Sanctuary Cities

[Amelia]

So yes you support open borders and unlimited illegal immigration.

LOL. Yeah, sure, that's what he said.

You've got quite the arm, throwing that all the way from the back of left field.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

LOL. Yeah, sure, that's what he said.

You've got quite the arm, throwing that all the way from the back of left field.

what he wrote was a dog whistle for saying he fully supports these. The question was

Are you for sanctuary cities?

Vote Yes or No.

Please give your reason(s) for your vote.

none of that had anything to do with how it should have been a priority or not.

So answering that was is an effort to show support for sanctuary cities without directly acknowledging it.

 

[Winston]

No, actually they are not, at least if you are referring to legal immigrants or latinos who are American citizens.

The data says otherwise.

 

[Helix]

Of course you support Reagan amnesty, you want millions of new D voters. The problem is, the last time we made an amnesty the democrats stabbed us in the back on building border security and now they've made it clear they won't even consider more border enforcement and a wall even for amnesty. they want amnesty only. E-verify solves nothing since employers now hiring illegals know they are already and the democrats would make sure no one gets prosecuted for not doing it. we need over 30 years of consistent and strict enforcement before amnesty is even considered.

i don't agree with you.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

i support a real immigration solution like Everify for every job from dishwasher to CEO with a migrant worker program as well as a Reagan amnesty. as it stands now, i support sanctuary cities. if we enact a real solution, i might not.

When Reagan agreed to the amnesty, it came with a promise from both parties that border control would be delivered in return. Border control did not follow. That's why a comprehensive immigration bill runs into a brick wall. Nobody trusts congress to deliver on border control.

 

[Amelia]

what he wrote was a dog whistle for saying he fully supports these. The question was



none of that had anything to do with how it should have been a priority or not.

So answering that was is an effort to show support for sanctuary cities without directly acknowledging it.

Aside from your assumption about his support for sanctuary cities, even if he was for sanctuary cities that doesn't justify you claiming he is for "open borders and unlimited illegal immigration".

I've seen enough of your posts though. You're a big one for putting words in others' mouths.

Carry on.

 

[trixare4kids]

We should require that our police honor ICE deportation detainers.
Proponents of sanctuary city policies are complicit when illegals who should be deported remain and commit future crimes.
One can't say they are against Illegal Immigration, and closed borders and also support sanctuary cities. It just doesn't wash....


Sheriff blames sanctuary law for California officer’s death

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A suspected drunken driver accused of killing a California police officer who pulled him over was captured Friday as he tried to flee back to Mexico, where he lived before illegally crossing into the U.S., authorities said.

The sheriff leading the investigation blamed California’s sanctuary law for preventing local authorities from reporting Gustavo Perez Arriaga to U.S. immigration officials for two previous drunken driving arrests. If he had been deported, the sheriff said, Cpl. Ronil Singh of the tiny Newman Police Department would still be alive.

“We can’t ignore the fact that this could have been preventable,” Stanislaus County Sheriff Adam Christianson told reporters, asking why the state was “providing sanctuary for criminals (and) gang members. It’s a conversation we need to have.”

 

[Northern Light]

i support a real immigration solution like Everify for every job from dishwasher to CEO with a migrant worker program as well as a Reagan amnesty. as it stands now, i support sanctuary cities. if we enact a real solution, i might not.

I don't really support that level of government intrusion into every facet of life, including such low level labor jobs.

Even though illegal workers are a problem, I don't support that level of expansion of power to stop it.

 

[Hawkeye10]

We should require that our police honor ICE deportation detainers.
Proponents of sanctuary city policies are complicit when illegals who should be deported remain and commit future crimes.
One can't say they are against Illegal Immigration, and closed borders and also support sanctuary cities. It just doesn't wash....


Sheriff blames sanctuary law for California officer’s death

Unions act in union or else they die, it is as simple as that.

Sadly not very many people can do this sort of higher order thinking anymore.

 

[Helix]

When Reagan agreed to the amnesty, it came with a promise from both parties that border control would be delivered in return. Border control did not follow. That's why a comprehensive immigration bill runs into a brick wall. Nobody trusts congress to deliver on border control.

if we enact a solution that allows people to come here to do jobs that you aren't going to do and fine every corporation and contractor who skirts the rules out of existence, that will go a long way to address this issue. until then, i support sanctuary cities. i also look forward to a return to DACA once Trump has been expelled from the White House after the next election, assuming that democrats can actually be bothered to show up and field a viable candidate. that's a big if, though.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

i don't agree with you.

but of course you have no arguments. Because what I have said is factually true

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

The data says otherwise.

Which data is that? A cherry picked opinion poll?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Aside from your assumption about his support for sanctuary cities, even if he was for sanctuary cities that doesn't justify you claiming he is for "open borders and unlimited illegal immigration".

I've seen enough of your posts though. You're a big one for putting words in others' mouths.

Carry on.

No, I simply do not tolerate people trying to BS others. If you make a big show out of sanctuary cities not being a priority on a poll where literally the only question is "do you support sanctuary cities" it's because you do not wish to publicly support what you clearly support.

 

[Helix]

I don't really support that level of government intrusion into every facet of life, including such low level labor jobs.

Even though illegal workers are a problem, I don't support that level of expansion of power to stop it.

eh, i have had to jump through eight million hoops to get a job. piss, blood, full criminal background check, "consumer history" (whatever the **** that is,) physical; the works. Everify pales in comparison to that.

 

[Amelia]

No, I simply do not tolerate people trying to BS others. If you make a big show out of sanctuary cities not being a priority on a poll where literally the only question is "do you support sanctuary cities" it's because you do not wish to publicly support what you clearly support.

Even if he supports sanctuary cities that is not the same as supporting "open borders and unlimited illegal immigration".

Period.

And LOL at you not tolerating people trying to BS others. Not very self-aware of you to say that.

 

[Helix]

but of course you have no arguments. Because what I have said is factually true

i disagree with this statement, as well.

 

[Northern Light]

eh, i have had to jump through eight million hoops to get a job. piss, blood, full criminal background check, "consumer history" (whatever the **** that is,) physical; the works. Everify pales in comparison to that.

FWIW I don't agree with those kinds of intrusions either. They are draconian.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

eh, i have had to jump through eight million hoops to get a job. piss, blood, full criminal background check, "consumer history" (whatever the **** that is,) physical; the works. Everify pales in comparison to that.

checking your credit to make sure you're not a deadbeat who doesn't pay their bills.

You know full well your political party will make sure employers don't need to e-verify because if they did that would contribute to lower numbers of illegal aliens to amnesty to make voters.

They have never tried to pass an e-verify bill that wasn't attached to an amnesty.

 

[Helix]

FWIW I don't agree with those kinds of intrusions either. They are draconian.

i agree with you there. the fact that i have no choice but to comply pisses me off. i mean, what the **** is a "consumer history" check for when you're going to be doing bench work in a lab? do they think that i'm going to embezzle pipette tips?

 

[Helix]

checking your credit to make sure you're not a deadbeat who doesn't pay their bills.

i'm not, but a lot of unemployed people are. should they not have a chance to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps?"

You know full well your political party will make sure employers don't need to e-verify because if they did that would contribute to lower numbers of illegal aliens to amnesty to make voters.

i don't have a party. i have a party to vote against, and only one viable choice with which to do that due to our political system.

They have never tried to pass an e-verify bill that wasn't attached to an amnesty.

i support an amnesty, just like Reagan.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

i don't agree with you.

Who would have known that Ronald Reagan wanted extra Democratic voters, especially the illegal alien kind, because well, you know, millions of people who snuck in here illegally are bound to sneak into a poll and vote.

This nonsense gets stupider and stupider the more I listen to it.
I'm a liberal who doesn't mind the sanctuary city statutes, just as long as persons with a criminal background get charged, held till trial, tried, convicted and incarcerated, then deported afterwards.
But people who aren't committing crimes but who might have questionable statuses don't bother me.
To those already here, if they are willing to pay a fine, and have some kind of contribution to make and learn at least basic English, I support them getting a path to legal residency.
After that, they have to go through the naturalization process the regular way.
I support transitioning our system to a more merit based one, in a series of steps that gradually place a kind of bar that prospective arrivals have to meet or surpass. That done, the system should be fair, accessible and equitable.
I support border security, however I do not think some 25 billion dollar wall will give us that at all.

 

[Helix]

Who would have known that Ronald Reagan wanted extra Democratic voters, especially the illegal alien kind, because well, you know, millions of people who snuck in here illegally are bound to sneak into a poll and vote.

This nonsense gets stupider and stupider the more I listen to it.
I'm a liberal who doesn't mind the sanctuary city statutes, just as long as persons with a criminal background get charged, held till trial, tried, convicted and incarcerated, then deported afterwards.
But people who aren't committing crimes but who might have questionable statuses don't bother me.
To those already here, if they are willing to pay a fine, and have some kind of contribution to make and learn at least basic English, I support them getting a path to legal residency.
After that, they have to go through the naturalization process the regular way.
I support transitioning our system to a more merit based one, in a series of steps that gradually place a kind of bar that prospective arrivals have to meet or surpass. That done, the system should be fair, accessible and equitable.
I support border security, however I do not think some 25 billion dollar wall will give us that at all.

seems reasonable enough, or at least a good idea for a negotiation to some common ground solution. it sucks that we all can't seem to do that anymore. i hope that i live past this era, because it is intellectually frustrating.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
checking your credit to make sure you're not a deadbeat who doesn't pay their bills.

i'm not, but a lot of unemployed people are. should they not have a chance to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps?"

Credit scores as a condition of employment should not be allowed, this is discrimination against poor people.
California has banned most routine employer credit checks for that specific reason.

California employers may use a prospective employee or job applicant's credit report during the hiring process only when the candidate is being considered for:

• A managerial position.
• A position in the state Department of Justice, as a sworn peace officer or other law enforcement position.
• A position for which the information contained in the report is required by law to be disclosed or obtained.
• A position that involves regular access to sensitive personal information, for any purpose other than the routine solicitation and processing of credit card applications in a retail establishment.
• A position in which the person is, or would be a named signatory on the bank or credit card account of the employer, authorized to transfer money on behalf of the employer or authorized to enter into financial contracts on behalf of the employer.
• A position that involves access to confidential or proprietary information or trade secret.
• A position that involves regular access to cash totaling ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or more.

If a prospective employer is requiring a credit check as part of the pre-screening process, he or she must provide written notice as to which exception applies.

I support credit checks as a condition of apartment/house rental or purchase, but it should not be a bar to getting a job.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

if we enact a solution that allows people to come here to do jobs that you aren't going to do and fine every corporation and contractor who skirts the rules out of existence, that will go a long way to address this issue.

Guest worker programs already exist. My state uses guest workers every season. And I am all for tightening up enforcement on employers hiring illegals.

until then, i support sanctuary cities.

That is in conflict with your support for enforcing penalties against employers who hire illegals. if you support sanctuary cities, then you support illegal immigration.

i also look forward to a return to DACA

Your party had it's chance on DACA. Trump offered it for funding for the border wall. Schumer proved that if actual border enforcment comes with DACA, then DACA is not that important to him.

once Trump has been expelled from the White House after the next election, assuming that democrats can actually be bothered to show up and field a viable candidate. that's a big if, though.

If the democrats keep fighting border enforcment, Trump will cruise easily to re-election. and once again, DACA is still possible under Trump, however the democrats do not want to give in on anything for it. As for the democrat field I think they look much like the overloaded GOP field.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

seems reasonable enough, or at least a good idea for a negotiation to some common ground solution. it sucks that we all can't seem to do that anymore. i hope that i live past this era, because it is intellectually frustrating.

There's plenty of wiggle room. Unlike some, I am not expecting to get everything I want, so I am open to negotiation, as evidenced by the fact that I already have changed my position since becoming a regular on DP to that of supporting a more merit based system.
Prior to being a regular here I did not support merit based immigration at all, but I learned that most countries have some sort of merit system, so no reason why we shouldn't do the same, at least to some extent.

Candidates need to have at least some basic marketable skills. It makes sense.