• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sanctuary Cities

Are you for Sanctuary Cities?


  • Total voters
    66
  • Poll closed .
Guest worker programs already exist. My state uses guest workers every season. And I am all for tightening up enforcement on employers hiring illegals.




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.




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.





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.

i don't have a party. i have a party to vote against. as for DACA, that seems to be something that we all should be able to negotiate.
 
i don't have a party. i have a party to vote against. as for DACA, that seems to be something that we all should be able to negotiate.

It is the democrat party holding up DACA.
 
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.

Well said. Didn't agree with everything, but I agree about the naturalization. See we conservatives and liberals can get along.
 
Most people do not understand exactly what a "sanctuary" or safe city is. Please be more expansive in your reasoning....for instance, why do you disagree with the Fraternal Order of Police on the value of sanctuary cities?

Or is this poll just a knee jerk reaction experience?

I voted yes, because A) I like to help the police do their jobs; and B) because being undocumented is not a crime, it is a civil offense. Holding "captured" undocumented people is unconstitutional as courts have held time and again.

Look it up.
 
Nice try, however he did no such thing. He merely overturned an unconstitutional Obama executive order. DACA was never a piece of legislation. Trump put it in the hands of congress and the White House as it should be. DACA never existed legally.

yes, he did revoke DACA. i don't do alternate reality. if you want to visit that theme park, quote someone else. i don't play that game.
 
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?

"Consumer Report" is just another name for a background check. It's a combined credit check and criminal record check sort of deal. They can even look at your purchase history on your credit card, in some cases, depending on which company they go with to obtain your info.

And of course you have to give them written permission, which everyone is going to do because they need a job.

Technically they're supposed to dispose of the info once they're done with it but I find the whole thing untrustworthy. One of the things I'll never miss about living in the U.S. In Canada, that level of background check is only done for government, bank or security level jobs.
 
Are you for sanctuary cities?

Vote Yes or No.

Please give your reason(s) for your vote.
Totally opposed. The idea that people who entered our country illegally should receive protection from apprehension and prosecution is a total fubar. We need to focus our protection on people who are here legally - including LEGAL immigrants.
 
Are you for sanctuary cities?

Vote Yes or No.

Please give your reason(s) for your vote.

I would rather my city work to protect it's citizens, then protect criminals and put it's legal residences possibly in mortal danger.
 
Sanctuary cities don't make my Top-50 list of important political issues. Probably don't even make my top 100. :coffeepap

It's nothing more than a scare tactic to divert us away from the real problems that actually harm US citizens. I abstain from the ridiculous poll.

Actually it's a real problem for more than a few people. But if you're only reaction is to plug your ears and yell to block out the world. I would have to ask why you even felt it was necessary to voice your opinion in the first place, if you chose to abstain?
 
Are you for sanctuary cities?

Vote Yes or No.

Please give your reason(s) for your vote.

No. Sanctuary cities might could be a good thing if not for the fact that morons are making sanctuary cities havens of escape for criminals and thugs running from the law.
 
"Consumer Report" is just another name for a background check. It's a combined credit check and criminal record check sort of deal. They can even look at your purchase history on your credit card, in some cases, depending on which company they go with to obtain your info.

And of course you have to give them written permission, which everyone is going to do because they need a job.

Technically they're supposed to dispose of the info once they're done with it but I find the whole thing untrustworthy. One of the things I'll never miss about living in the U.S. In Canada, that level of background check is only done for government, bank or security level jobs.

just like many other things about Canada, that makes sense.
 
Most people do not understand exactly what a "sanctuary" or safe city is. Please be more expansive in your reasoning....for instance, why do you disagree with the Fraternal Order of Police on the value of sanctuary cities?

Or is this poll just a knee jerk reaction experience?

I voted yes, because A) I like to help the police do their jobs; and B) because being undocumented is not a crime, it is a civil offense. Holding "captured" undocumented people is unconstitutional as courts have held time and again.


So you see the same value of Sanctuary city policy because of the FOP view?

The nation’s largest police union, the Fraternal Order of Police, has issued a statement of support for President Trump’s action on sanctuary cities.

“The FOP has been very vocal on this issue and we’ve been adamant that local and state law enforcement agencies should always seek to cooperate with federal colleagues and vice versa,” Chuck Canterbury, national president of the FOP, said.

https://www.policemag.com/358773/fop-supports-trump-order-on-sanctuary-cities

The National Fraternal Order of Police, the largest law enforcement association in the country, which endorsed Trump in the election, has publicly opposed sanctuary cities and welcomed Trump's promise to crackdown on the policies.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...nt-agencies-across-the-country-are-split-over

Naturally the FOP does not want Trump to cut off their access to the public trough, the natural position of all public unions. However, they OBVIOUSLY don't see value in the sanctuary city policy of non-cooperation.

Now that you say you no longer support non-cooperation, welcome aboard.
 
There is simply a stark divide in the country. Those who view immigrants legal and illegal with sympathy and compassion and those who don't. There is a humanitarian crises in Central America. I support border security and the staffing and infrastructure needed to fairly and safely process those seeking asylum. I do not support a government that rejects those fleeing rampant gang and drug violence, inept government and law enforcement in Central America.
 
I voted yes. If someone is here, and working, paying taxes, sending their children to school, and being law-abiding residents, I have no problem with it.

And before those of you who disagree start screaming, "But they AREN'T law abiding!!" - their crime of crossing the border without papers is only a misdemeanor.

How many of you have been guilty of a misdemeanor? Before you say you haven't, you might want to look into it. I did, and was guilty of several. I smoked pot. I got drunk in public. I made out in the woods with my boyfriend.

Not everything is black and white.
 
There is simply a stark divide in the country. Those who view immigrants legal and illegal with sympathy and compassion and those who don't. There is a humanitarian crises in Central America. I support border security and the staffing and infrastructure needed to fairly and safely process those seeking asylum. I do not support a government that rejects those fleeing rampant gang and drug violence, inept government and law enforcement in Central America.

Well, I agree with that up to a point, Myview. Here is why I do not agree with the idea of Sanctuary Cities. First, Sanctuary Cities stand in opposition to the rule of law, and would undermine your desire for stronger border security; so long as people are able to get past the barriers know that as long as they are able to get to a safe zone in which they will be free from local prosecution, I think they will continue to do everything they can to get across the border to those sanctuary cities.

But let us discuss the idea of refugees. I am all for letting actual refugees into our country, fleeing from political violence and misery. However, I think that there must be a fact-finding process for determining whether someone is actually a refugee or not. When someone skips the line and runs to a Sanctuary City, we do not know whether they are a refugee. Second, not all refugees fleeing for their lives are good people. Just like members of the Nazi German SS who fled to South America after World War 2 were not good people even though they were genuinely fleeing for their lives, there are many people who come to the United States fleeing for their lives who are utterly monstrous. For example, an unreformed member of a Central American drug cartel whose group may have lost a turf war to another cartel may genuinely be fleeing for his or her life to the United States. Do we really want to have someone in our country whose only marketable skills are violence and intimidation?

The above scenario may sound eye-rollingly alarmist, but it is exactly what happened with the MS-13 drug gang. Illegal immigrants and the children of illegal immigrants (including ex-guerillas fighters) from El Salvador set up shop in the Pico Union and Korea Town district of Los Angeles in the 1970s and 1980s and started an even more vicious drug gang to rival the "native" drug gangs. All of which goes to my central thesis: Just because someone is a refugee genuinely fleeing for their lives does not mean they are a good person.
 
I am unwilling to attest to being "for" sanctuary cities, partly because I hate labels and party because I don't feel like researching to find out what exactly "sanctuary cities" means/implies and doesn't mean/imply. I am willing to articulate specific policies stances I hold.
  • Aside from during formally declared states of national (rather than regional) emergency and/or national martial law, I disapprove of state and local government LEO personnel/units performing task that are, by law, federal government personnel's job to perform. State officials must enforce state law, not federal laws. Federal officials must enforce federal laws, not state laws.
  • I don't think citizenship/immigration status is something that non-CPB/non-ICE employees-working-in-their-official-capacity have a right to ask and expect an answer in reply.
  • I don't mind state and local government units (SLGUs) informing the feds that an illegal immigrant has been arrested and charged with a felony. I wouldn't order SLGUs to do so; however, I wouldn't object to SLG policy makers implementing (in writing) and without exception enforcing a policy of doing so. If the feds, upon being notified, send someone to take custody of the apprehended illegal immigrant, well, that is is what it is, and if the feds do nothing, that to is what it is.
    • I haven't a clear stance on whether an apprehended and convicted illegal immigrant felon should be incarcerated in the US or deported; however, I lean toward deporting rather than incarcerating such individuals.
 
If our DP members are that concerned with undocumented workers I invite them to visit every restaurant west of the Rocky Mountains to deport half it's back of the house staff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
If our DP members are that concerned with undocumented workers I invite them to visit every restaurant west of the Rocky Mountains to deport half it's back of the house staff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why west of the Rockies? Are you saying back east has no undocumented food workers? :lamo
 
If our DP members are that concerned with undocumented workers I invite them to visit every restaurant west of the Rocky Mountains to deport half it's back of the house staff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

While they are at it, they should also visit every restaurant east of the Rockies as well. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom