What should happen to Democrat sanctuary cities?

[BeepKillBeep]

@Blinkyandpinky

Certainly not any more than many liberals and democrats who wish to deny the rights of Americans to be able to arm and defend themselves and certainly not any more than many liberals and democrats who actively support illegal immigration.

Nice pivot.

golf clap

[Blinkyandpinky]

@marshmallow

What do you expect to happen to the American economy when you remove 10 million people? How will the agricultural, construction, and service industries survive?

The beauty of the whole thing is that it will naturally sort itself out.

If a business is reliant on illegal labor to survive, then I submit that that business does not have the right to exist and it should rightfully go out of business.

If certain products were to become more expensive, then I submit that that is totally fine, and the market will naturally sort itself out, based on supply and demand.

Nature should be allowed to take its course, and the rest will sort itself out.

[BobLibDem]

@Blinkyandpinky

Certainly not any more than many liberals and democrats who wish to deny the rights of Americans to be able to arm and defend themselves and certainly not any more than many liberals and democrats who actively support illegal immigration.

Actually, if you’re not actively serving in the militia you have no such “right” but your attempt at evasion has been noted (but you’re still on the short end of the argument).

[GIGObuster]

@Blinkyandpinky

Nature should be allowed to take its course, and the rest will sort itself out.

Sure [Sarcasm]

Donald Trump's deportation plan would be an economic nightmare

Donald Trump’s deportation plan would be an economic nightmare

The American Action Forum, a nonpartisan, center-right-leaning think tank, released a study this week breaking down the economic consequences of deporting every unauthorized worker in the US.

The authors of the paper, Ben Gitis and Jacqueline Varas, said that based on an earlier American Action Forum study, the direct costs of dramatically expanding immigration-enforcement agencies and courts to deport roughly 11 million people would already cost the US government an estimated $400 billion to $600 billion.

Removing all those workers, then, would have a huge effect on the industries. Gitis and Varas considered two scenarios to come up with a range for the economic damage.

As a lower-bound scenario, they assumed that any available unemployed native-born or lawful immigrant workers in each industry would pick up as much of the slack as possible and fill in at least some of the jobs vacated by the deported workers. In this scenario, not all the jobs would be filled, as they found that there wouldn’t be enough unemployed native or lawful immigrant workers to take over.

As an upper-bound scenario, they instead assumed that these jobs would go unfilled and simply disappear.

They found, using estimates of output per worker in each of those industries, that the cost in lost output would be in the hundreds of billions of dollars (emphasis ours):

“Overall, removing all undocumented immigrants would cause private sector output to decline by between $381.5 billion and $623.2 billion. This translates to a 2.9 percent to 4.7 percent reduction in total annual output from the private sector.”

And naturally, as The republicans in California found out, Hispanics then become more involved and never vote Republican, Say hello to Blue Arizona and Blue Texas.

[Blinkyandpinky]

I suppose that one of the reasons that I like Donald Trump is because he and I seem to be on the same page and we have many similar ideas.

When I wrote the OP last night, I was unaware that some of the ideas that I suggested might actually be implemented and so soon.

From a tweet just tweeted by the associated press a few hours ago.

The Associated Press ‏@AP 2h2 hours ago

** The Trump administration’s draft memo on using National Guard troops for immigration roundups.**

I am not gay, but I love that man.

[thunderdog]

@BobLibDem

Actually, if you’re not actively serving in the militia you have no such “right” but your attempt at evasion has been noted (but you’re still on the short end of the argument).

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

[RickJay]

@Blinkyandpinky

** The Trump administration’s draft memo on using National Guard troops for immigration roundups.**

Your beloved Mr. Trump is vehemently denying this.

If you like military dictatorships, might I suggest Burma?

[GIGObuster]

@RickJay

Your beloved Mr. Trump is vehemently denying this.

If you like military dictatorships, might I suggest Burma?

He also does not mind that his beloved is very likely to cause a recession, if not a depression.

[Blinkyandpinky]

@GIGObuster

He also does not mind that his beloved is very likely to cause a recession, if not a depression.

Any temporary minor setback is well worth it when considering the bigger picture and what is to be gained from it. The positives outweigh any negatives.

[running_coach]

@GIGObuster

He also does not mind that his beloved is very likely to cause a recession, if not a depression.

I’m already depressed.

[El_Kabong]

@Blinkyandpinky

I wasn’t just thinking about erratic drivers, but also for example a car that is pulled over by a police officer and the driver reeks of alcohol and then they attempt to drive away.

I believe that should be sufficient cause to shoot to kill. The alcohol or drug level amount could be tested later, during their autopsy, to validate the actions taken by the officer.

Rather weak, if I may say so. You really should have followed the example of your Dear Leader:

@Trump

Well, I don’t know, I was given that information. I was given—I actually, I’ve seen that information around.

[Quote=Blinkyandpinkly]
Any temporary minor setback is well worth it when considering the bigger picture and what is to be gained from it. The positives outweigh any negatives.
[/Quote]

I’m sure many people here would appreciate it if you could expand on this a bit; for example, naming two or three of these “positives”, to better judge whether your argument holds water or not.

[GIGObuster]

@Blinkyandpinky

Any temporary minor setback is well worth it when considering the bigger picture and what is to be gained from it. The positives outweigh any negatives.

I noted that already, “say hello to blue Arizona and Blue Texas”

[Blinkyandpinky]

@GIGObuster

I noted that already, “say hello to blue Arizona and Blue Texas”

Then democrats should be in favor of my ideas, if they believe that’s going to be the outcome.

[GIGObuster]

@Blinkyandpinky

Then democrats should be in favor of my ideas, if they believe that’s going to be the outcome.

Too funny, it is clear that you do not know what “blue” means. Considering that Blue California is nowhere close to what your sorry ideas are.

[CurtC]

@Kearsen

I agree, immigration enforcement is not the city’s responsibility, however, expenditures that affect city income IS the city’s responsibility.

And those expenditures would be uniformly increased if cities took it upon themselves to be the enforcer of immigration laws. Someone else already pointed out all the increased costs due to training and extra time taken, plus exposure to lawsuits.

But what would cities save? If you’re using the city trash pick-up service, you’re paying for that with your tax dollars. It’s not like the city would be able to cut off services for illegal immigrants but still have the same revenues. Not letting an illegal use the city bus? Say goodbye to his bus fare! No water for you, Mr. Illegal - but please pay your water bill anyway.

[octopus]

@naita

My emphasis above. Also my post.

With road fatalities in the 30,000/year range drunk driving is a serious offense.

[Superdude]

@Blinkyandpinky

I wasn’t just thinking about erratic drivers, but also for example a car that is pulled over by a police officer and the driver reeks of alcohol and then they attempt to drive away.

I believe that should be sufficient cause to shoot to kill. The alcohol or drug level amount could be tested later, during their autopsy, to validate the actions taken by the officer.

Diabetes can mimic the symptoms of alcohol, including the breath. I’ve witnessed it firsthand. At my old EMS company, I was stationed in a rural part of the county. We had a gentleman who was severely diabetic, and the police pulled him over on an average of 2-3 times a week because of his erratic driving. He wasn’t drunk. His sugar was low.

Are you, as an advocate of shooting people who appear to be driving while intoxicated, prepared to face the lawsuit of a shooting victim’s family, after it’s revealed that the cops killed a sober human being?

[Blinkyandpinky]

@Superdude

Diabetes can mimic the symptoms of alcohol, including the breath. I’ve witnessed it firsthand. At my old EMS company, I was stationed in a rural part of the county. We had a gentleman who was severely diabetic, and the police pulled him over on an average of 2-3 times a week because of his erratic driving. He wasn’t drunk. His sugar was low.

Are you, as an advocate of shooting people who appear to be driving while intoxicated, prepared to face the lawsuit of a shooting victim’s family, after it’s revealed that the cops killed a sober human being?

I am not in favor of shooting any diabetics, but if a person has so severe diabetes, which causes them to frequently drive erratically, then I submit that that person has no right to be on the road, and they should be denied a license.

[John_DiFool]

@Ravenman

My Democrat plan for Democrat sanctuary cities is to enact a Democrat income tax surcharge on non-Democrat billionaires to increase the Democrat marginal tax rate to Democrat 90% and take all the Democrat proceeds and give them to Democrat sanctuary cities to promote Democrat priorities such as Democrat green energy, Democrat public schools, and Democrat road construction projects.

Democrat.

What is this Democrat Party of which you speak? Perhaps they’re the Judean People’s Front under a new more subversive name?

[Superdude]

@Blinkyandpinky

I am not in favor of shooting any diabetics, but if a person has so severe diabetes, which causes them to frequently drive erratically, then I submit that that person has no right to be on the road, and they should be denied a license.

But they pose the same dangers as people driving under the influence. You may not know that the driver is diabetic until the autopsy.