State Rep. Michelle DuBois made a stink the other day saying to constituents that they should avoid an ICE raid.
There’s something like 300 sanctuary cities in the US, many of which are now facing federal fund cuts for doing so.
I’m surprised the dope hasn’t had a thread on this, or really commented, but I suspect it’s because the majority here think the idea of sanctuary cities is a good idea.
I don’t agree with that in the slightest. I agree with Thomas Hodgson…
How is a complete and total disregard of the law a good idea?
Fair enough but it’s a closed thread by a banned poster. Not much that can be added to that topic now.
Seems the issue is getting more attention now and growing to be a dividing point between parties. I’m wondering and asking why the Democratic party not only thinks allowing such a thing is a good idea, but on what grounds?
I’m not being as aggressive as this probably sounds, but how is this a “human issue” as you put it?
We, as the United States, have rules on immigration. Why shouldn’t those rules and laws be followed? How are you not, then, arguing for an open border?
At one point we, as in the United States had laws requiring segregation. People like Rosa Parks broke those laws. We’re they wrong?
At one point we, as in the United States, had laws allowing and enforcing slavery. People like Harriott tubman broke them. We’re they wrong?
Not all laws are just. Some are wrong and should be opposed.
I understand what you’re saying and don’t disagree with it at all. Only a fool would do so.
But is that the same thing we’re dealing with now regarding immigration, in your opinion?
I’ve wondered and asked those opposed to what I believe what their limits are, and I’ve never heard that expressed. Are there limits? Are the limits we currently have in law immoral, illegal, simply wrong?
Are we clear what “sanctuary city” means? At least in most cases, it means that the local police will not work with or for ICE in rounding up suspected undocumented people. It does not mean that ICE can’t come in and do their own dirty work, and they do. It may also mean that local police won’t check for citizenship or legal residency on those people they arrest for other reasons. Is there some federal statute that requires the kind of cooperation that local governments are refusing? I don’t think so.
There are three reasons why I generally support this.
It is a bad thing for residents of a city to be afraid to go to the police when they are victims of a crime. Bad not just for the undocumented, but for everyone. When crime rises, everyone suffers, even those who are not themselves a direct victim of any crime.
Trump promised (I know, why do I even start a sentence with those words) that he was going to focus, in the beginning at least, on getting the “bad dudes” first, the undocumented who were also guilty of other violent crimes. This is clearly not the policy that is being followed by ICE. People are being arrested and deported for such prior crimes as driving without a license (which they couldn’t get because they were undocumented) or for no crime other than being undocumented.
Congress has failed to make any progress on reforming immigration laws in, I don’t know, how many years? Current laws are woefully inadequate for the current state of things in the world, but making them better is apparently something that Congress is unable and unwilling to tackle. Too many dollars depend on maintaining the status quo, I presume. Also, it’s a ticklish issue with voters, and no-one is willing to put their fat government paychecks on the line for the sake of any principle, let alone this one.
Well, that’s it for a start. I know this is GD and that I haven’t provided any citations for any of this. If anyone wants to argue that these reasons don’t reflect the facts, I’ll be happy to dig some up for them.
The issue is they’re being stymied by sanctuary cities that refuse to forward those who are suspected of being here illegally.
You can have all the federal agents in the world but if local jurisdictions fail to help them, it’s immune and ineffective - a side that some want to have and believe in - keep it ineffective.
Yep. Local municipalities have no requirement to enforce federal laws, and many cities have good reason to not do so. If you make every illegal immigrant deathly afraid of all police, they will never cooperate in the pursuit of the few actual bad hombres out there.
Then build federal facilities. Trump promised jobs, let him keep that pledge.
The federal gov’t wants states and cities to pay the cost of federal operations without reimbursement.
Time to stop the freeloading.
A city that refuses to follow federal law? That goes out of their way to do so?
*** I read the rest of your post and am not dismissing it, I just disagree with implementations. The idea to ignore (but help) those breaking the law isn’t a standard I think makes sense. Change the laws, if that’s the matter.
I don’t think immigration laws are per se immoral, like laws enforcing segregation and slavery were. I don’t think we’re morally obliged to have open borders.
But I do think that we should have immigration laws that we are actually able to enforce, and that we should not punish the undocumented for our own failure to enforce our own laws.
I also think that we should not used undocumented people as political fodder, as the “other” that so many politicians need to make us afraid of.
City police have no authority to enforce immigration law.
Trump has claimed the country is crumbling under an overwhelming crime wave.
Why should immigration come before rounding up the murderers, drug dealers and rapists?
Or was Trump lying about the crime rate?
Come on Running Coach, we can have a better discussion than this.
I’m all for allowing immigrants and immigration. I haven’t said a word against that. We’ve been the leader in the world in allowing and welcoming those in distress, trouble, or otherwise. Fuck that makes me feel good.
But how is this notion that we can (and should) exceed limits on those immigrating here (to the detriment of local and federal laws) be allowed?
You challenge and change laws through the Courts and the ballot box respectively. Otherwise, you basically say that the validity of laws are at the whims of individuals. Thats not a recipe for a good outcome.
On immigration, it is amusing. There was and has been bipartisan support for “tough” (draconian really) immigration laws in the US, see INA 1996. People who supported them are now upset that they are being…enforced?
Perhaps if you had read some of the earlier threads (that you didn’t think existed), you would know that the feds cannot require local police to enforce federal law. Local police are not required to enforce federal laws, and for good reason. There is no “not following federal law” going on.