Boogey man not found. Most mainstream conservatives simply want enforcement of federal law and a return to sane immigration policy, which is why you have conservative towns and counties in CA rejecting this absurd notion of sanctuary cities.American conservatives have been working themselves up by getting shitty with immigrants & are poised to get even shittier.
https://www.google.ch/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/weird-state-laws-across-america-2018-1IMO, ANY immigrant (legal or illegal) who commits ANY felony should be immediately deported. No excuses, no exceptions.
https://www.google.ch/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/weird-state-laws-across-america-2018-1
No exceptions? Are none of those felonies? Some don't seem all that reasonable.
Boogey man not found. Most mainstream conservatives simply want enforcement of federal law and a return to sane immigration policy, which is why you have conservative towns and counties in CA rejecting this absurd notion of sanctuary cities.
Gorsuch, a conservative SCOTUS judge and Trump appointee, had the opportunity to get sh!tty with immigrants and yet chose not to.
So only a couple felonies, maybe, you think, but still deportable offenses? What if, say, the prohibition against intoxication in Alaskan bars were a felony, and by virtue of its novelty and absurdity, little known. Still deport? About the immediacy part of the removal, what if no ice agents are present to witness the infraction? At least allow time to process?There are plenty of stupid laws in all 50 states. Fortunately, MOST are misdemeanors, not felonies. A quick perusal of the site linked above only showed a couple of felonies...but there COULD be more. (a couple were listed as felonies) I only "kind of looked" at it...and, IANAL, and each state is different, so...what might be a misdemeanor in one state COULD be a felony in another...and vice-versa.
It warms my heart that blue states are now embracing state sovereignty, a bedrock principle of conservatism and the founding of this nation. There is of course a very strong argument that modern liberals are incapable of comprehending sovereignty beyond divisive alarmism and identity politics, which is why they only embrace sovereignty when it is politically advantageous to do so.Any sane conservative should be 100% on board with the idea of sanctuary cities. They are rooted in a bedrock principle of conservatism, state sovereignty.
Then again there is a very strong argument that modern American conservatism is actually based in animus towards brown people, which would explain why conservatives are so eager to abandon state sovereignty when it comes to this issue.
It warms my heart that blue states are now embracing state sovereignty, a bedrock principle of conservatism and the founding of this nation. There is of course a very strong argument that modern liberals are incapable of comprehending sovereignty beyond divisive alarmism and identity politics, which is why they only embrace sovereignty when it is politically advantageous to do so.
The federal government has little recourse to oppose sanctuary cities, which is why I also support local municipalities telling Sacramento to go pound sand.
I am so supportive of sanctuary cities that I think liberals should run it as a front and center issue as we enter into midterms.
For the same reason liberals are now such strong advocates of state sovereignty.Is there? I would like to hear that argument! I have plenty of evidence to support my argument. Conservatives were big supporters of the 10th amendment under Obama but as soon as it came to deporting brown people they now believe state resources can be commandeered to enforce federal law. Why do you think they had such a radical change of opinion?
Some seem to think they have recourse, or they wouldn’t be building coalitions to do just that. Medicine, such a foul taste.Local municipalities have no recourse either.
For the same reason liberals are now such strong advocates of state sovereignty.
Some seem to think they have recourse, or they wouldn’t be building coalitions to do just that. Medicine, such a foul taste.
Any sane conservative should be 100% on board with the idea of sanctuary cities. They are rooted in a bedrock principle of conservatism, state sovereignty.
Then again there is a very strong argument that modern American conservatism is actually based in animus towards brown people, which would explain why conservatives are so eager to abandon state sovereignty when it comes to this issue.
Californians are getting pissed. 59% oppose this view and this could be perilous to democrats in future elections.
A country without borders is not a country. We have laws and those elected to serve us take an oath to defend and support the constitution, as well as the laws of our land. The Jerry Brown's of this world are going to get a huge beat down, and rightfully so. They seem to care more about illegal aliens, than our own citizens. The reason is votes. They would not give two shits about these "brown people", if they couldn't use them as political pawns. Stop being disingenuous. This ship will be righted and you will be on the wrong side.
I am a person, a loving person, who accepts people from all nationalities and races. But, the way we have been doing it is all wrong. The system is fucked up and people, good people, who want to live here, have to wait too long. Fix the problem, but we can't have hoards of people, who we know nothing about, pouring into our country. Most are probably good people. Some have other ideas and criminal intentions.
Any sane conservative should be 100% on board with the idea of sanctuary cities. They are rooted in a bedrock principle of conservatism, state sovereignty.
Then again there is a very strong argument that modern American conservatism is actually based in animus towards brown people, which would explain why conservatives are so eager to abandon state sovereignty when it comes to this issue.
Liberals aren’t strong advocates of state sovereignty, it’s just that the attempt to commandeer state law enforcement to enforce federal law against the state’s wishes is such an extreme violation that basically anyone who believes in the 10th amendment should be up in arms. Conservatives are either oddly silent or actively in support of this. Again, because it’s brown people.
Californians appear to strongly approve of what Democrats are doing, hence their supermajority and control of all statewide offices.
Californians also voted for proposition 8, majority approval doesn't always mean right
We do have laws, and conservatives are attempting to violate them. If you care about supporting and defending the constitution then you are on the side of California here as the 10th amendment is clearly on their side. If attacking immigration is more important to you than the constitution then you are on the side of conservatives.
Illegal immigrants cannot vote, so it’s not about votes. You tried to make this argument before and it was conclusively disproven. It’s a myth.
You like many pretend liberals are being very disingenuous by using some false conservative talking points about illegals voting,
it is about the votes because of the ethnic, cultural, racial and family bonds that illegals have to HISPANIC AMERICAN CITIZENS who you liberal types like to lump together as brown people and the big bad conservatives are going after them (illegals) because they are brown people so all brown people who are citizens and can vote need to show solidarity and vote Democrat.
Phony liberals and phony conservatives can significantly reduce illegal immigration significantly without the costs of walls and the drama of tear jerking family breaking deportations by going after employers who hire them and make it unprofitable to do so, in return you need to give the employers the effective tools to make sure they don't hire illegals before the job interview process, we can check someones credit card before the purchase, we can check if someone can legally buy a gun ( a constitutional right) before they take possession, we can check someones status before they board a plane but somehow it is discriminatory to check someones employability status before the job interview.
And for those complaining about the increase in prices, you are not entitled to someone elses back at below living wage costs or working conditions you consider subpar or inhumane, so you can save a buck on your vegetables or i-phone, than someone is to yours.
Also I haven’t seen a lot of evidence of your loving side, haha. You seem to harbor a ton of hate and vitriol towards liberals.
Is there? I would like to hear that argument! I have plenty of evidence to support my argument. Conservatives were big supporters of the 10th amendment under Obama but as soon as it came to deporting brown people they now believe state resources can be commandeered to enforce federal law. Why do you think they had such a radical change of opinion?
I don't think it's an all or none proposition (ie people should either be for state or federal sovereignty or shouldn't).For the same reason liberals are now such strong advocates of state sovereignty.
Some seem to think they have recourse, or they wouldn’t be building coalitions to do just that. Medicine, such a foul taste.
Since we evidently can now pick and choose what federal laws we'll all decide whether to support or not, I'm glad other states can choose to not expend any state resources to enforce any other federal law. I'm sure there's a lot more federal laws that you and blue state folks like and would want enforced than laws red state folks like and would want enforced. Since the federal government lacks the scale of police forces needed to enforce and make arrests for all and generally rely on state/local police making arrests then piggybacking prosecution for the federal laws on the books I think you might be onto something.
Since the federal government lacks the scale of police forces needed to enforce and make arrests for all and generally rely on state/local police making arrests then piggybacking prosecution for the federal laws on the books I think you might be onto something.
I think there is too much application of federal laws in cases which has nothing to do with the federal govt. Law and order is primarily a state responsibility. But even if we accept what you are saying above, immigration is different from other cases because it is solely a federal matter. So there should be no expending of state or local resources for it. And I say this as someone who is generally against illegal immigration. Heck the media doesn't even refer to them as such. They are called undocumented immigrants. Weird term.
It’s because the term ‘undocumented immigrant’ is more accurate. Sure plenty of undocumented people may be here illegally, but there are plenty of others who are not. Until that’s been adjudicated in an immigration court you don’t know who is illegal and who is not.
I beg to differ. An "immigrant" is someone who has permanent residency status (green card). Others may by here legally on various visas. I know a lot of immigrants so I know all about these things. But whether you are a permanent resident or on a visa, you are definitely "documented". So there is no such thing as being here legally and not being documented. The term "undocumented immigrant" is an oxymoron. Kind of like rap music ha...
I beg to differ. An "immigrant" is someone who has permanent residency status (green card). Others may by here legally on various visas. I know a lot of immigrants so I know all about these things. But whether you are a permanent resident or on a visa, you are definitely "documented". So there is no such thing as being here legally and not being documented. The term "undocumented immigrant" is an oxymoron. Kind of like rap music ha...
This is the kind of confusion that happens when English is not your first language.
im·mi·grant
ˈiməɡrənt/
noun
Doesn't say anything about a green card.
- a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country.