1]

Here's a well written explanation of why Logical 1 is wrong with some information on why TheParser is correct (but maybe not for the reasons he was thinking);
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...are-violating-the-law/?utm_term=.b7c1ed2649d1

You might as well quote Ronald McDonald as the Washington Post. They are both clowns.

 

[Logical1]

We have a president who every day in office is breaking the law but I'm not hearing any complaints from the right about that. You guys long ago lost the right to claim you are the party of law and order.

Give us an example of what laws the President broke yesterday and the day before.

 

[Deuce]

Give us an example of what laws the President broke yesterday and the day before.

Emoluments clause

 

[RaleBulgarian]

You might as well quote Ronald McDonald as the Washington Post. They are both clowns.

Your purely biased disdain for WaPo aside, before grabbing your happy meal and running off to the ball pit, you ought to read the article (with corroborative links to laws referenced). Facts don’t lie and they won’t bite you either.

 

[Fishking]

Again, the emoluments clause from day one.

Ah...I figured that would be what you'd say. It's one of the common claims. You do understand the difference between business transactions and gifts, right? The emoluments clause is about gifts being given, not about people staying in one of his hotels (i.e. money exchanged for services).

Do you have an example that fits the clause? Because just saying "emoluments clause", without siting a specific example, doesn't mean anything. So what we have here is what I continue to point out, vacuous comments devoid of specifics.

 

[Fishking]

Its clear you are just not smart enough. Lmao

Lmao. Try again......its entertaining the smart people. Lmao

You sound like Trump.

 

[bongsaway]

Give us an example of what laws the President broke yesterday and the day before.

The emoluments clause for the fifth time, each and every day he's in office starting from day one.

 

[bongsaway]

Ah...I figured that would be what you'd say. It's one of the common claims. You do understand the difference between business transactions and gifts, right? The emoluments clause is about gifts being given, not about people staying in one of his hotels (i.e. money exchanged for services).

Do you have an example that fits the clause? Because just saying "emoluments clause", without siting a specific example, doesn't mean anything. So what we have here is what I continue to point out, vacuous comments devoid of specifics.

Ok I'm wrong and that's why a judge let the case proceed because the judge is wrong also.

 

[Fishking]

Ok I'm wrong and that's why a judge let the case proceed because the judge is wrong also.

Judges have been wrong a lot, very wrong, in fact. I mean...you had a judge stop Trump from stopping a program that the previous President, Obama, put in place (i.e. DACA). It's utterly ridiculous to block a President from basically doing the same thing the previous one did.

There are a lot of **** judges out there. I know you're OK with that, being a progressive and all.

 

[bongsaway]

Judges have been wrong a lot, very wrong, in fact. I mean...you had a judge stop Trump from stopping a program that the previous President, Obama, put in place (i.e. DACA). It's utterly ridiculous to block a President from basically doing the same thing the previous one did.

There are a lot of **** judges out there. I know you're OK with that, being a progressive and all.

Is a crap judge in your opinion one who disagrees with your outlook? I would much rather be a progressive than the opposite of a progressive. It's not 1959 where father knows best any more.

 

[Cardinal]

Sanctuary cities are actually guilty of harboring criminals. That is against the law. If a private citizen did it they would be arrested.

Private citizens are not cities or city officials, and are therefore different. Ambulance drivers are not treated the same under the law as private citizens, which is why they can drive through intersections even if the light is red. If you believe that the cities themselves are in violation of the law, then you need to provide a statute or code that specifically forbids them from enacting sanctuary policies.

 

[OscarLevant]

Sanctuary cities are actually guilty of harboring criminals. That is against the law. If a private citizen did it they would be arrested.

Sanctuary cities are actually guilty of harboring criminals. That is against the law. If a private citizen did it they would be arrested.

You are factually incorrect.

The term "sanctuary city" is a city that has a policy of not informing immigration dept if an undoc calls the police for help when they are victims of a crime.

If there is no sanctuary policy, then criminals can commit crimes against undocs with impunity, which is cruel.

There is no 'sanctuary' when immigration officials raid such areas, because even with the policy, ICE, for example, they are not disallowed from doing their jobs, it's just that the policy takes away a local policeman's ability to report undocs, and even then only if a crime is being committed against an undoc. A SC policy is enacted to give undocs courage to report criminal activity without fear of being deported. If someone reports to immigration that there are undocs in a given area, the SC policy will not stop immigration from doing it's job.

The moniker "sanctuary city" is misleading.

And yes, certain governors who allow this policy in certain cities, are definitely more friendly to undocs than others.

In CA, we have a labor shortage in the fields, and some farmers are having trouble getting produce to market. so, I dont have a problem with undocs wanting to do this work, and we need a works program for them, if we don't already have it. It's clear that, because of Trump, the produce problem is getting worse.

https://money.cnn.com/2018/06/15/news/economy/california-farmer-workers-immigration/index.html

 

[Fishking]

Is a crap judge in your opinion one who disagrees with your outlook? I would much rather be a progressive than the opposite of a progressive. It's not 1959 where father knows best any more.

Since progressives don't believe in the Constitution, I'm sure you do. That way you can get those de facto constitutional amendments in there via the judicial system instead of doing the proper way, because you know most people don't want that garbage.

 

[SoCal]

Sanctuary cities and states feel that they are taking the moral high road.

They feel that they are following the example of Northern states before the Civil War that refused to return runaway slaves.

Like it or not, the federal government (under President Trump or a President Biden) will NOT try to stop those sanctuary cities and states. There are simply too many people who support those cities and states.

If I had my druthers, I would cut off all federal money to those cities and states, but that simply is never going to happen.

I disagree with your remedy, but your analysis is correct. Numnuts has had two years to do as you would like, but like you say, it isn't going to happen.

The Repubs will be disappointed just like they will be when they don't get their wall...

 

[OscarLevant]

What other laws do you consider not criminal to break?

Parking in the white zone at the airport for longer than 3 minutes. Oh, there are many one could list, but one might wonder why you would even ask, have you not thought the question through?

 

[TheParser]

But this only removes resources from tracking down murderers, rapists, thieves, etc.

Those cities and states should have a choice.


1. Take federal money; use it for "tracking down murderers, rapists, thieves, etc."; and cooperate completely with ICE.

2. Refuse to cooperate with ICE and receive NO federal money to track down those bad guys.


a. In my opinion, elected officials who truly care about their fellow Americans would choose No. 1.

 

[OscarLevant]

Well see...you failed in your opening statement, building it on a false premise. They are, by definition, not private citizens. They are, in fact, people who either entered the country illegally or overstayed their visa, illegally. That act, itself, is a crime.

If you park in a loading zone marked for commercial vehicles, which is against the law, you, by your logic, are a criminal.


If you consider a class B misdemeanor a crime. I don't. ( class B misdemeanor is for first time crossers, and visa overstays are an infraction. iel., not considered a crime, and the only penalty is deportation ).


The bottom line here is that many on the right are hiding behind technicalities of law to rationalize their xenophobia and hatred of brown people.