> Those who could but didn't vote aren't blameless either.
The harsh reality is that "lesser of two evils" thinking is what got us here.
In the 2024 election, the two mainstream party positions on immigration were:
- Let's not enforce any immigration law, and subsidize those here illegally
- Let's round up illegal aliens, indefinitely detain them without habeas corpus, maybe deport them to a country they aren't from
These are both insane, radical policies, neither of which represents the vast majority of the voting populous.
But since the picture is painted as "you just gotta pick the lesser of two evils", we end up with parties continually toeing the line of policy sanity.
> Well, the city government is no more responsible for enforcing immigration laws than it is enforcing IRS fraud.
Oh, so these Democrat sanctuary cities are in open rebellion against the party?
Wouldn't it be crazy if the Democratic Party sourced their presidential candidates from sanctuary cities, especially candidates with law enforcement careers in said cities?
On the off chance you're sincere but not well educated on this topic:
> What are you talking about?
Kamala Harris was DA for SF during the early 2010s, where she explicitly backed the city's sanctuary policies.
As CA AG she opposed the "Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act", which was aimed at deterring sanctuary cities through withholding of federal funding.
In the 2024 presidential election she was the Democratic candidate.
This is all on her Wikipedia page.
Can you answer my question?
> Oh, so these Democrat sanctuary cities are in open rebellion against the party?
> It’s not the city or states job to enforce federal immigration laws.
This has never been claimed nor intimated in this entire thread.
I can tell you're having a difficult time understanding what I'm saying. Let me rephrase it for you:
- If the policy of the Democratic Party is that immigration laws should be enforced
- Why does the party tolerate Democratic sanctuary cities?
- Why does the Democratic party source presidential candidates who have in practice (not simply in word) opposed the immigration law enforcement policy?
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
> Let's not enforce any immigration law, and subsidize those here illegally
How does this square with Biden deporting the most people since the early 2000s. He certainly removed more people than Trump 1. Obama was removing approximately a million people per year.
I think it's fair to say that's a long, long ways from not enforcing any immigration law.
The harsh reality is that "lesser of two evils" thinking is what got us here.
In the 2024 election, the two mainstream party positions on immigration were:
- Let's not enforce any immigration law, and subsidize those here illegally
- Let's round up illegal aliens, indefinitely detain them without habeas corpus, maybe deport them to a country they aren't from
These are both insane, radical policies, neither of which represents the vast majority of the voting populous.
But since the picture is painted as "you just gotta pick the lesser of two evils", we end up with parties continually toeing the line of policy sanity.