3 ms·

Again your argument is irrelevant. The Supreme Court has just as often struck down gun laws where a city couldn’t do anything about it. Your question isn’t in

Again your argument is irrelevant. The Supreme Court has just as often struck down gun laws where a city couldn’t do anything about it. Your question isn’t in good faith. Desantis also tried to do something about immigration and the Supreme Court said he couldn’t do it . What part of immigration is not the purvue of state government is hard to understand? Oh and Obama deported more people than Trump..

youarentrightjr 7mo ago
[flagged]
youarentrightjr 7mo ago
Flagging my comments doesn't make you right by the way. > The Supreme Court has just as often struck down gun laws where a city couldn’t do anything about it. You're exposing your ignorance by showing you don't know what "sanctuary city" means. Sanctuary cities aren't contrasted with non-sanctuary cities where a sanctuary city's police officers don't arrest people for immigration offenses. The contrast is because the city impedes federal investigations into immigration matters. It's patently false to say that cities "can't do anything" about gun violations. There are plenty of examples of cities not impeding, or even assisting, the ATF in these scenarios.
- Schiendelman 7mo ago
  It's been pointed out to you repeatedly that city police officers don't arrest people for immigration violations. That's not their job. It was never their job.
  - youarentrightjr 7mo ago
    Oh, thanks Ben. It's not like I said that in the parent comment: > Sanctuary cities aren't contrasted with non-sanctuary cities where a sanctuary city's police officers don't arrest people for immigration offenses. > The contrast is because the city impedes federal investigations into immigration matters. You sanctuary city defenders are real sharp. Hope you find some time this year to figure out "Your Strategy", god knows you need one.
    - Schiendelman 7mo ago
      This is really inappropriate for Hacker News.
      - youarentrightjr 7mo ago
        So is your piling on, not adding anything substantive to the discussions , and raw_anon_1111's repeated strawmanning of my point (the claim was never that sanctuary cities were illegal, simply that their existence is a reflection of the Democratic Party's view towards immigration laws). Yet here we are. You build the community you deserve through your words and actions. I'm more than happy to have good faith discussion, and legitimately strive to take every point in the best light as possible. That's falling out of favor here, especially for political topics. If you want to roll in the dirt don't think I'm just going to walk away.
        Schiendelman 7mo ago
        There's no dirt. You said those cities' police wouldn't enforce immigration laws. I merely pointed out to you misunderstand their job, so that point you made isn't relevant.
        youarentrightjr 7mo ago
        > You said those cities' police wouldn't enforce immigration laws. Please quote where I said that. The point I am making has nothing to do with whether sanctuary cities are "legal", whether the cops in them are or aren't required to enforce immigration laws, etc. Speaking of what's appropriate for Hacker News, if I wanted discourse like "bazinga! The Supreme Court already ruled that sanctuary cities are allowed to exist. Checkmate xD" I would be on Reddit. I (obviously wrongly) thought HN could handle higher level conversation that repeating the same "gotcha" 7 times in a thread. > There's no dirt. The dirt is your derisive, self righteous comment, which you had to make to get your little jab in, which added nothing past the repeated, redundant statements of raw_anon_1111. Hope you feel proud of your contribution to this site.

youarentrightjr 7mo ago

[flagged]

youarentrightjr 7mo ago

Flagging my comments doesn't make you right by the way. > The Supreme Court has just as often struck down gun laws where a city couldn’t do anything about it. You're exposing your ignorance by showing you don't know what "sanctuary city" means. Sanctuary cities aren't contrasted with non-sanctuary cities where a sanctuary city's police officers don't arrest people for immigration offenses. The contrast is because the city impedes federal investigations into immigration matters. It's patently false to say that cities "can't do anything" about gun violations. There are plenty of examples of cities not impeding, or even assisting, the ATF in these scenarios.

Schiendelman 7mo ago
It's been pointed out to you repeatedly that city police officers don't arrest people for immigration violations. That's not their job. It was never their job.
- youarentrightjr 7mo ago
  Oh, thanks Ben. It's not like I said that in the parent comment: > Sanctuary cities aren't contrasted with non-sanctuary cities where a sanctuary city's police officers don't arrest people for immigration offenses. > The contrast is because the city impedes federal investigations into immigration matters. You sanctuary city defenders are real sharp. Hope you find some time this year to figure out "Your Strategy", god knows you need one.
  - Schiendelman 7mo ago
    This is really inappropriate for Hacker News.
    - youarentrightjr 7mo ago
      So is your piling on, not adding anything substantive to the discussions , and raw_anon_1111's repeated strawmanning of my point (the claim was never that sanctuary cities were illegal, simply that their existence is a reflection of the Democratic Party's view towards immigration laws). Yet here we are. You build the community you deserve through your words and actions. I'm more than happy to have good faith discussion, and legitimately strive to take every point in the best light as possible. That's falling out of favor here, especially for political topics. If you want to roll in the dirt don't think I'm just going to walk away.
      - Schiendelman 7mo ago
        There's no dirt. You said those cities' police wouldn't enforce immigration laws. I merely pointed out to you misunderstand their job, so that point you made isn't relevant.
        youarentrightjr 7mo ago
        > You said those cities' police wouldn't enforce immigration laws. Please quote where I said that. The point I am making has nothing to do with whether sanctuary cities are "legal", whether the cops in them are or aren't required to enforce immigration laws, etc. Speaking of what's appropriate for Hacker News, if I wanted discourse like "bazinga! The Supreme Court already ruled that sanctuary cities are allowed to exist. Checkmate xD" I would be on Reddit. I (obviously wrongly) thought HN could handle higher level conversation that repeating the same "gotcha" 7 times in a thread. > There's no dirt. The dirt is your derisive, self righteous comment, which you had to make to get your little jab in, which added nothing past the repeated, redundant statements of raw_anon_1111. Hope you feel proud of your contribution to this site.