4 ms·
That has nothing to do with the fact that if you are an illegal immigrant yourself there are cities in this country that refuse to obey immigration law. Again,
by xienze 10y ago
That has nothing to do with the fact that if you are an illegal immigrant yourself there are cities in this country that refuse to obey immigration law. Again, the point is "why bother" if there are politicians and cities willing to bend over backwards for you.
- tptacek 10y agoI don't know what you're on about now, but a big chunk of your last comment talked about the advantages that accrue to children born in the United States. Regardless of the circumstances of those children, they are American citizens, full stop. They "get to use our schools" because they're citizens. They "get in-state tuition" because they are citizens. That is how citizenship works in the US: we don't have two classes of it. I'm really not interested in the rest of your argument.
- dragonwriter 10y ago> That has nothing to do with the fact that if you are an illegal immigrant yourself there are cities in this country that refuse to obey immigration law. No, there are cities that refuse to expend local resources enforcing federal immigration law, leaving that enforcement to the feds. This is not refusing to obey federal immigration law; in fact, the freedom of states (and therefore subordinate entities like cities, if not prohibited by state law) to refuse to enforce federal law is inherent in the Constitutional separation of state and federal spheres of sovereignty. This freedom was the basis of laws adopted by numerous states prohibiting state enforcement of the federal Fugitive Slave Laws in the wake of the Supreme Court decision in Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842).