Has California's "Sanctuary State" status ruined the state?

[mrdeltoid]

I guess states rights only applies to former Confederate states. Oh wait, did I say "former"? Forget that, they ARE Confederate states.
Every other state is supposed to ignore states rights and just run THEIR states the Confederate way.

I AGREE! We SHOULD do exactly that, starting by cutting off ALL money to Confederate states immediately.
That's OUR state's "states rights", we should not be under any obligation whatsoever to pay for their food stamps, welfare, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods and sinkholes.

I think that all blue states should cut off the folks in Jesusland starting with the new year.

Maybe you can start here.

California, with its suffocating cost of living and huge population, is home to an inordinate number of households receiving public assistance. In fact, with $103 billion going toward welfare, the Golden State's spending on the financially needy is more than the next two on the list combined.

 

[mrdeltoid]

Isn't California regularly cited as the 5th largest economy in the world. As in, stacked up against whole countries?



"ruined?" Well, if it is ruined - if you anti-immigration people are correct - then why don't you just sit back and wait to enjoy the shadenfreude when those Hated Liberals in CA turn hard right on immigration.

Don't hold your breath, since I don't think you will end up celebrating. Or maybe hold your breath. Whatever. Your choice. But do stop squawking about doom and gloom in CA.

Why do you "liberals always conflate Illegal Immigration with "immigration. They are 2 different things.

 

[Mr Person]

California has the most restrictive gun laws in the country. You can't rank any higher than #1. BUT, they are a "sanctuary state". There are many illegals who commit no more crime that the average citizen. There are also many that come here for criminal reasons. So, California is using every tool beside gun confiscation in the "Gun Control" tool box. Give them an "A" for effort on that issue. On the issue of Illegal aliens, that commit crimes from ID theft to murder, that have been deported multiple times, they have open arms. Do the math. If you wanted to cross the border to rape and murder, which state would you choose?

BTW, I live in Baltimore, Maryland. Another hot bed for gun hating democrats. Guess where we rank in gun violence?

One state of 50 having restrictive gun laws does little.

Truth be told, little would happen even if all 50 states switched to even stricter ones, as a mere function of the number of guns already in the U.S., both legally and illegally.

And of course, even stricter ones wouldn't really work in many cases given the robust (and correct, I think, after actually reading and using it in legal briefs I drafted) decisions in Heller and McDonald. (Ok, McDonald is different. If you agree with 14th Amd due process incorporation doctrine, then that was right. If you hate incorporation, you won't like McDonald any more than Gideon or Mapp)

Anyway, that's all academic. Incorporation happened, the bill almost entirely applies. (But weirdly, not quite all of it). The 2nd is broad. So there's only so much regulation that can be passed and for the most part, it won't prevent things. That's all true. But that's also where I part with gun lovers.

It remains still true that if things had been done differently over history, we could have had a much narrower 2nd, much fewer guns, and we would have a whole lot less gun violence. It's a lot less personal than having to stab or beat someone to death. It's a lot easier to pull a trigger, especially with suicide. Hence, other countries may have varying comparable rates of overall violence, but far less guns per capita AND gun violence per capita.

But what's done is done on that front. Gun control is largely a waste of time.




But anyway....to respond to something earlier in your exchange with him: it is absolutely true that illegals commit violent crime at a lower rate than do American citizens. That's simply true. Operation of simple mathematics and logic - I'm not being facetious here - dictates, yes dictates, that the following is true: whatever harms may be said to result from the presence of illegals may be, they do not include an increase the rate of violent crimes. They water it down, actually, because we're so damn good at beating, maiming, and killing each other.

Of all the reasons to want tough immigration law, that's one of the worst to put forth.





Focus on employers, you get the most bang for the buck. Focus on walls and it's beyond stupid. A 2-3k mile wall won't stop anyone but grandpas unless it's manned by tens, no 100,000 or more people. That alone requires enormous expenditure. Add on the all the infrastructure to house, feed, transport, refuel, etc, them. It'd be like maintaining a line across the entire north of Africa against some imaginary foe in the south of that line...but probably worse.

A functional wall is cost-prohibitive, as is functional deportation. Focus on the employers if you mean it.

 

[Mr Person]

Isn't California regularly cited as the 5th largest economy in the world. As in, stacked up against whole countries?



"ruined?" Well, if it is ruined - if you anti-immigration people are correct - then why don't you just sit back and wait to enjoy the shadenfreude when those Hated Liberals in CA turn hard right on immigration.

Don't hold your breath, since I don't think you will end up celebrating. Or maybe hold your breath. Whatever. Your choice. But do stop squawking about doom and gloom in CA.

Why do you "liberals always conflate Illegal Immigration with "immigration. They are 2 different things.

Ah, one of those "you liberals" labeler.

I'm guessing that means it was a massive waste of time for me to type the following response to one of your other posts:

One state of 50 having restrictive gun laws does little.

Truth be told, little would happen even if all 50 states switched to even stricter ones, as a mere function of the number of guns already in the U.S., both legally and illegally.

And of course, even stricter ones wouldn't really work in many cases given the robust (and correct, I think, after actually reading and using it in legal briefs I drafted) decisions in Heller and McDonald. (Ok, McDonald is different. If you agree with 14th Amd due process incorporation doctrine, then that was right. If you hate incorporation, you won't like McDonald any more than Gideon or Mapp)

Anyway, that's all academic. Incorporation happened, the bill almost entirely applies. (But weirdly, not quite all of it). The 2nd is broad. So there's only so much regulation that can be passed and for the most part, it won't prevent things. That's all true. But that's also where I part with gun lovers.

It remains still true that if things had been done differently over history, we could have had a much narrower 2nd, much fewer guns, and we would have a whole lot less gun violence. It's a lot less personal than having to stab or beat someone to death. It's a lot easier to pull a trigger, especially with suicide. Hence, other countries may have varying comparable rates of overall violence, but far less guns per capita AND gun violence per capita.

But what's done is done on that front. Gun control is largely a waste of time.




But anyway....to respond to something earlier in your exchange with him: it is absolutely true that illegals commit violent crime at a lower rate than do American citizens. That's simply true. Operation of simple mathematics and logic - I'm not being facetious here - dictates, yes dictates, that the following is true: whatever harms may be said to result from the presence of illegals may be, they do not include an increase the rate of violent crimes. They water it down, actually, because we're so damn good at beating, maiming, and killing each other.

Of all the reasons to want tough immigration law, that's one of the worst to put forth.





Focus on employers, you get the most bang for the buck. Focus on walls and it's beyond stupid. A 2-3k mile wall won't stop anyone but grandpas unless it's manned by tens, no 100,000 or more people. That alone requires enormous expenditure. Add on the all the infrastructure to house, feed, transport, refuel, etc, them. It'd be like maintaining a line across the entire north of Africa against some imaginary foe in the south of that line...but probably worse.

A functional wall is cost-prohibitive, as is functional deportation. Focus on the employers if you mean it.

Honestly, this forum would be way better if there were just several people on each of the sides of an issue who genuinely wanted to dig in, understand, and discuss it. Instead it's you didn't say the talking point I heard when I was watching TV earlier, you {noun}.

 

[Casca XV]

That's a pile of malarky and you know it. It wasn't "conservatives" who ended segregation and passed civil rights legislation.

Actually It was the GOP that made the 1965 Civil Right act happen. JFK and LBJ may have jumped on the band wagon after it became a clear political advantage but it was Republicans in the Senate and Congress that pushed it through.

LBJ was probably the most racist President in US History, but he was also among the first to see that Traditional Racism was no longer a winning tactic. In selling the Civil Rights act to other Democrats he said "I'll have those N**gers voting Democrat for the next 200 years. That is what got Leftist Democrats using Racial Identity Politics.

 

[Casca XV]

1. Nice back step. When you say that "liberals" have made California into a "S**T Brown state" it's painfully obvious that you're not talking about the color of the hills in the summer.

California has a stronger economy than any other state of the union: bigger, more diverse, more robust.

No Back Step, you are the one who associated "S**T Brown" with Hispanics not me.

I made it very clear that "S**t Brown" describes the condition Leftist like you have put Cali in.

Strong economy? California has the highest poverty rate in the US. California and NY together are about 16% of the US population and yet they use well over 50% of welfare, food stamps and other entitlements.

 

[Casca XV]

And, as an aside, I am neither the subject of the conversation nor am I a "liberal," at least not by any rational definition.

I said "Left" not "Liberal" I try to never use "Liberal" to describe the "Left" because up until about the time of FDR it described the opposite of what it does today.

The fundamental difference between todays Left and Right is that: Left Leaning people have a Collectivist mindset and Right leaning people have an Individualist mindset. Everything else is incidental.

From this and other threads it is very clear that you are a 100% Leftist.

The Left relies on propaganda and a powerful propaganda tactic is changing the meaning of words.

"Liberal" used to describe an Open Minded Individualist. The Left in a effort the get away from being called Socialists slowly hijacked the term until eventually it described the Close minded Collectivists that Modern Liberals are today.

"Classical Liberal" and "Libertarian" are the terms the Right replaced "Liberal" with.

The Left is currently making efforts to steal the term "Libertarian." You are a perfect example, calling yourself "Libertarian" is either ignorant or deceptive. In either case you look like a fool doing it.

 

[mrdeltoid]

One state of 50 having restrictive gun laws does little.

Truth be told, little would happen even if all 50 states switched to even stricter ones, as a mere function of the number of guns already in the U.S., both legally and illegally.

And of course, even stricter ones wouldn't really work in many cases given the robust (and correct, I think, after actually reading and using it in legal briefs I drafted) decisions in Heller and McDonald. (Ok, McDonald is different. If you agree with 14th Amd due process incorporation doctrine, then that was right. If you hate incorporation, you won't like McDonald any more than Gideon or Mapp)

Anyway, that's all academic. Incorporation happened, the bill almost entirely applies. (But weirdly, not quite all of it). The 2nd is broad. So there's only so much regulation that can be passed and for the most part, it won't prevent things. That's all true. But that's also where I part with gun lovers.

It remains still true that if things had been done differently over history, we could have had a much narrower 2nd, much fewer guns, and we would have a whole lot less gun violence. It's a lot less personal than having to stab or beat someone to death. It's a lot easier to pull a trigger, especially with suicide. Hence, other countries may have varying comparable rates of overall violence, but far less guns per capita AND gun violence per capita.

But what's done is done on that front. Gun control is largely a waste of time.




But anyway....to respond to something earlier in your exchange with him: it is absolutely true that illegals commit violent crime at a lower rate than do American citizens. That's simply true. Operation of simple mathematics and logic - I'm not being facetious here - dictates, yes dictates, that the following is true: whatever harms may be said to result from the presence of illegals may be, they do not include an increase the rate of violent crimes. They water it down, actually, because we're so damn good at beating, maiming, and killing each other.

Of all the reasons to want tough immigration law, that's one of the worst to put forth.





Focus on employers, you get the most bang for the buck. Focus on walls and it's beyond stupid. A 2-3k mile wall won't stop anyone but grandpas unless it's manned by tens, no 100,000 or more people. That alone requires enormous expenditure. Add on the all the infrastructure to house, feed, transport, refuel, etc, them. It'd be like maintaining a line across the entire north of Africa against some imaginary foe in the south of that line...but probably worse.

A functional wall is cost-prohibitive, as is functional deportation. Focus on the employers if you mean it.

If you read through my posts, I support going after employers of illegals, along with border enforcement. Obviously a continuous wall isn't needed and isn't what Trump wants. BUT, walls where useful, such as sector Yuma and San Diego, and surveillance, towers and drones etc. Border Patrol in those areas state that illegal crossing dropped by 90%. Here are some ICE Stats.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...e-from-2009/&usg=AOvVaw1a-Mcj1Q9zTjhsb8M5Cq57

"In 2017, nearly nine-in-ten ICE arrests in the Los Angeles area (88%), which covers much of Southern California, were of those with past criminal convictions. This was the highest share of any ICE area of responsibility. In all ICE areas, considerable majorities of arrests were for those with prior convictions; the Newark area (which covers all of New Jersey) was lowest, with 60% criminal arrests."

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...v/statistics&usg=AOvVaw1-CSbcg6VwXsFJDsl9SnQC

" Despite numerous stories and allegations in the media falsely accusing ICE of conducting indiscriminate raids and sweeps, the fact is that 92% of all aliens arrested by ICE this year had criminal convictions, pending criminal charges, were an immigration fugitive, or were an illegal re-entrant."
"

 

[Dittohead not!]

No Back Step, you are the one who associated "S**T Brown" with Hispanics not me.

I made it very clear that "S**t Brown" describes the condition Leftist like you have put Cali in.

Strong economy? California has the highest poverty rate in the US. California and NY together are about 16% of the US population and yet they use well over 50% of welfare, food stamps and other entitlements.

Yes, strong economy, opportunities for all. If the State of California were more collectivist, then perhaps there wouldn't be so much disparity of wealth.

At any rate, placing political philosophy on a one dimensional left to right continuum is simplistic and inaccurate. Moreover, terms like left, right, liberal, conservative, etc. have different meanings for different people.

Judging from the disparity of wealth in the golden state, it is pretty right wing, but then, that's all according to how you define the terms.

Have you ever taken the Political Compass quiz? It at least gives you a two dimensional model of politics. Personally, I think there are three, just like in the real world, but that's just me.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

California has the most restrictive gun laws in the country. You can't rank any higher than #1. BUT, they are a "sanctuary state". There are many illegals who commit no more crime that the average citizen. There are also many that come here for criminal reasons. So, California is using every tool beside gun confiscation in the "Gun Control" tool box. Give them an "A" for effort on that issue. On the issue of Illegal aliens, that commit crimes from ID theft to murder, that have been deported multiple times, they have open arms. Do the math. If you wanted to cross the border to rape and murder, which state would you choose?

BTW, I live in Baltimore, Maryland. Another hot bed for gun hating democrats. Guess where we rank in gun violence?

Actually no, we don't have the most restrictive gun laws in the country. California's Castle Doctrine ranks on par with Texas.
I have every bit as much right to legally shoot an unwelcome intruder in my home or business as any person in Texas.
There is no "duty to retreat" law and I am not required to prove that I was acting in self defense, the prosecution has to prove that I wasn't.

Where it becomes problematic is in the carry laws. California is a "may issue" state, which is of course, a misnomer because that means it "might not issue" and that the decision rests with the various county sheriffs. In a lot of Northern California counties, and in counties with low population, your chances of getting a concealed carry permit is actually pretty good if you pass the background checks, it's in L.A. County where your chances are nil, and you probably won't get a CCW in San Francisco County either.

Gun purchasing is indeed strictly regulated however a law abiding citizen should not have any difficulty. I sure didn't.
The problem is California seems to believe that restricting certain TYPES of guns, mags and ammo will help the problem.
Chances are pretty good that in the next few years they will learn the frustrating reality that such restrictions accomplish nothing.
I'm pretty confident that at least some of these restrictions will be eased, and so will concealed carry permitting.

I am also confident that California will revisit the sanctuary laws and make it easier to turn criminals over to ICE in the near future.
Remember, we are a referendum state, so action may occur at any time.

 

[PeteEU]

California has the most restrictive gun laws in the country. You can't rank any higher than #1. BUT, they are a "sanctuary state". There are many illegals who commit no more crime that the average citizen. There are also many that come here for criminal reasons. So, California is using every tool beside gun confiscation in the "Gun Control" tool box. Give them an "A" for effort on that issue. On the issue of Illegal aliens, that commit crimes from ID theft to murder, that have been deported multiple times, they have open arms. Do the math. If you wanted to cross the border to rape and murder, which state would you choose?

You just dont get it..

1) This man is a gangbanger as you stated, something I did not realize when I first read the reports. Far far far from every illegal are gangbangers but that is exactly what the pro gun lobby and Trump want you to think. Being a known violent criminal kinda makes this situation very different.

2) The common problem is GUNS and SO MANY ****ING GUNS! Had this not been a gangbanger, then the illegal would still have rather easily gotten hold of a gun.

I could care less if California has "restrictive" gun laws.. they dont. You can still own a ****ing machine gun and that is a problem Restrictive gun laws means less guns legally in the hands of ordinary people. Now in this case of course restrictive gun laws probably would not have done jack ****, since he is a freaking gangbanger so any discussion is mute.

So we are back to his illegal status. If the GOP and anti-illegal morons had not become so moronic and hardheaded on the issue, then they could have come to a compromise.

An illegal who has been in the US for a while and not commited a crime, should have the ability to earn a green card if he or she is gainfully employed.

Illegals with criminal records.. wait that means the government had them in custody and did not deport them? But why oh why? Let me guess, you gonna blame the relatively new "sanctuary city/state" crap for that as well right? Funny that this has been going on for decades, and NOTHING was done about it when the GOP had full control both in states affected or on federal level.

And how about hitting down HARD on companies that employ illegals? No one does that!

No Trump and his gestapo want a wall. Fine, build one but then do it RIGHT. 5 meters tall full concrete from coast to coast. 300 meters minefield in front of the wall. 2 to 3 KMs no mans land behind the wall. 24/7 fully occupied guard towers every 100 meters and ever km a guard post with mobile forces. 24/7 drone and air cover. You make the US-Mexico border into something North Korea would be jealous of. Then you will have an effective way of stopping the few that actually go over the border illegally (something like 70% of illegals are there on expired visas). All this will cost, and it will be far higher than the 5 billion Trumpbaby wants.. more like 100 billion with a yearly budget of many billions to maintain a border force 24/7. On top of that comes of course all the high tech stuff.

BTW, I live in Baltimore, Maryland. Another hot bed for gun hating democrats. Guess where we rank in gun violence?

Yea I have seen the Wire.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Illegals with criminal records.. wait that means the government had them in custody and did not deport them? But why oh why? Let me guess, you gonna blame the relatively new "sanctuary city/state" crap for that as well right? Funny that this has been going on for decades, and NOTHING was done about it when the GOP had full control both in states affected or on federal level.

Actually you have hit on the crux of the problem, in that California has statutes on the books that actually prevent local law enforcement from turning anyone over to ICE, or rather, from even notifying ICE, that they have someone in custody. The state needs to modify that statute so that if their suspect has a criminal background, particularly if they have been deported before, so that ICE can be notified AND be able to pick them up and process them. Once that has happened, the suspect can be incarcerated, held over for trial, convicted, sentenced, incarcerated and then deported again.

I again express confidence that Californians will revisit this issue and will probably mount a referendum to fix this.
The signs are appearing now which indicate that this is likely to happen. Watch this space.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

Isn't California regularly cited as the 5th largest economy in the world. As in, stacked up against whole countries?



"ruined?" Well, if it is ruined - if you anti-immigration people are correct - then why don't you just sit back and wait to enjoy the shadenfreude when those Hated Liberals in CA turn hard right on immigration.

Don't hold your breath, since I don't think you will end up celebrating. Or maybe hold your breath. Whatever. Your choice. But do stop squawking about doom and gloom in CA.

In Upsidedownworld, if CA seceded it would drive most of the US into Depression-era squalor... not gonna convince righty's of anything other than their talking-points, however. Even if it happened.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

In Upsidedownworld, if CA seceded it would drive most of the US into Depression-era squalor... not gonna convince righty's of anything other than their talking-points, however. Even if it happened.

In Upsidedownworld, if CA, OR, WA, NY, and the collection of all the blue states surrounding them all seceded...

 

[PeteEU]

Actually you have hit on the crux of the problem, in that California has statutes on the books that actually prevent local law enforcement from turning anyone over to ICE, or rather, from even notifying ICE, that they have someone in custody. The state needs to modify that statute so that if their suspect has a criminal background, particularly if they have been deported before, so that ICE can be notified AND be able to pick them up and process them. Once that has happened, the suspect can be incarcerated, held over for trial, convicted, sentenced, incarcerated and then deported again.

I again express confidence that Californians will revisit this issue and will probably mount a referendum to fix this.
The signs are appearing now which indicate that this is likely to happen. Watch this space.

And why is that? Because the GOP and their crusade against the Spanish speaking world. There are easy fixes for all this, but when one side is refusing to be pragmatic, then I too would put in so much legal crap to prevent that their point of view would be implemented.

As I have stated many times.. I do not like illegal economic migrants. They should automatically be sent back over the border. But when the problem has grown to the state it has in the US (and yes in parts of Europe), and the fixes are relatively easy.. but one side especially but lets say all sides in the political sphere, refuse to compromise or even attempt to fix the problem in a pragmatic humane way... then well.

For example:

Have a national ID card, that is hard to copy. Other countries do it, so why not get one? Hey that card would also be a requirement for voting, so that "problem" would be fixed on top of it. Make it biometric given at birth! Without this national ID card/ID you cant function in society.. no drivers license, no healthcare, no banking (including transfer of money abroad) and so on. But noo, such a strong ID would be "un-American" right?

There are pragmatic fixes, that do not involve wasting 5 billion dollars on a wall.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

And why is that? Because the GOP and their crusade against the Spanish speaking world. There are easy fixes for all this, but when one side is refusing to be pragmatic, then I too would put in so much legal crap to prevent that their point of view would be implemented.

As I have stated many times.. I do not like illegal economic migrants. They should automatically be sent back over the border. But when the problem has grown to the state it has in the US (and yes in parts of Europe), and the fixes are relatively easy.. but one side especially but lets say all sides in the political sphere, refuse to compromise or even attempt to fix the problem in a pragmatic humane way... then well.

For example:

Have a national ID card, that is hard to copy. Other countries do it, so why not get one? Hey that card would also be a requirement for voting, so that "problem" would be fixed on top of it. Make it biometric given at birth! Without this national ID card/ID you cant function in society.. no drivers license, no healthcare, no banking (including transfer of money abroad) and so on. But noo, such a strong ID would be "un-American" right?

There are pragmatic fixes, that do not involve wasting 5 billion dollars on a wall.

There isn't even any need for a so-called "national ID card" because individual states need only comply with the Real ID criteria and then each state can simply put a biometric type imprint in each person's state issued ID or driver's license, with a small US flag in one corner.
If you're a legal resident, YOUR ID or driver's license wouldn't have the US flag in the corner, an automatic indication that you're not a US citizen, same for undocumenteds who get a license.

The tiny American flag in the corner of the ID or license would function as that state's version of the national ID, and would be part of the Real ID system. So it's really very simple, it's just that too many states are standing on ceremony and acting as if even that is too much an intrusion on their "sovereignty". I'm sure you can guess which states those are. California driver licenses which are issued to undocumented persons already lack the federal approval symbol, thus such a driver's license is ONLY good for DMV use only, and is not valid as federally approved ID.

The Real ID system has already had some impact because if your license or state ID isn't in compliance with Real ID, because it affects your ability to board federally regulated aircraft or gain entry to some federal facilities, and it impacts border crossings. There are also other impacts too numerous to list here.

 

[Acadia]

I don't thinks migrants are a problem. I do think that illegal immigrants has a negative effect on a state though. In a microcosm, the recent tragedy where that police officer was killed is a prime example. The officer, was an immigrant from Fiji, who worked very hard and came here the correct way, even taking extra classes so as to help him be better understood on the police radio. The killer was an illegal, and was stopped because he had no license plates on his car, and gunned down the cop in cold blood. One of many preventable deaths and crimes committed by illegals that shouldn't be here in the first place. Why do you think the democrat party want to keep this kind of thing going? Isn't legally migrating to our country good enough?

Great post. I think the more pointed question is, "Why is legally migrating to our country NO LONGER good enough FOR DEMOCRATS"?.

I think the answer is self evident, and it's two-fold. First, this is about importing votes for the Dems and keeping them here. Second, it's about the Dem's ongoing 3-year old tantrum with involved opposing and defying everything Trump wants, including and especially, perhaps his most important promise to the Americans who elected him; border enforcement and the wall.
Now, we ALL know it's not a wall, but a wall system. Further, we know Trump's assurances that Mexico would pay for the wall are not going to come to fruition, at least not in the way most understood. But who cares? Our need for funding the wall system remains and if Mexico isn't going to pay for it, America needs to.
America is giving 10 BILLION to Mexico and South America, but Dems won't give 5 Billion to fund the wall.
In fact, now, they won't give a penny.

You have to wonder how little Democrats care about American citizens.

 

[Acadia]

I said "Left" not "Liberal" I try to never use "Liberal" to describe the "Left" because up until about the time of FDR it described the opposite of what it does today.

The fundamental difference between todays Left and Right is that: Left Leaning people have a Collectivist mindset and Right leaning people have an Individualist mindset. Everything else is incidental.

From this and other threads it is very clear that you are a 100% Leftist.

The Left relies on propaganda and a powerful propaganda tactic is changing the meaning of words.

"Liberal" used to describe an Open Minded Individualist. The Left in a effort the get away from being called Socialists slowly hijacked the term until eventually it described the Close minded Collectivists that Modern Liberals are today.

"Classical Liberal" and "Libertarian" are the terms the Right replaced "Liberal" with.

The Left is currently making efforts to steal the term "Libertarian." You are a perfect example, calling yourself "Libertarian" is either ignorant or deceptive. In either case you look like a fool doing it.

Great post. Thank you.
I think a big distinguishing feature which sets apart the classic liberal from the leftist is tolerance. The former having it (along with an open mind) and the latter eschewing it in favor of this increasingly stringent demand for purity, recently codified by "intersectionality" which awards points for victimhood and cult-like acceptance of turning every social norm on its head.
As you alluded to, the leftists/progressives/socialists have been effectively mounting a campaign to co-opt language, re-define terms, restrict speech and even coerce speech.
Never seen anything like it in my life.

 

[mrdeltoid]

Actually no, we don't have the most restrictive gun laws in the country. California's Castle Doctrine ranks on par with Texas.
I have every bit as much right to legally shoot an unwelcome intruder in my home or business as any person in Texas.
There is no "duty to retreat" law and I am not required to prove that I was acting in self defense, the prosecution has to prove that I wasn't.

Where it becomes problematic is in the carry laws. California is a "may issue" state, which is of course, a misnomer because that means it "might not issue" and that the decision rests with the various county sheriffs. In a lot of Northern California counties, and in counties with low population, your chances of getting a concealed carry permit is actually pretty good if you pass the background checks, it's in L.A. County where your chances are nil, and you probably won't get a CCW in San Francisco County either.

Gun purchasing is indeed strictly regulated however a law abiding citizen should not have any difficulty. I sure didn't.
The problem is California seems to believe that restricting certain TYPES of guns, mags and ammo will help the problem.
Chances are pretty good that in the next few years they will learn the frustrating reality that such restrictions accomplish nothing.
I'm pretty confident that at least some of these restrictions will be eased, and so will concealed carry permitting.

I am also confident that California will revisit the sanctuary laws and make it easier to turn criminals over to ICE in the near future.
Remember, we are a referendum state, so action may occur at any time.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...g/scorecard/&usg=AOvVaw0SfZFDBLZRN0A63LTjH8tb

This link ranks all 50 states. Cali is #1. May issue is a ridiculous law. Shall issue is what we need. If you are a law abiding citizen in a shall issue state, if you ask for a CCW they SHALL issue it. May issue, like we have here in the peoples republic of Maryland, you have to prove you need a gun to exercise your 2nd amendment right. May issue is a joke. Most people here can't obtain one, in one of the deadliest cities in the country. I am glad Cali is a referendum state, and hope you all can save it. When I was stationed there in '74 it was beautiful. I loved it. Most of my platoon were Hispanic citizens that were proud Americans. Some of the best friends I ever had. To me legal immigration = good, illegal immigration=bad. Happy new year my friend!eace

 

[mrdeltoid]

You just dont get it..

1) This man is a gangbanger as you stated, something I did not realize when I first read the reports. Far far far from every illegal are gangbangers but that is exactly what the pro gun lobby and Trump want you to think. Being a known violent criminal kinda makes this situation very different.

2) The common problem is GUNS and SO MANY ****ING GUNS! Had this not been a gangbanger, then the illegal would still have rather easily gotten hold of a gun.

I could care less if California has "restrictive" gun laws.. they dont. You can still own a ****ing machine gun and that is a problem Restrictive gun laws means less guns legally in the hands of ordinary people. Now in this case of course restrictive gun laws probably would not have done jack ****, since he is a freaking gangbanger so any discussion is mute.

So we are back to his illegal status. If the GOP and anti-illegal morons had not become so moronic and hardheaded on the issue, then they could have come to a compromise.

An illegal who has been in the US for a while and not commited a crime, should have the ability to earn a green card if he or she is gainfully employed.

Illegals with criminal records.. wait that means the government had them in custody and did not deport them? But why oh why? Let me guess, you gonna blame the relatively new "sanctuary city/state" crap for that as well right? Funny that this has been going on for decades, and NOTHING was done about it when the GOP had full control both in states affected or on federal level.

And how about hitting down HARD on companies that employ illegals? No one does that!

No Trump and his gestapo want a wall. Fine, build one but then do it RIGHT. 5 meters tall full concrete from coast to coast. 300 meters minefield in front of the wall. 2 to 3 KMs no mans land behind the wall. 24/7 fully occupied guard towers every 100 meters and ever km a guard post with mobile forces. 24/7 drone and air cover. You make the US-Mexico border into something North Korea would be jealous of. Then you will have an effective way of stopping the few that actually go over the border illegally (something like 70% of illegals are there on expired visas). All this will cost, and it will be far higher than the 5 billion Trumpbaby wants.. more like 100 billion with a yearly budget of many billions to maintain a border force 24/7. On top of that comes of course all the high tech stuff.



Yea I have seen the Wire.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...ICE-20052014&usg=AOvVaw0X9hecXXfq2RZNy8h3v0yO

"For more than 10 years, ICE's Operation Community Shield has targeted transnational criminal organizations and criminal aliens involved in street gangs. One of the most notorious of these is MS-13, which was originally formed in Los Angeles by illegal alien thugs from El Salvador, but now operates across the United States and across international borders.
Over a 10-year period (2005-2014) ICE arrested approximately 4,000 MS-13 members, leaders, and associates. This represents about 13 percent of all gang members they arrested nationwide (31,000) during that period.
92 percent of the MS-13 affiliated aliens arrested were illegal aliens. Of those, 16 percent had entered illegally at least twice.
Just over half of the MS-13 affiliated aliens ICE arrested were citizens of El Salvador. Among the others, 16 percent were Hondurans, 14 percent were Mexicans, and 8 percent were Guatemalans.
While MS-13 affiliated aliens made up 13 percent of all the arrests, they accounted for 35 percent of the murderers arrested by ICE."


And these are the ones they caught. This is a huge problem over here. Doesn't it seem natural to want to protect our citizens?

 

[veritas1]

Oh boy another 'Blue States sux' thread. Trumpsters seem to have an awful inferiority complex.. Maybe they all have small 'hands' like their leader.

Anyway California has the 5th largest economy in the world!!!

Game-Set-Match...

That's not an answer. CA has had the 5th or 6th largest economy in the world for years and years. The issue is what happens going forward and what is happening is illegal aliens pouring in, taxpaying citizens leaving, businesses leaving, homelessness rising, poverty rising and the middle class disappearing. CA is going to be divided between the elites (Silicon Valley, wealthy farming areas, Hollywood) and the poor. They are killing the goose that laid the golden egg and are either too dumb or ideologically driven to understand.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

That's not an answer. CA has had the 5th or 6th largest economy in the world for years and years. The issue is what happens going forward and what is happening is illegal aliens pouring in, taxpaying citizens leaving, businesses leaving, homelessness rising, poverty rising and the middle class disappearing. CA is going to be divided between the elites (Silicon Valley, wealthy farming areas, Hollywood) and the poor. They are killing the goose that laid the golden egg and are either too dumb or ideologically driven to understand.

Republicans have been threatening a John Galt moment in California for forty years.

 

[veritas1]

Republicans have been threatening a John Galt moment in California for forty years.

The forthcoming misery in CA will be delivered by its progressives and their wacky policies. It takes a lot to sink a fabulously wealthy state but they are making great strides.

 

[mrdeltoid]

Great post. I think the more pointed question is, "Why is legally migrating to our country NO LONGER good enough FOR DEMOCRATS"?.

I think the answer is self evident, and it's two-fold. First, this is about importing votes for the Dems and keeping them here. Second, it's about the Dem's ongoing 3-year old tantrum with involved opposing and defying everything Trump wants, including and especially, perhaps his most important promise to the Americans who elected him; border enforcement and the wall.
Now, we ALL know it's not a wall, but a wall system. Further, we know Trump's assurances that Mexico would pay for the wall are not going to come to fruition, at least not in the way most understood. But who cares? Our need for funding the wall system remains and if Mexico isn't going to pay for it, America needs to.
America is giving 10 BILLION to Mexico and South America, but Dems won't give 5 Billion to fund the wall.
In fact, now, they won't give a penny.

You have to wonder how little Democrats care about American citizens.

The dems want the "New World Order". To be "citizens of the world". They don't want or believe in American exceptionalism. They want to control every phase of life with government. They hate being the so called "bully" in the world. Since illegals cost us billions every year, the measly 5 billion Trump wants will MORE than pay for it. Remember, these guys think that middle America are a bunch of hay seeds in "fly over country". They've lived in that coastal elite echo chamber their whole life. That's why they were so stunned when Trump won. Everybody they know, and every TV show they watched thought Hillary was gonna win in a land slide. Their shock has turned into a 2 year temper tantrum and running. This won't let up until Trump resigns or is impeached or voted out. Some are already sharpening their knives for Pence. Buckle up my friend.

 

[veritas1]

The dems want the "New World Order". To be "citizens of the world". They don't want or believe in American exceptionalism. They want to control every phase of life with government. They hate being the so called "bully" in the world. Since illegals cost us billions every year, the measly 5 billion Trump wants will MORE than pay for it. Remember, these guys think that middle America are a bunch of hay seeds in "fly over country". They've lived in that coastal elite echo chamber their whole life. That's why they were so stunned when Trump won. Everybody they know, and every TV show they watched thought Hillary was gonna win in a land slide. Their shock has turned into a 2 year temper tantrum and running. This won't let up until Trump resigns or is impeached or voted out. Some are already sharpening their knives for Pence. Buckle up my friend.

The really fun part is going to be watching their apoplexy when Trump is neither impeached nor resigns. Then they'll have to scramble to find somebody who can win in 2020. Watching 20 or more of them squabbling and trying to outdo each other with Trump hate ought to make for must-see TV.:2razz: