3 ms·

Bully! Law-abiding immigrants, documented or not, are people that play an important role in our culture and economy, and should be valued as such. This is a s

Bully! Law-abiding immigrants, documented or not, are people that play an important role in our culture and economy, and should be valued as such. This is a step in the right direction. It would be even better if entire states, not just cities, followed this lead. Then, perhaps, we would see meaningful debate, legal action and legislation.

dublinben 10y ago
Nearly all immigrants are law-abiding community members, whether they are documented or not. The only "crime" that most of these people have ever committed is moving to this country without the right paperwork.
67726e 10y ago
We're throwing tax dollars against tax dollars to protect those who came here and ignored the law? We have no duty and no reason to do so. This idea is completely flawed.
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  I'm going to try to make this as not-so-blatantly partisan as possible, buuuut... This is what happens when you dilute the democratic voice of millions of people: they'll take the representation and the resources they do have and devote it to the policies they want, despite other officials. If the Feds don't want this sort of thing done, they should stop saying things which imply that Californians don't matter and aren't wanted, or maybe they could even, God help them, count Californian votes with equal weight to votes from Ohio or Wyoming. Because we all know that nowadays, any state that didn't go a certain way "in a huge landslide" in the last election suddenly consists entirely of undocumented immigrants who all voted fraudulently /s. Don't count people and they won't count you.
  - 67726e 10y ago
    If you're going to play partisan, it's hardly surprising when you write off whole swathes of America as deplorables and ignore blue collar workers needs. Also, California isn't weighted the same as Wymoing, that's not how the electoral college works. If Los Angelenos wish to spend their tax dollars on this, by all means. It just seems rather counter-productive, monetarily. I'm not Mr. They Took Our Jobs, I have a lot of friends you might call DREAMERs, but allowing folks to skirt the rules ins't the best idea.
    - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
      Look, if you're going to respond, please address what I personally have actually said, not what you stereotype people vaguely like me as having said. I didn't vote for Clinton, for instance (third-party in a safe state). >Also, California isn't weighted the same as Wymoing, that's not how the electoral college works. Now you're just saying, "The rule is the rule, and it doesn't have to embody any deeper ethical principle." That's the response of a petty bureaucrat. >I'm not Mr. They Took Our Jobs, I have a lot of friends you might call DREAMERs, but allowing folks to skirt the rules ins't the best idea. I agree that the law should be both logically consistent and consistently enforced. Again, I don't view this new measure as good idea in isolation, as something we would implement in a perfect world. It's being implemented because not only has California's voice been weakened relative to states like Wyoming or Ohio (if you saw the New York Times today, the voters who get the most out of the Electoral College are narrow winners in battleground states, especially larger ones), but the winning party has basically spent a lot of rhetoric telling the coastal states that we are unwanted. They are yelling outright that not only do they not want us around culturally, but they fully intend to maintain or worsen our current second-class political status (viz a viz ratios of population to Congressional Representatives and Presidential electors). Well, at that point, we have the right to start taking our ball and going home. Yes California is now a large, active, angry movement, and so is this defense fund. You can either give people equal representation for having the population and GDP of a first-class nation-state, or you can deal with their displeasure.
gozur88 10y ago
>Law-abiding immigrants, documented or not... "Undocumented" is a euphemism for illegal. These are not law-abiding people.
Neliquat 10y ago
If they were law abiding, they would not be unregistered. Your argument invalidates itself.

dublinben 10y ago

Nearly all immigrants are law-abiding community members, whether they are documented or not. The only "crime" that most of these people have ever committed is moving to this country without the right paperwork.

67726e 10y ago

We're throwing tax dollars against tax dollars to protect those who came here and ignored the law? We have no duty and no reason to do so. This idea is completely flawed.

eli_gottlieb 10y ago
I'm going to try to make this as not-so-blatantly partisan as possible, buuuut... This is what happens when you dilute the democratic voice of millions of people: they'll take the representation and the resources they do have and devote it to the policies they want, despite other officials. If the Feds don't want this sort of thing done, they should stop saying things which imply that Californians don't matter and aren't wanted, or maybe they could even, God help them, count Californian votes with equal weight to votes from Ohio or Wyoming. Because we all know that nowadays, any state that didn't go a certain way "in a huge landslide" in the last election suddenly consists entirely of undocumented immigrants who all voted fraudulently /s. Don't count people and they won't count you.
- 67726e 10y ago
  If you're going to play partisan, it's hardly surprising when you write off whole swathes of America as deplorables and ignore blue collar workers needs. Also, California isn't weighted the same as Wymoing, that's not how the electoral college works. If Los Angelenos wish to spend their tax dollars on this, by all means. It just seems rather counter-productive, monetarily. I'm not Mr. They Took Our Jobs, I have a lot of friends you might call DREAMERs, but allowing folks to skirt the rules ins't the best idea.
  - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
    Look, if you're going to respond, please address what I personally have actually said, not what you stereotype people vaguely like me as having said. I didn't vote for Clinton, for instance (third-party in a safe state). >Also, California isn't weighted the same as Wymoing, that's not how the electoral college works. Now you're just saying, "The rule is the rule, and it doesn't have to embody any deeper ethical principle." That's the response of a petty bureaucrat. >I'm not Mr. They Took Our Jobs, I have a lot of friends you might call DREAMERs, but allowing folks to skirt the rules ins't the best idea. I agree that the law should be both logically consistent and consistently enforced. Again, I don't view this new measure as good idea in isolation, as something we would implement in a perfect world. It's being implemented because not only has California's voice been weakened relative to states like Wyoming or Ohio (if you saw the New York Times today, the voters who get the most out of the Electoral College are narrow winners in battleground states, especially larger ones), but the winning party has basically spent a lot of rhetoric telling the coastal states that we are unwanted. They are yelling outright that not only do they not want us around culturally, but they fully intend to maintain or worsen our current second-class political status (viz a viz ratios of population to Congressional Representatives and Presidential electors). Well, at that point, we have the right to start taking our ball and going home. Yes California is now a large, active, angry movement, and so is this defense fund. You can either give people equal representation for having the population and GDP of a first-class nation-state, or you can deal with their displeasure.

gozur88 10y ago

>Law-abiding immigrants, documented or not... "Undocumented" is a euphemism for illegal. These are not law-abiding people.

Neliquat 10y ago

If they were law abiding, they would not be unregistered. Your argument invalidates itself.