I also think it's entirely hypocritical for democrats to just bring in tens of millions of illegal immigrants then cry when the next president goes in the opposite direction.
Also, when Obama deported 3M+ illegals, the sanctuary cities helped and the media didn't cover it like it was Nazi Germany. What changed? Why can't we just go back to having a rule of law? Why can every other country in the world have borders except ours?
Perhaps it has to do with the method used?
I don't think most people are in favor of illegal immigration. That would be an extremist view. Most people are probably somewhere in the middle and I don't think that band is too wide.
It was different because the sanctuary cities turned over lists of the students whose parents weren't citizens. It made it a lot easier. Also no media coverage. You won't know if the tactics were any different because democrat cities actually complied with the law. Again, it goes to democrats being hypocrites and selectively caring/enforcing issues when they think people are paying attention.
>I don't think most people are in favor of illegal immigration. That would be an extremist view. Most people are probably somewhere in the middle and I don't think that band is too wide.
Yep, I live in California and we require immigration for a lot of jobs and industries. I'm not against immigration... in a past life I worked in immigration law. I am against this selective enforcement of the law depending on who is the President. You can't run a country like this.
The tragedies unfolding today could have been prevented, with a little human dignity. Speaking of "illegal immigrants" to justify destroying lifes that in some cases had been spent entirely in the US is just that, a cheap blanket to cover inhumane and racist motives. The strawmen you create with "why is no other country allowed to have a border" are as disgusting as your silence to the most pressing current issues. Trump had many options to tighten the grip on immigrants, but i guess this is beyond you aswell.
Please answer me this one. Why is the crime of comming here illegally enough for your kind and nothing else matters? Please argue on a moral basis. I expect the same silence.
...they are saying that because immigarion law is federal (as you point out) they will not assist in its enforcement.
>democrats to just bring in tens of millions of illegal immigrants
No one, except the immigrants themselves, brought the immigrants here. That's what makes one an immigrant....they immigrate.
>Why can't we just go back to having a rule of law?
This is a very apt question being asked daily of the Trump administration.
Not true, they previously reported non-citizens to ICE under Obama and Obama deported more than 3 million... You don't even have your baseline understanding of what's going on correct. Immigration laws shouldn't be selectively enforced depending on who is in the White House.
It was never cities' job to enforce immigration law either, so legally cities were doing nothing wrong. Rather cities have been working to their own incentives about what best encourages local-law-abiding residents to work with police and get local crimes solved.
Therefore, any so-called "flouting" is pure political speech that we expect to have in an open society. You fascist boosters always dress up Constitutionally-protected activity in emotionally charged language - "flouting", "belligerence", "disrespect", and so on - as if we're some dictatorship where obedience is value #1. But this is the exact opposite of the actual United States.
It is however the job of the federal government to conform to the limits outlined in the US Constitution. So if we're talking about the legal situation here, it is the federal government that is in flagrant default, causing chaos and mayhem in American cities. In fact given the willfulness, it's almost like the federal government is being controlled by our adversaries.
Aristippus: if you'd learn to flatter the king, you wouldn't have to eat lentils
Diogenes: if you'd learn to eat lentils, you wouldn't have to flatter the king
Actual substantive comment:
My personal theory (looking from this side of the Atlantic) is that ICE got weaponised in this format precisely because the US Military wanted no part of thuggery, eg this 2020 memo: https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/CJCS%20Memo%20to%20...
Is this a reasonable theory?
buellerbueller•1h ago
DoctorOW•49m ago
buellerbueller•41m ago
mindslight•48m ago
buellerbueller•4m ago