Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Seattle gives 33 other counties in the state $3 billion a year to pay for their infrastructure. Washington is a giver state that contributes more federal dollars than it gets. That means Seattle is a major "giver" city contributing far more to the country than it receives.
If a Democratic president withheld federal dollars from a red state that made abortion illegal, or very difficult, when abortion it is legal in this country, would that be fine with Trumplicans? Trump is doing this because it pleases his base, who absolutely hate blue states, and Trump can't stand that the blue states detest him. He takes it very personally. So just remember, should a future Democratic president punish red states (who used to scream "state's rights") there should be no complaints.
But yet continues to elect people like Gov. Jay "Tax everyone to hell and back" Inslee and socialist scum like Sawant.
The liberals of King County would elect Charles Manson if he had a (D) next to his name.
Pathetic.
If they lose an election they sue... or they keep doing recounts till the D gets the win like in 2004.
I'm not even sure what to do with my mail in ballot. If I check the (R) that is on the outside of the envelope is my Democratic postman going to throw my ballot into the garbage?
You have no clue what you are talking about. You are just picking out adjectives and ascribing your own inaccurate meaning to them. The core tenet of a sanctuary city is that they do not report immigration status to the Federal Government. They neither "harbor" them nor actively do anything with them insofar as immigration is concerned. They simply take the position that dealing with immigration status is not their job, which it isn't.
Also, the overwhelming majority of "illegal" immigrants have not violated any Federal criminal law.
So what does the sanctuary refer to in sanctuary cities? Sanctuary from what? There is a reason why cities are not reporting immigration status. They are harboring criminals and aiding and abetting their continued presence with taxpayer dollars.
You don't need quotes around the word illegal. Those people are here illegally whether they breached the border or for any other reason. Your quotes just show you don't like that very effective and accurate label.
Trump is right to take the action to deny funds to those cities. No immigration reporting? No support.
Quote - "The food grown to feed that "food insecure child" is typically harvested by an illegal immigrant, aka non-citizen criminal. So who's really starving the child"?
What a crock of lies! Only 2-4% of illegals are picking crops and there are unlimited visas for legal, foreign pickers so what do we need illegals for picking crops?
Crop picking is not a career job for Americans nor anyone for that matter as it is only seasonal work and the back can't hold up for very long doing those jobs. That's why we have the unlimited visas for legal workers. Still in rural areas many Americans still do it to a certain extent.
So what does the sanctuary refer to in sanctuary cities? Sanctuary from what? There is a reason why cities are not reporting immigration status. They are harboring criminals and aiding and abetting their continued presence with taxpayer dollars.
The term "Sanctuary City" in some ways is a misnomer. Although individual cities have varying policies, generally speaking a sanctuary city is one that will not take affirmative action to assist or impede immigration enforcement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncguy50
You don't need quotes around the word illegal. Those people are here illegally whether they breached the border or for any other reason. Your quotes just show you don't like that very effective and accurate label.
I put it in quotes because it also isn't really an accurate descriptor. The overwhelming majority of "illegal" immigrants have not broken any criminal law. Sure, some adults crossed the border illegally (a crime) but most simply overstayed their visa (not a crime) while others were taken across by others as minors (also not a crime).
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncguy50
You picked the wrong guy to try and parse words.
Everyone is a tough guy on the internet. Uninformed, but tough.
Quote - "Also, the overwhelming majority of "illegal" immigrants have not violated any Federal criminal law". Lol, this is rich! Felony ID theft or tax evasion is not violating a federal criminal law? WTH!
Sanctuary cities do not "harbor" criminals, nor is it their policy to warn them about law enforcement activities. I am also unfamiliar with the laws you think are being broken. Can you identify them?
Like I said, it appears that you have a profound misunderstanding of what a "sanctuary city" is and a concomitant misunderstanding of the law.
You may not think the raping of women and children by illegals is breaking the law, but it is. Those officials/sheriffs who keep releasing repeat offenders back into the population are breaking the law knowing that these illegals are violent and lawbreakers.
You may not think the raping of women and children by illegals is breaking the law, but it is. Those officials/sheriffs who keep releasing repeat offenders back into the population are breaking the law knowing that these illegals are violent and lawbreakers.
Sanctuary city policies dictate that one's immigration status makes no difference when it comes to the administration of local criminal justice. If an illegal/undocumented immigrant rapes women and children, he is treated the same as an American who rapes women and children insofar as his incarceration is concerned. I know of no officials/sheriffs who simply release rapists back into the population or a policy that would support them doing so. This sounds like baseless scaremongering one might have been fooled into believing after poisoning their brain with too much Rush Limbaugh or Tucker Carlson.
Incidentally, illegal immigrants present in the US commit crimes at a far lower rate than Americans.
The term "Sanctuary City" in some ways is a misnomer. Although individual cities have varying policies, generally speaking a sanctuary city is one that will not take affirmative action to assist or impede immigration enforcement.
I put it in quotes because it also isn't really an accurate descriptor. The overwhelming majority of "illegal" immigrants have not broken any criminal law. Sure, some adults crossed the border illegally (a crime) but most simply overstayed their visa (not a crime) while others were taken across by others as minors (also not a crime).
Everyone is a tough guy on the internet. Uninformed, but tough.
Right. So generally speaking, the "sanctuary" in sanctuary city applies to the enforcement of immigration laws. Thanks for making my point. That a governing body has a policy of non-interference isn't an indemnification for their non-action.
I get it. You've studied some arguments of immigration lawyers, arguments designed to shape the interpretation of laws to fit a leftist agenda and nullify their actual intent. Big deal. You still can't refute my arguments.
Sorry, the word illegal is accurate, and the term sanctuary as it applies to shielding illegals from immigration law is spot on. Neither is a misnomer. Unless, of course, you simply have dispensed with the objective meaning of words.
Right. So generally speaking, the "sanctuary" in sanctuary city applies to the enforcement of immigration laws. Thanks for making my point. That a governing body has a policy of non-interference isn't an indemnification for their non-action.
I get it. You've studied some arguments of immigration lawyers, arguments designed to shape the interpretation of laws to fit a leftist agenda and nullify their actual intent. Big deal. You still can't refute my arguments.
Sorry, the word illegal is accurate, and the term sanctuary as it applies to shielding illegals from immigration law is spot on. Neither is a misnomer. Unless, of course, you simply have dispensed with the objective meaning of words.
Again, sanctuary cities do not "shield" anyone from immigration laws. They neither help those who are responsible enforcing them nor interfere with the efforts of those responsible enforcing them. So, they are a "sanctuary" in the sense that they will not assist those looking for them but not a "sanctuary" in the sense that they will help them hide by hindering the efforts of those looking for them.
And while you are correct in recognizing that officials in sanctuary cities have a policy of non-interference, I don't understand from what you think they need to be indemnified. Local and State Governments are not empowered to enforce immigration law, so they would not need to be indemnified for failing to enforce them.
My responses have nothing to do with studying immigration lawyers' arguments. I am only presenting the facts (many of which you appear to be unaware). For example, one page back, you claimed that it was the policy of sanctuary cities to "actively block[ ] law enforcement activities" but now you recognize that they really just have a policy of non-interference. I'm pleased to see that you have learned something.
I'm expecting whatever cuts get made to cities will be covered by the House during the next budget cycle. Democracy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
