5 ms·

The flip side of that sentiment is calling fascism on anyone who thinks sanctuary cities are bullshit. The lunacy is bipartisan.

by fixxer 10y ago

komali2 10y ago
I could make a strong argument, however, that a government seeking to strip the ability of states (cities) to have "sanctuary status" is fascist, or at the very least not very republican.
- fixxer 10y ago
  International borders fall under federal jurisdiction, so I don't think your point is as strong as you think, but I'll play this game... So, you support states rights? Tell me why abortion is a federal issue then?
  - lazyasciiart 10y ago
    > International borders fall under federal jurisdiction, so I don't think your point is as strong as you think, Sanctuary cities don't change anything about international borders or who can enter the country, because international borders are federal issues with federal staff. Sanctuary cities refuse to make their local staff spend time and money reporting on immigration status every time they issue a parking ticket. It's not even a states rights question - nobody even suggests that city officials should check if you have paid your federal taxes every time you take to them, but that's not because (normal) people are objecting to a federally run tax system.
    - fixxer 10y ago
      I think you have a valid point. I do, however, think sanctuary cities (which are so fuzzily defined legally...) create an incentive for illegal immigration. It sends a message that one need only get through the border to make it permanent. My family immigrated legally. They should too. If states choose not to enforce federal law, I think they need to clearly establish a legal position as to why.
      - lazyasciiart 10y ago
        There is one, it's called the anti-commandeering doctrine (no idea what this site is but it covers the background) http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/12/28/states-dont-have-to-comply-the-anti-comandeering-doctrine/ http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/12/28/states-dont-have-...
        fixxer 10y ago
        That also applies to abortion. Careful...
        lazyasciiart 10y ago
        Are you saying I should stop knowing things because it might lead somewhere you don't like?
        fixxer 10y ago
        Ha, not at all! I'm pointing out that there are caveats and potential feedback effects. Has any state cited the 10th?
- sanguine234 10y ago
  No one is taking away sanctuary status. Commonsense people just do not want to pay billions for illegals healthcare, food, and other costs. And yes, after doing all that, live in cities infested with crime largely because of illegals.
cmrdporcupine 10y ago
Your US 2 party system is busted to the extreme, and in other G7 countries your Democratic party would barely be considered "left" let alone "far left", so yeah, pretty lunatic. As for sanctuary cities, when your state is sitting on territory that was formerly part of Mexico, its major cities still carrying Spanish names, its labour force overwhelmingly dominated by Latinos, it doesn't seem crazy at all to question the rationale of the US immigration system and borders and try to accomodate to the realities of the actual real world demographics. Not to mention from my understanding sanctuary cities have their origin with the migrant fallout created by the central American wars that the United States was directly involved in.
- fixxer 10y ago
  Meh. Not really. In parliamentary systems, you might have a lot of parties in the mix, but they caucus and forms blocs. Same happens here, just upstream through primaries. Democrats have centrists and progressives and a fringe of anarcho-socialists. Republicans Ave moderates, conservatives, libertarians, Tea Party, and whatever the Alt Right is. As for "overwhelmingly", you make it sound like we're living in Mexico but have the indecency of calling it the US. As for the current state of population, LA is around 50% Latino at most. That isn't illegal immigrants. Those aren't people that identify as Mexicans in America. Those are Americans. Some even voted for Trump. All territory was formerly part of someone else's territory. Borders move and people along with them. I feel no moral burden to accommodate previous inhabitants, nor would I expect any if the table was turned. That said, if states truly moved to nullify federal law based on a tenable legal position, I'd listen. However, they'd have to make such an argument, as opposed to a philosophical one (like yours, which I don't agree with). As for your "understanding" of the origin of sanctuary cities, you've been reading fake news.
  - justin66 10y ago
    > In parliamentary systems, you might have a lot of parties in the mix, but they caucus and forms blocs. Same happens here, just upstream through primaries. In our two party system, the lesser parties normally never get included in the legislative process. (those primaries effectively exclude them) In a parliamentary system any party that gets enough votes will get some seats. If we adopted that sort of system you'd immediately see some greens and libertarians involved in the legislative process, and presumably you'd see an end to jokey pseudolibertarians in the Republican party, since everyone would just vote for the real thing. The "you're just throwing your vote away" disincentive would no longer exist. (based purely on how often that topic comes up in conversation during elections, I assume you'd see some big changes in the ideological makeup of the legislature)
dragonwriter 10y ago
Sanctuary cities are absolutely protected under the Constitutional doctrine of anti-commandeering; a direct and obvious and firmly established application of the Tenth Amendment. The Federal government has to enforce its own laws. The States may voluntarily assist, but the Federal government has no authority to mandate that states, or subdivisions thereof, enforce federal laws.
- fixxer 10y ago
  I absolutely love how the left becomes a fan of states rights on immigration, but pretends it isn't a challenge to Roe v Wade.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - mehaveaccount 10y ago
    > I absolutely love how the left becomes a fan of states rights on immigration, but pretends it isn't a challenge to Roe v Wade. Indeed, Roe v. Wade or Gay marriage too. I mean, my state voted in gay marriage willingly, but I imagine some more religious states may want to determine the laws in their own state, like California does with weed and immigration
  - komali2 10y ago
    Well, I personally am not bothered by the concept of a state having the right to ban abortion, but I know that statistically it's stupid decision because exactly the states that would end up banning abortion are the same states that would refuse to give proper sex education to prevent the abortions in the first place. Also, not allowing abortions desperately increases the tax burden.

The flip side of that sentiment is calling fascism on anyone who thinks sanctuary cities are bullshit. The lunacy is bipartisan.

by fixxer 10y ago

The flip side of that sentiment is calling fascism on anyone who thinks sanctuary cities are bullshit. The lunacy is bipartisan.

komali2 10y ago

I could make a strong argument, however, that a government seeking to strip the ability of states (cities) to have "sanctuary status" is fascist, or at the very least not very republican.

fixxer 10y ago
International borders fall under federal jurisdiction, so I don't think your point is as strong as you think, but I'll play this game... So, you support states rights? Tell me why abortion is a federal issue then?
- lazyasciiart 10y ago
  > International borders fall under federal jurisdiction, so I don't think your point is as strong as you think, Sanctuary cities don't change anything about international borders or who can enter the country, because international borders are federal issues with federal staff. Sanctuary cities refuse to make their local staff spend time and money reporting on immigration status every time they issue a parking ticket. It's not even a states rights question - nobody even suggests that city officials should check if you have paid your federal taxes every time you take to them, but that's not because (normal) people are objecting to a federally run tax system.
  - fixxer 10y ago
    I think you have a valid point. I do, however, think sanctuary cities (which are so fuzzily defined legally...) create an incentive for illegal immigration. It sends a message that one need only get through the border to make it permanent. My family immigrated legally. They should too. If states choose not to enforce federal law, I think they need to clearly establish a legal position as to why.
    - lazyasciiart 10y ago
      There is one, it's called the anti-commandeering doctrine (no idea what this site is but it covers the background) http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/12/28/states-dont-have-to-comply-the-anti-comandeering-doctrine/ http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/12/28/states-dont-have-...
      - fixxer 10y ago
        That also applies to abortion. Careful...
        lazyasciiart 10y ago
        Are you saying I should stop knowing things because it might lead somewhere you don't like?
        fixxer 10y ago
        Ha, not at all! I'm pointing out that there are caveats and potential feedback effects. Has any state cited the 10th?
sanguine234 10y ago
No one is taking away sanctuary status. Commonsense people just do not want to pay billions for illegals healthcare, food, and other costs. And yes, after doing all that, live in cities infested with crime largely because of illegals.

cmrdporcupine 10y ago

Your US 2 party system is busted to the extreme, and in other G7 countries your Democratic party would barely be considered "left" let alone "far left", so yeah, pretty lunatic. As for sanctuary cities, when your state is sitting on territory that was formerly part of Mexico, its major cities still carrying Spanish names, its labour force overwhelmingly dominated by Latinos, it doesn't seem crazy at all to question the rationale of the US immigration system and borders and try to accomodate to the realities of the actual real world demographics. Not to mention from my understanding sanctuary cities have their origin with the migrant fallout created by the central American wars that the United States was directly involved in.

fixxer 10y ago
Meh. Not really. In parliamentary systems, you might have a lot of parties in the mix, but they caucus and forms blocs. Same happens here, just upstream through primaries. Democrats have centrists and progressives and a fringe of anarcho-socialists. Republicans Ave moderates, conservatives, libertarians, Tea Party, and whatever the Alt Right is. As for "overwhelmingly", you make it sound like we're living in Mexico but have the indecency of calling it the US. As for the current state of population, LA is around 50% Latino at most. That isn't illegal immigrants. Those aren't people that identify as Mexicans in America. Those are Americans. Some even voted for Trump. All territory was formerly part of someone else's territory. Borders move and people along with them. I feel no moral burden to accommodate previous inhabitants, nor would I expect any if the table was turned. That said, if states truly moved to nullify federal law based on a tenable legal position, I'd listen. However, they'd have to make such an argument, as opposed to a philosophical one (like yours, which I don't agree with). As for your "understanding" of the origin of sanctuary cities, you've been reading fake news.
- justin66 10y ago
  > In parliamentary systems, you might have a lot of parties in the mix, but they caucus and forms blocs. Same happens here, just upstream through primaries. In our two party system, the lesser parties normally never get included in the legislative process. (those primaries effectively exclude them) In a parliamentary system any party that gets enough votes will get some seats. If we adopted that sort of system you'd immediately see some greens and libertarians involved in the legislative process, and presumably you'd see an end to jokey pseudolibertarians in the Republican party, since everyone would just vote for the real thing. The "you're just throwing your vote away" disincentive would no longer exist. (based purely on how often that topic comes up in conversation during elections, I assume you'd see some big changes in the ideological makeup of the legislature)

dragonwriter 10y ago

Sanctuary cities are absolutely protected under the Constitutional doctrine of anti-commandeering; a direct and obvious and firmly established application of the Tenth Amendment. The Federal government has to enforce its own laws. The States may voluntarily assist, but the Federal government has no authority to mandate that states, or subdivisions thereof, enforce federal laws.

fixxer 10y ago
I absolutely love how the left becomes a fan of states rights on immigration, but pretends it isn't a challenge to Roe v Wade.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- mehaveaccount 10y ago
  > I absolutely love how the left becomes a fan of states rights on immigration, but pretends it isn't a challenge to Roe v Wade. Indeed, Roe v. Wade or Gay marriage too. I mean, my state voted in gay marriage willingly, but I imagine some more religious states may want to determine the laws in their own state, like California does with weed and immigration
- komali2 10y ago
  Well, I personally am not bothered by the concept of a state having the right to ban abortion, but I know that statistically it's stupid decision because exactly the states that would end up banning abortion are the same states that would refuse to give proper sex education to prevent the abortions in the first place. Also, not allowing abortions desperately increases the tax burden.