• 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 .

trixare4kids

Trix has reentered the building.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2017
Messages
68,177
Reaction score
63,056
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Are you for sanctuary cities?

Vote Yes or No.

Please give your reason(s) for your vote.
 
Are you for sanctuary cities?

Vote Yes or No.

Please give your reason(s) for your vote.

Voted 'No". There should not be a sanctuary city for law breakers.
 
Are you for sanctuary cities?

Vote Yes or No.

Please give your reason(s) for your vote.

Under no circumstances am I FOR illegal immigration so I voted NO.
 
The fact that these cities operate illegally as SCOTUS sits is proof of the worthlessness of SCOTUS.
 
I voted no. They make a mockery of our laws. I feel so bad for immigrants who seek entry legally waiting patiently and following all the rules and then you have those who pour through our borders illegally and find sanctuary in some of our cities awarding them for not doing it legally.
 
Yes, in favor.
 
The fact that these cities operate illegally as SCOTUS sits is proof of the worthlessness of SCOTUS.

The SC has not yet had the opportunity to voice their opinion on the legality of sanctuary cities, but I cannot imagine them being for anything that goes against federal immigration law.
Trump tried to withhold funding from sanctuary cities and lost.
The 9th circuit federal court ruled against Trump on this matter because they said only congress can put conditions on federal funds.
“The United States Constitution exclusively grants the power of the purse to Congress, not the President,” wrote Chief 9th Circuit Judge Sidney R. Thomas, a Clinton appointee.

One would think one of our esteemed conservative congressmen would try to do what Trump couldn't legally get done. ::ehem::
 
No. Lock'em up!
 
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.
 
The SC has not yet had the opportunity to voice their opinion on the legality of sanctuary cities, but I cannot imagine them being for anything that goes against federal immigration law.
Trump tried to withhold funding from sanctuary cities and lost.
The 9th circuit federal court ruled against Trump on this matter because they said only congress can put conditions on federal funds.
“The United States Constitution exclusively grants the power of the purse to Congress, not the President,” wrote Chief 9th Circuit Judge Sidney R. Thomas, a Clinton appointee.

One would think one of our esteemed conservative congressmen would try to do what Trump couldn't legally get done. ::ehem::

SCOTUS can do what ever they wish, Rebel cities exist because they have so far allowed them to exist.
 
The fact that these cities operate illegally as SCOTUS sits is proof of the worthlessness of SCOTUS.

Link to SCOTUS declaring sanctuary cities illegal?

Besides the little problem that "sanctuary city" is not a well-defined term, mostly they seem simply to choose not to cooperate with the federal government where they are not legally required to cooperate.

I am unaware of any binding declaration that what they are doing is illegal. Jeff Sessions may have declared it illegal but last I saw he did not prevail in the courts.
 
I am not for sanctuary cities, so voted no.

local/State governments should support the federal laws.
 
The SC has not yet had the opportunity to voice their opinion on the legality of sanctuary cities, but I cannot imagine them being for anything that goes against federal immigration law.
Trump tried to withhold funding from sanctuary cities and lost.
The 9th circuit federal court ruled against Trump on this matter because they said only congress can put conditions on federal funds.
“The United States Constitution exclusively grants the power of the purse to Congress, not the President,” wrote Chief 9th Circuit Judge Sidney R. Thomas, a Clinton appointee.

One would think one of our esteemed conservative congressmen would try to do what Trump couldn't legally get done. ::ehem::

I think we give federal judges entirely too much power.
 
The Latin American communities are safer within them.

No, actually they are not, at least if you are referring to legal immigrants or latinos who are American citizens.
 
Under no circumstances am I FOR illegal immigration so I voted NO.

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.
 
No. Because it's harboring illegals which should be illegal.
 
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.


I'm with you.

Additionally, it gives us a moment to smile at erstwhile states righters flipping over to the side who say that when the federal government says jump the states should ask how high. Even if the law doesn't require said states to act.
 
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.
 
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.

So yes you support open borders and unlimited illegal immigration.
 
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.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom