(01-21-2019 09:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 08:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Why is the path to citizenship so important to Dems?

Citizens vote.

I think that more poor people who are Hispanic appeals to Dems. Poor, peole and Hispanic people tend to vote Democratic. Even if they cannot, their US born kids can.

The basic tenet of the Democratic leadership is some combination of amnesty and/or path to citizenship for pretty much every current illegal immigrant.

I am positive it is for nothing *but* the goodness and empathy that flow from the heart of the Democratic leadership. Votes has *zero* to with this, you callous pos.

There are undoubtedly some Dems who are crooked enough to only support programs that encourage immigration or pathways to citizenship because they view that as a tool for increasing Democratic voters.

Same way as there are undoubtedly some Reps who are racist enough to only support a wall because of who it affects and who it is meant to keep out. Border crossings were again, for the 7th year in a row, a lower form of illegal immigration as compared to overstayer visas. If all reps were truly concerned about illegal immigration, visa overstays would be the central component of their border security plan, but it is not the focus.

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/16/686056668...-crossings

(01-22-2019 08:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  There are undoubtedly some Dems who are crooked enough to only support programs that encourage immigration or pathways to citizenship because they view that as a tool for increasing Democratic voters.

Some? Try all. "Keep 'em dumb, keep 'em poor, keep 'em dependent on handouts, and you can keep 'em voting democrat." Or at least all of the leadership. I grant that there may be well meaning people in the rank and file who truly care about people. But the leaders care about votes, period. And I think they are using you as useful idiots.

Quote:Same way as there are undoubtedly some Reps who are racist enough to only support a wall because of who it affects and who it is meant to keep out. Border crossings were again, for the 7th year in a row, a lower form of illegal immigration as compared to overstayer visas. If all reps were truly concerned about illegal immigration, visa overstays would be the central component of their border security plan, but it is not the focus.
https://www.npr.org/2019/01/16/686056668...-crossings

OK, so let me ask you something. What is the democrats' plan to deal with visa overstays? What I hear from democrats is forget the border, visa overstays are a bigger problem, but we don't have a plan to deal with that either.

For that matter, what is the democrats' plan to deal with illegal immigration in any form? Sanctuary cities? Abolish ICE? Those are policies to encourage more illegals, not reduce them.

They don't have one, at least not as far as I can tell. Why? Well, the obvious answer is what I said above. They see illegal immigrants as a steady stream of future democrat voters.

(01-22-2019 08:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 09:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 08:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Why is the path to citizenship so important to Dems?

Citizens vote.

I think that more poor people who are Hispanic appeals to Dems. Poor, peole and Hispanic people tend to vote Democratic. Even if they cannot, their US born kids can.

The basic tenet of the Democratic leadership is some combination of amnesty and/or path to citizenship for pretty much every current illegal immigrant.

I am positive it is for nothing *but* the goodness and empathy that flow from the heart of the Democratic leadership. Votes has *zero* to with this, you callous pos.

There are undoubtedly some Dems who are crooked enough to only support programs that encourage immigration or pathways to citizenship because they view that as a tool for increasing Democratic voters.

Same way as there are undoubtedly some Reps who are racist enough to only support a wall because of who it affects and who it is meant to keep out. Border crossings were again, for the 7th year in a row, a lower form of illegal immigration as compared to overstayer visas. If all reps were truly concerned about illegal immigration, visa overstays would be the central component of their border security plan, but it is not the focus.

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/16/686056668...-crossings

Yes... only *some* Dems want not just to support having every illegal immigrant stay in the country -- it is in fact enacted into law in the Democratic enclaves. I guess you havent ever heard of sanctuary city enablements, or, for that matter, the entire state of California? But that is just some wild ass small, utterly insignificant segment of the Democratic party. Got it.

Look at times I'm somewhat of bright guy when the clouds lift, and when I am being annointed with those apparently clear moments of lucidity and insight, even then I cant think of a single other reason for that stance. And, entire metro areas and entire states are not indicative of just *some* of a political group, maybe not all, but pretty much good evidence of a large, large, large majority (regardless of your 'some' language').

So please, do tell, what other reason can you think of (besides locking in votes) that would cause entire swaths of jurisdictions to literally clench their teeth in fury and flip off enforcement of *all* immigration issues?

I do know that on a local level, it enables the local police to be able to efficiently be local law enforcement without mandating that *they* are the card-checkers, no doubt.

But the sanctuary city (and California) policies (laws) go well beyond that horizon, as you undoubtedly know. There is no rational reason (except the aforementioned) that explains how such policies as utterly refusing to cooperate with ICE, let alone actively thwarting anti- illegal immigration efforts, that explains those uber-non-cooperation stance(s).

Bluntly, there is no reason aside from 'base building' to explain the depth of the sanctuary city 'movement'.

Bluntly, the excuse that 'some Democrats' radically misses the mark in your statement. I will grant you that there are maybe one, or two handfuls of truly racist and prominent Republicans. But to equate that handful with the wide, deep, and pervasive support for the goal of sanctuary city (and California as a whole) policies really is a disservice to your attempt to use the word 'some' to describe both populations.

(01-22-2019 09:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 08:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 09:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 08:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Why is the path to citizenship so important to Dems?

Citizens vote.

I think that more poor people who are Hispanic appeals to Dems. Poor, peole and Hispanic people tend to vote Democratic. Even if they cannot, their US born kids can.

The basic tenet of the Democratic leadership is some combination of amnesty and/or path to citizenship for pretty much every current illegal immigrant.

I am positive it is for nothing *but* the goodness and empathy that flow from the heart of the Democratic leadership. Votes has *zero* to with this, you callous pos.

There are undoubtedly some Dems who are crooked enough to only support programs that encourage immigration or pathways to citizenship because they view that as a tool for increasing Democratic voters.

Same way as there are undoubtedly some Reps who are racist enough to only support a wall because of who it affects and who it is meant to keep out. Border crossings were again, for the 7th year in a row, a lower form of illegal immigration as compared to overstayer visas. If all reps were truly concerned about illegal immigration, visa overstays would be the central component of their border security plan, but it is not the focus.

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/16/686056668...-crossings

Yes... only *some* Dems want not just to support having every illegal immigrant stay in the country -- it is in fact enacted into law in the Democratic enclaves. I guess you havent ever heard of sanctuary city enablements, or, for that matter, the entire state of California? But that is just some wild ass small, utterly insignificant segment of the Democratic party. Got it.

Look at times I'm somewhat of bright guy when the clouds lift, and when I am being annointed with those apparently clear moments of lucidity and insight, even then I cant think of a single other reason for that stance. And, entire metro areas and entire states are not indicative of just *some* of a political group, maybe not all, but pretty much good evidence of a large, large, large majority (regardless of your 'some' language').

So please, do tell, what other reason can you think of (besides locking in votes) that would cause entire swaths of jurisdictions to literally clench their teeth in fury and flip off enforcement of *all* immigration issues?

I do know that on a local level, it enables the local police to be able to efficiently be local law enforcement without mandating that *they* are the card-checkers, no doubt.

But the sanctuary city (and California) policies (laws) go well beyond that horizon, as you undoubtedly know. There is no rational reason (except the aforementioned) that explains how such policies as utterly refusing to cooperate with ICE, let alone actively thwarting anti- illegal immigration efforts, that explains those uber-non-cooperation stance(s).

Bluntly, there is no reason aside from 'base building' to explain the depth of the sanctuary city 'movement'.

Bluntly, the excuse that 'some Democrats' radically misses the mark in your statement. I will grant you that there are maybe one, or two handfuls of truly racist and prominent Republicans. But to equate that handful with the wide, deep, and pervasive support for the goal of sanctuary city (and California as a whole) policies really is a disservice to your attempt to use the word 'some' to describe both populations.

We’re talking about people’s motivations here, not the policies they support.

So when discussing why complex creatures do something, it’s almost always hard to paint with such a wide brush. I think that there are plenty of reasons that someone could support the sanctuary city idea that local police need not or should not inquire about someone’s immigration status that are not related to base building. From a logistical perspective, the aforementioned way it helps local law enforcement do their job, not wanting different law enforcement agencies to overlap, or believing that local government should be able to make the decision about how the handle immigration all fit the bill. From a moralistic perspective not believing that illegal immigration matters, being morally opposed to the idea of illegal immigration, or not supporting the idea of deporting individuals fit the bill (regardless of how you feel about them).

For some reason it seems like conservatives can support legislation based on personal values, but liberals can’t.

(01-22-2019 10:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 09:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 08:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 09:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 08:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Why is the path to citizenship so important to Dems?

Citizens vote.

I think that more poor people who are Hispanic appeals to Dems. Poor, peole and Hispanic people tend to vote Democratic. Even if they cannot, their US born kids can.

The basic tenet of the Democratic leadership is some combination of amnesty and/or path to citizenship for pretty much every current illegal immigrant.

I am positive it is for nothing *but* the goodness and empathy that flow from the heart of the Democratic leadership. Votes has *zero* to with this, you callous pos.

There are undoubtedly some Dems who are crooked enough to only support programs that encourage immigration or pathways to citizenship because they view that as a tool for increasing Democratic voters.

Same way as there are undoubtedly some Reps who are racist enough to only support a wall because of who it affects and who it is meant to keep out. Border crossings were again, for the 7th year in a row, a lower form of illegal immigration as compared to overstayer visas. If all reps were truly concerned about illegal immigration, visa overstays would be the central component of their border security plan, but it is not the focus.

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/16/686056668...-crossings

Yes... only *some* Dems want not just to support having every illegal immigrant stay in the country -- it is in fact enacted into law in the Democratic enclaves. I guess you havent ever heard of sanctuary city enablements, or, for that matter, the entire state of California? But that is just some wild ass small, utterly insignificant segment of the Democratic party. Got it.

Look at times I'm somewhat of bright guy when the clouds lift, and when I am being annointed with those apparently clear moments of lucidity and insight, even then I cant think of a single other reason for that stance. And, entire metro areas and entire states are not indicative of just *some* of a political group, maybe not all, but pretty much good evidence of a large, large, large majority (regardless of your 'some' language').

So please, do tell, what other reason can you think of (besides locking in votes) that would cause entire swaths of jurisdictions to literally clench their teeth in fury and flip off enforcement of *all* immigration issues?

I do know that on a local level, it enables the local police to be able to efficiently be local law enforcement without mandating that *they* are the card-checkers, no doubt.

But the sanctuary city (and California) policies (laws) go well beyond that horizon, as you undoubtedly know. There is no rational reason (except the aforementioned) that explains how such policies as utterly refusing to cooperate with ICE, let alone actively thwarting anti- illegal immigration efforts, that explains those uber-non-cooperation stance(s).

Bluntly, there is no reason aside from 'base building' to explain the depth of the sanctuary city 'movement'.

Bluntly, the excuse that 'some Democrats' radically misses the mark in your statement. I will grant you that there are maybe one, or two handfuls of truly racist and prominent Republicans. But to equate that handful with the wide, deep, and pervasive support for the goal of sanctuary city (and California as a whole) policies really is a disservice to your attempt to use the word 'some' to describe both populations.

We’re talking about people’s motivations here, not the policies they support.

So when discussing why complex creatures do something, it’s almost always hard to paint with such a wide brush. I think that there are plenty of reasons that someone could support the sanctuary city idea that local police need not or should not inquire about someone’s immigration status that are not related to base building. From a logistical perspective, the aforementioned way it helps local law enforcement do their job, not wanting different law enforcement agencies to overlap, or believing that local government should be able to make the decision about how the handle immigration all fit the bill. From a moralistic perspective not believing that illegal immigration matters, being morally opposed to the idea of illegal immigration, or not supporting the idea of deporting individuals fit the bill (regardless of how you feel about them).

For some reason it seems like conservatives can support legislation based on personal values, but liberals can’t.

So the only other reason for the depth of the sanctuary city movement, aside from base building, is rabid belief in no borders. That really doesnt help your cause.

So your summation of 'sanctuary' swaths of jurisdictions is: a) new voters; or b) 'we dont need no stinking borders'. Awesome alternatives there lad.

And, as I said I see the aid to law enforcement for *some* matters, I have no problems with local law enforcement not being the edge of the spear in ferreting out illegal status. But it goes way further than that.

But even you can recognize that the sanctuary city (and California) initiatives go parsecs beyond that, or do you think that the the absolute resistance of jurisdictions, the resistance actually being elevated to 'aiding' illegal immigrants to avoid falling into the grasp of 'La Migra', is connected to 'local law enforcement aid'. Sorry, calling absolute bull**** on that there lad.

That doesnt come anywhere close to the breadth and scope that all of the cities promulgate and the state of California does as well.

And in other contexts I have related to you the comments from people in somewhat more than middle management positions in the Democratic Party have made about the coupling of immigration and voting in my presence. Anecdotes, mere anecdotes I guess. I heard one state vice-chairman actually make the comment that the fastest way to get Democrats to support harder enforcement of illegal aliens was to make them vote Republican. Anecdotes are rich, my friend.

I find it fascinating how fast the dancing has to go to actually have to recognize a major fing component of the rationale behind the stance on illegal immigration.

(01-22-2019 11:11 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 10:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 09:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 08:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 09:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The basic tenet of the Democratic leadership is some combination of amnesty and/or path to citizenship for pretty much every current illegal immigrant.

I am positive it is for nothing *but* the goodness and empathy that flow from the heart of the Democratic leadership. Votes has *zero* to with this, you callous pos.

There are undoubtedly some Dems who are crooked enough to only support programs that encourage immigration or pathways to citizenship because they view that as a tool for increasing Democratic voters.

Same way as there are undoubtedly some Reps who are racist enough to only support a wall because of who it affects and who it is meant to keep out. Border crossings were again, for the 7th year in a row, a lower form of illegal immigration as compared to overstayer visas. If all reps were truly concerned about illegal immigration, visa overstays would be the central component of their border security plan, but it is not the focus.

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/16/686056668...-crossings

Yes... only *some* Dems want not just to support having every illegal immigrant stay in the country -- it is in fact enacted into law in the Democratic enclaves. I guess you havent ever heard of sanctuary city enablements, or, for that matter, the entire state of California? But that is just some wild ass small, utterly insignificant segment of the Democratic party. Got it.

Look at times I'm somewhat of bright guy when the clouds lift, and when I am being annointed with those apparently clear moments of lucidity and insight, even then I cant think of a single other reason for that stance. And, entire metro areas and entire states are not indicative of just *some* of a political group, maybe not all, but pretty much good evidence of a large, large, large majority (regardless of your 'some' language').

So please, do tell, what other reason can you think of (besides locking in votes) that would cause entire swaths of jurisdictions to literally clench their teeth in fury and flip off enforcement of *all* immigration issues?

I do know that on a local level, it enables the local police to be able to efficiently be local law enforcement without mandating that *they* are the card-checkers, no doubt.

But the sanctuary city (and California) policies (laws) go well beyond that horizon, as you undoubtedly know. There is no rational reason (except the aforementioned) that explains how such policies as utterly refusing to cooperate with ICE, let alone actively thwarting anti- illegal immigration efforts, that explains those uber-non-cooperation stance(s).

Bluntly, there is no reason aside from 'base building' to explain the depth of the sanctuary city 'movement'.

Bluntly, the excuse that 'some Democrats' radically misses the mark in your statement. I will grant you that there are maybe one, or two handfuls of truly racist and prominent Republicans. But to equate that handful with the wide, deep, and pervasive support for the goal of sanctuary city (and California as a whole) policies really is a disservice to your attempt to use the word 'some' to describe both populations.

We’re talking about people’s motivations here, not the policies they support.

So when discussing why complex creatures do something, it’s almost always hard to paint with such a wide brush. I think that there are plenty of reasons that someone could support the sanctuary city idea that local police need not or should not inquire about someone’s immigration status that are not related to base building. From a logistical perspective, the aforementioned way it helps local law enforcement do their job, not wanting different law enforcement agencies to overlap, or believing that local government should be able to make the decision about how the handle immigration all fit the bill. From a moralistic perspective not believing that illegal immigration matters, being morally opposed to the idea of illegal immigration, or not supporting the idea of deporting individuals fit the bill (regardless of how you feel about them).

For some reason it seems like conservatives can support legislation based on personal values, but liberals can’t.

So the only other reason for the depth of the sanctuary city movement, aside from base building, is rabid belief in no borders. That really doesnt help your cause.

So your summation of 'sanctuary' swaths of jurisdictions is: a) new voters; or b) 'we dont need no stinking borders'. Awesome alternatives there lad.

And, as I said I see the aid to law enforcement for *some* matters, I have no problems with local law enforcement not being the edge of the spear in ferreting out illegal status. But it goes way further than that.

But even you can recognize that the sanctuary city (and California) initiatives go parsecs beyond that, or do you think that the the absolute resistance of jurisdictions, the resistance actually being elevated to 'aiding' illegal immigrants to avoid falling into the grasp of 'La Migra', is connected to 'local law enforcement aid'. Sorry, calling absolute bull**** on that there lad.

That doesnt come anywhere close to the breadth and scope that all of the cities promulgate and the state of California does as well.

And in other contexts I have related to you the comments from people in somewhat more than middle management positions in the Democratic Party have made about the coupling of immigration and voting in my presence. Anecdotes, mere anecdotes I guess. I heard one state vice-chairman actually make the comment that the fastest way to get Democrats to support harder enforcement of illegal aliens was to make them vote Republican. Anecdotes are rich, my friend.

I find it fascinating how fast the dancing has to go to actually have to recognize a major fing component of the rationale behind the stance on illegal immigration.

(01-22-2019 11:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 11:11 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 10:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 09:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 08:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  There are undoubtedly some Dems who are crooked enough to only support programs that encourage immigration or pathways to citizenship because they view that as a tool for increasing Democratic voters.

Same way as there are undoubtedly some Reps who are racist enough to only support a wall because of who it affects and who it is meant to keep out. Border crossings were again, for the 7th year in a row, a lower form of illegal immigration as compared to overstayer visas. If all reps were truly concerned about illegal immigration, visa overstays would be the central component of their border security plan, but it is not the focus.

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/16/686056668...-crossings

Yes... only *some* Dems want not just to support having every illegal immigrant stay in the country -- it is in fact enacted into law in the Democratic enclaves. I guess you havent ever heard of sanctuary city enablements, or, for that matter, the entire state of California? But that is just some wild ass small, utterly insignificant segment of the Democratic party. Got it.

Look at times I'm somewhat of bright guy when the clouds lift, and when I am being annointed with those apparently clear moments of lucidity and insight, even then I cant think of a single other reason for that stance. And, entire metro areas and entire states are not indicative of just *some* of a political group, maybe not all, but pretty much good evidence of a large, large, large majority (regardless of your 'some' language').

So please, do tell, what other reason can you think of (besides locking in votes) that would cause entire swaths of jurisdictions to literally clench their teeth in fury and flip off enforcement of *all* immigration issues?

I do know that on a local level, it enables the local police to be able to efficiently be local law enforcement without mandating that *they* are the card-checkers, no doubt.

But the sanctuary city (and California) policies (laws) go well beyond that horizon, as you undoubtedly know. There is no rational reason (except the aforementioned) that explains how such policies as utterly refusing to cooperate with ICE, let alone actively thwarting anti- illegal immigration efforts, that explains those uber-non-cooperation stance(s).

Bluntly, there is no reason aside from 'base building' to explain the depth of the sanctuary city 'movement'.

Bluntly, the excuse that 'some Democrats' radically misses the mark in your statement. I will grant you that there are maybe one, or two handfuls of truly racist and prominent Republicans. But to equate that handful with the wide, deep, and pervasive support for the goal of sanctuary city (and California as a whole) policies really is a disservice to your attempt to use the word 'some' to describe both populations.

We’re talking about people’s motivations here, not the policies they support.

So when discussing why complex creatures do something, it’s almost always hard to paint with such a wide brush. I think that there are plenty of reasons that someone could support the sanctuary city idea that local police need not or should not inquire about someone’s immigration status that are not related to base building. From a logistical perspective, the aforementioned way it helps local law enforcement do their job, not wanting different law enforcement agencies to overlap, or believing that local government should be able to make the decision about how the handle immigration all fit the bill. From a moralistic perspective not believing that illegal immigration matters, being morally opposed to the idea of illegal immigration, or not supporting the idea of deporting individuals fit the bill (regardless of how you feel about them).

For some reason it seems like conservatives can support legislation based on personal values, but liberals can’t.

So the only other reason for the depth of the sanctuary city movement, aside from base building, is rabid belief in no borders. That really doesnt help your cause.

So your summation of 'sanctuary' swaths of jurisdictions is: a) new voters; or b) 'we dont need no stinking borders'. Awesome alternatives there lad.

And, as I said I see the aid to law enforcement for *some* matters, I have no problems with local law enforcement not being the edge of the spear in ferreting out illegal status. But it goes way further than that.

But even you can recognize that the sanctuary city (and California) initiatives go parsecs beyond that, or do you think that the the absolute resistance of jurisdictions, the resistance actually being elevated to 'aiding' illegal immigrants to avoid falling into the grasp of 'La Migra', is connected to 'local law enforcement aid'. Sorry, calling absolute bull**** on that there lad.

That doesnt come anywhere close to the breadth and scope that all of the cities promulgate and the state of California does as well.

And in other contexts I have related to you the comments from people in somewhat more than middle management positions in the Democratic Party have made about the coupling of immigration and voting in my presence. Anecdotes, mere anecdotes I guess. I heard one state vice-chairman actually make the comment that the fastest way to get Democrats to support harder enforcement of illegal aliens was to make them vote Republican. Anecdotes are rich, my friend.

I find it fascinating how fast the dancing has to go to actually have to recognize a major fing component of the rationale behind the stance on illegal immigration.

Yeah,,, **** you too. Love the twerpy **** 'responses' (quotes intentional there, lad) you have fallen into.

Again, your rationale is now 'its because they believe in open borders'. In order to avoid that pit *you* wrote yourself into you just do the logo equivalent of the twerp **** response of ''whateeeevvvveeerrr". Real 'cute' avoidance there.

(01-22-2019 12:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 11:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 11:11 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 10:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 09:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Yes... only *some* Dems want not just to support having every illegal immigrant stay in the country -- it is in fact enacted into law in the Democratic enclaves. I guess you havent ever heard of sanctuary city enablements, or, for that matter, the entire state of California? But that is just some wild ass small, utterly insignificant segment of the Democratic party. Got it.

Look at times I'm somewhat of bright guy when the clouds lift, and when I am being annointed with those apparently clear moments of lucidity and insight, even then I cant think of a single other reason for that stance. And, entire metro areas and entire states are not indicative of just *some* of a political group, maybe not all, but pretty much good evidence of a large, large, large majority (regardless of your 'some' language').

So please, do tell, what other reason can you think of (besides locking in votes) that would cause entire swaths of jurisdictions to literally clench their teeth in fury and flip off enforcement of *all* immigration issues?

I do know that on a local level, it enables the local police to be able to efficiently be local law enforcement without mandating that *they* are the card-checkers, no doubt.

But the sanctuary city (and California) policies (laws) go well beyond that horizon, as you undoubtedly know. There is no rational reason (except the aforementioned) that explains how such policies as utterly refusing to cooperate with ICE, let alone actively thwarting anti- illegal immigration efforts, that explains those uber-non-cooperation stance(s).

Bluntly, there is no reason aside from 'base building' to explain the depth of the sanctuary city 'movement'.

Bluntly, the excuse that 'some Democrats' radically misses the mark in your statement. I will grant you that there are maybe one, or two handfuls of truly racist and prominent Republicans. But to equate that handful with the wide, deep, and pervasive support for the goal of sanctuary city (and California as a whole) policies really is a disservice to your attempt to use the word 'some' to describe both populations.

We’re talking about people’s motivations here, not the policies they support.

So when discussing why complex creatures do something, it’s almost always hard to paint with such a wide brush. I think that there are plenty of reasons that someone could support the sanctuary city idea that local police need not or should not inquire about someone’s immigration status that are not related to base building. From a logistical perspective, the aforementioned way it helps local law enforcement do their job, not wanting different law enforcement agencies to overlap, or believing that local government should be able to make the decision about how the handle immigration all fit the bill. From a moralistic perspective not believing that illegal immigration matters, being morally opposed to the idea of illegal immigration, or not supporting the idea of deporting individuals fit the bill (regardless of how you feel about them).

For some reason it seems like conservatives can support legislation based on personal values, but liberals can’t.

So the only other reason for the depth of the sanctuary city movement, aside from base building, is rabid belief in no borders. That really doesnt help your cause.

So your summation of 'sanctuary' swaths of jurisdictions is: a) new voters; or b) 'we dont need no stinking borders'. Awesome alternatives there lad.

And, as I said I see the aid to law enforcement for *some* matters, I have no problems with local law enforcement not being the edge of the spear in ferreting out illegal status. But it goes way further than that.

But even you can recognize that the sanctuary city (and California) initiatives go parsecs beyond that, or do you think that the the absolute resistance of jurisdictions, the resistance actually being elevated to 'aiding' illegal immigrants to avoid falling into the grasp of 'La Migra', is connected to 'local law enforcement aid'. Sorry, calling absolute bull**** on that there lad.

That doesnt come anywhere close to the breadth and scope that all of the cities promulgate and the state of California does as well.

And in other contexts I have related to you the comments from people in somewhat more than middle management positions in the Democratic Party have made about the coupling of immigration and voting in my presence. Anecdotes, mere anecdotes I guess. I heard one state vice-chairman actually make the comment that the fastest way to get Democrats to support harder enforcement of illegal aliens was to make them vote Republican. Anecdotes are rich, my friend.

I find it fascinating how fast the dancing has to go to actually have to recognize a major fing component of the rationale behind the stance on illegal immigration.

Yeah,,, **** you too. Love the twerpy **** 'responses' (quotes intentional there, lad) you have fallen into.

Again, your rationale is now 'its because they believe in open borders'. In order to avoid that pit *you* wrote yourself into you just do the logo equivalent of the twerp **** response of ''whateeeevvvveeerrr". Real 'cute' avoidance there.

Yeah, and I love your overly aggressive and snide "responses" as well.

That reply is because your response didn't even come close to actually tackling the crux of my comment, which is that you and Owl# are making jumps in conclusion about the rationale for people's thoughts.

This wasn't about debating the merits of sanctuary cities (which is a perfectly reasonable debate), but rather the idea you both promote that the only reason Dems support certain immigration policies is because they want to broaden the voting base.

I provided 6 plausible reasons why liberals might support sanctuary cities that have nothing to do with creating more voters and you attacked the positions stated.

And I've even said that there are certainly some Dems who do hold your and OWL#'s view that the only reason to support some of these policies is to create more Dem voters. But your response made it clear you're not interested in hearing that this is a minority opinion. After all, neither of us are talking about facts here, just opinions. Which is why discussing motivations is a really tricky thing to do.

(01-22-2019 12:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 12:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 11:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 11:11 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 10:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  We’re talking about people’s motivations here, not the policies they support.

So when discussing why complex creatures do something, it’s almost always hard to paint with such a wide brush. I think that there are plenty of reasons that someone could support the sanctuary city idea that local police need not or should not inquire about someone’s immigration status that are not related to base building. From a logistical perspective, the aforementioned way it helps local law enforcement do their job, not wanting different law enforcement agencies to overlap, or believing that local government should be able to make the decision about how the handle immigration all fit the bill. From a moralistic perspective not believing that illegal immigration matters, being morally opposed to the idea of illegal immigration, or not supporting the idea of deporting individuals fit the bill (regardless of how you feel about them).

For some reason it seems like conservatives can support legislation based on personal values, but liberals can’t.

So the only other reason for the depth of the sanctuary city movement, aside from base building, is rabid belief in no borders. That really doesnt help your cause.

So your summation of 'sanctuary' swaths of jurisdictions is: a) new voters; or b) 'we dont need no stinking borders'. Awesome alternatives there lad.

And, as I said I see the aid to law enforcement for *some* matters, I have no problems with local law enforcement not being the edge of the spear in ferreting out illegal status. But it goes way further than that.

But even you can recognize that the sanctuary city (and California) initiatives go parsecs beyond that, or do you think that the the absolute resistance of jurisdictions, the resistance actually being elevated to 'aiding' illegal immigrants to avoid falling into the grasp of 'La Migra', is connected to 'local law enforcement aid'. Sorry, calling absolute bull**** on that there lad.

That doesnt come anywhere close to the breadth and scope that all of the cities promulgate and the state of California does as well.

And in other contexts I have related to you the comments from people in somewhat more than middle management positions in the Democratic Party have made about the coupling of immigration and voting in my presence. Anecdotes, mere anecdotes I guess. I heard one state vice-chairman actually make the comment that the fastest way to get Democrats to support harder enforcement of illegal aliens was to make them vote Republican. Anecdotes are rich, my friend.

I find it fascinating how fast the dancing has to go to actually have to recognize a major fing component of the rationale behind the stance on illegal immigration.

Yeah,,, **** you too. Love the twerpy **** 'responses' (quotes intentional there, lad) you have fallen into.

Again, your rationale is now 'its because they believe in open borders'. In order to avoid that pit *you* wrote yourself into you just do the logo equivalent of the twerp **** response of ''whateeeevvvveeerrr". Real 'cute' avoidance there.

Yeah, and I love your overly aggressive and snide "responses" as well.

That reply is because your response didn't even come close to actually tackling the crux of my comment, which is that you and Owl# are making jumps in conclusion about the rationale for people's thoughts.

This wasn't about debating the merits of sanctuary cities (which is a perfectly reasonable debate), but rather the idea you both promote that the only reason Dems support certain immigration policies is because they want to broaden the voting base.

I provided 6 plausible reasons why liberals might support sanctuary cities that have nothing to do with creating more voters and you attacked the positions stated.

And I've even said that there are certainly some Dems who do hold your and OWL#'s view that the only reason to support some of these policies is to create more Dem voters. But your response made it clear you're not interested in hearing that this is a minority opinion. After all, neither of us are talking about facts here, just opinions. Which is why discussing motivations is a really tricky thing to do.

whatever.

By the way, your 6 looks like 2 here (one that I already brought up, but doesnt make any lick of sense when considering the depth of the policies, but dont let that stop you from counting it....):

Quote:From a logistical perspective, the aforementioned way it helps local law enforcement do their job, not wanting different law enforcement agencies to overlap, or believing that local government should be able to make the decision about how the handle immigration all fit the bill. From a moralistic perspective not believing that illegal immigration matters, being morally opposed to the idea of illegal immigration, or not supporting the idea of deporting individuals fit the bill (regardless of how you feel about them).

(01-22-2019 12:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 12:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 12:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 11:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 11:11 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So the only other reason for the depth of the sanctuary city movement, aside from base building, is rabid belief in no borders. That really doesnt help your cause.

So your summation of 'sanctuary' swaths of jurisdictions is: a) new voters; or b) 'we dont need no stinking borders'. Awesome alternatives there lad.

And, as I said I see the aid to law enforcement for *some* matters, I have no problems with local law enforcement not being the edge of the spear in ferreting out illegal status. But it goes way further than that.

But even you can recognize that the sanctuary city (and California) initiatives go parsecs beyond that, or do you think that the the absolute resistance of jurisdictions, the resistance actually being elevated to 'aiding' illegal immigrants to avoid falling into the grasp of 'La Migra', is connected to 'local law enforcement aid'. Sorry, calling absolute bull**** on that there lad.

That doesnt come anywhere close to the breadth and scope that all of the cities promulgate and the state of California does as well.

And in other contexts I have related to you the comments from people in somewhat more than middle management positions in the Democratic Party have made about the coupling of immigration and voting in my presence. Anecdotes, mere anecdotes I guess. I heard one state vice-chairman actually make the comment that the fastest way to get Democrats to support harder enforcement of illegal aliens was to make them vote Republican. Anecdotes are rich, my friend.

I find it fascinating how fast the dancing has to go to actually have to recognize a major fing component of the rationale behind the stance on illegal immigration.

Yeah,,, **** you too. Love the twerpy **** 'responses' (quotes intentional there, lad) you have fallen into.

Again, your rationale is now 'its because they believe in open borders'. In order to avoid that pit *you* wrote yourself into you just do the logo equivalent of the twerp **** response of ''whateeeevvvveeerrr". Real 'cute' avoidance there.

Yeah, and I love your overly aggressive and snide "responses" as well.

That reply is because your response didn't even come close to actually tackling the crux of my comment, which is that you and Owl# are making jumps in conclusion about the rationale for people's thoughts.

This wasn't about debating the merits of sanctuary cities (which is a perfectly reasonable debate), but rather the idea you both promote that the only reason Dems support certain immigration policies is because they want to broaden the voting base.

I provided 6 plausible reasons why liberals might support sanctuary cities that have nothing to do with creating more voters and you attacked the positions stated.

And I've even said that there are certainly some Dems who do hold your and OWL#'s view that the only reason to support some of these policies is to create more Dem voters. But your response made it clear you're not interested in hearing that this is a minority opinion. After all, neither of us are talking about facts here, just opinions. Which is why discussing motivations is a really tricky thing to do.

whatever.

By the way, your 6 looks like 2 here (one that I already brought up, but doesnt make any lick of sense when considering the depth of the policies, but dont let that stop you from counting it....):

Quote:From a logistical perspective, the aforementioned way it helps local law enforcement do their job, not wanting different law enforcement agencies to overlap, or believing that local government should be able to make the decision about how the handle immigration all fit the bill. From a moralistic perspective not believing that illegal immigration matters, being morally opposed to the idea of illegal immigration, or not supporting the idea of deporting individuals fit the bill (regardless of how you feel about them).

I gave you three logistical reasons why someone might support sanctuary cities and three moralistic reasons.

3+3 = 6

You can have fun arguing whether or not you agree with these, but just because you don't find them personally compelling, doesn't mean there aren't plenty of people out there who do.

Again, this is why talking about the motivation for a policy is so difficult.

Yes I am making leaps in people's rationale. Funnily, somewhat based on the comments of a former vice-chair of the Texas Democratic party. Bad me.

And, even spotting for 'local enforcement issues', it still doesnt explain the very deep depth of the sanctuary city initiative. I said I will grant you the need for local cops *not* to be the enforcement method, but the sanctuary city and state policies go parsecs beyond that. I guess that is 'sarcasm' that cuts into your thin skin, so I will try to avoid using loaded language like 'parsecs'.....

And your second point is that they are 'morally against detainer and deportation'' Great. I'll spot you even that. How is that 'no borders no how" *any* better than the 'building voting bases'? Not my problem that *you* jumped to that island. But it seems from this perspective that that is equivalently as bad as building voting bases.

Or are these questions and comments too biting for you?

I will grant you I did make one snide comment -- the 'dancing' verbiage. Great. But from this perspective that seems an apt description at this point. What would be better commentary that will soothe your soul? 'Fluid reasoning' any better?

(01-22-2019 12:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 12:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 12:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 12:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 11:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

Yeah,,, **** you too. Love the twerpy **** 'responses' (quotes intentional there, lad) you have fallen into.

Again, your rationale is now 'its because they believe in open borders'. In order to avoid that pit *you* wrote yourself into you just do the logo equivalent of the twerp **** response of ''whateeeevvvveeerrr". Real 'cute' avoidance there.

Yeah, and I love your overly aggressive and snide "responses" as well.

That reply is because your response didn't even come close to actually tackling the crux of my comment, which is that you and Owl# are making jumps in conclusion about the rationale for people's thoughts.

This wasn't about debating the merits of sanctuary cities (which is a perfectly reasonable debate), but rather the idea you both promote that the only reason Dems support certain immigration policies is because they want to broaden the voting base.

I provided 6 plausible reasons why liberals might support sanctuary cities that have nothing to do with creating more voters and you attacked the positions stated.

And I've even said that there are certainly some Dems who do hold your and OWL#'s view that the only reason to support some of these policies is to create more Dem voters. But your response made it clear you're not interested in hearing that this is a minority opinion. After all, neither of us are talking about facts here, just opinions. Which is why discussing motivations is a really tricky thing to do.

whatever.

By the way, your 6 looks like 2 here (one that I already brought up, but doesnt make any lick of sense when considering the depth of the policies, but dont let that stop you from counting it....):

Quote:From a logistical perspective, the aforementioned way it helps local law enforcement do their job, not wanting different law enforcement agencies to overlap, or believing that local government should be able to make the decision about how the handle immigration all fit the bill. From a moralistic perspective not believing that illegal immigration matters, being morally opposed to the idea of illegal immigration, or not supporting the idea of deporting individuals fit the bill (regardless of how you feel about them).

I gave you three logistical reasons why someone might support sanctuary cities and three moralistic reasons.

3+3 = 6

You can have fun arguing whether or not you agree with these, but just because you don't find them personally compelling, doesn't mean there aren't plenty of people out there who do.

Again, this is why talking about the motivation for a policy is so difficult.

Let's look at the 3 logistical reasons then.

1. it helps local law enforcement do their job,

I spotted you this one, and it utterly fails to explain the depth of the policies.

2. not wanting different law enforcement agencies to overlap,

So ensuring that arrestees are not turned over to ICE, actively barring immigration enforcement from being in courthouses to detain, and refusing to holdover any detained and/or arrested persons is simply because they dont want overlap?

Sorry that is utterly laughable given the scope of actions.

3. believing that local government should be able to make the decision about how the handle immigration all fit the bill.

So the view that a local government can usurp a power exclusively reserved for decision by the Federal government in the Constitution is now a vindication? Good god.

It is interesting how the liberals and progressives are sounding more and more like defenders of the principles of the Confederate States of America than at any other time in my existence.....

If that is a valid reasoning in your mind, then I guess the reasoning on why the southern states left the Union in 1861 should ring true and vindicated as a valid action for you as well, does it not?

I find this last one, especially with the issues 150 years ago vis a vis the states rights issues, *and*, in this case the Supremacy Clause to boot, to be amazingly vapid. And, humorously hypocritical in that respect as well.

But to rub salt in wound, this is what I come to expect from Progressives re: the Constitution and rule of law. So I would not be surprised at those holding this line of rationale, to be honest.

------

Now lets turn to your three 'moralistic viewpoints'

Quote:From a moralistic perspective not believing that illegal immigration matters, being morally opposed to the idea of illegal immigration, or not supporting the idea of deporting individuals fit the bill

Okay lets see how each of those compares to my grossly and blithely ignorant act of lumping them as 'open borders'.

Quote: not believing that illegal immigration matters

Uhhh.... I dont see an iota of difference there. Hummer.

Quote:being morally opposed to the idea of illegal immigration

Hmmmm...... seems pretty much spot on to the ideal of 'open borders'.

Quote:not supporting the idea of deporting individuals fit the bill

That is an interesting one.... so while not necessarily 'open borders', the ideal of stopping all enforcement actions of deporting seem to this blithely ignorant person to be the same three-eyed first cousin, but just worded a tad differently.

Interesting combination there -- not open borders, but damnit! NO DEPORTATION! Seems deep south stupid there, but still it *could* occur.

So yeah, all three of your moralistic reasons are just different incantations of the 'No borders mantra'. I think I would be comfortable in saying there is one reason underlying all of those.

So to recap the triumvirate of rationales we have exposed is:

a) deep commitment to precept of 'open borders' simply *because* of the concept of open borders;
b) a deep and feverent ideal that local governments should dictate what is an explicit power reserved for the federal government; or
c) base building.

Quite the trio of rationales we have uncovered in this process. Idealistically against the concept of borders, idealistically against the power of the Federal government and the explicit original wording of the Constitution (for just ***** and giggles here I presume), or pragmatically to build a base. Fascinating trio here I must say.

(01-22-2019 01:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 12:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 12:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 12:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 12:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Yeah,,, **** you too. Love the twerpy **** 'responses' (quotes intentional there, lad) you have fallen into.

Again, your rationale is now 'its because they believe in open borders'. In order to avoid that pit *you* wrote yourself into you just do the logo equivalent of the twerp **** response of ''whateeeevvvveeerrr". Real 'cute' avoidance there.

Yeah, and I love your overly aggressive and snide "responses" as well.

That reply is because your response didn't even come close to actually tackling the crux of my comment, which is that you and Owl# are making jumps in conclusion about the rationale for people's thoughts.

This wasn't about debating the merits of sanctuary cities (which is a perfectly reasonable debate), but rather the idea you both promote that the only reason Dems support certain immigration policies is because they want to broaden the voting base.

I provided 6 plausible reasons why liberals might support sanctuary cities that have nothing to do with creating more voters and you attacked the positions stated.

And I've even said that there are certainly some Dems who do hold your and OWL#'s view that the only reason to support some of these policies is to create more Dem voters. But your response made it clear you're not interested in hearing that this is a minority opinion. After all, neither of us are talking about facts here, just opinions. Which is why discussing motivations is a really tricky thing to do.

whatever.

By the way, your 6 looks like 2 here (one that I already brought up, but doesnt make any lick of sense when considering the depth of the policies, but dont let that stop you from counting it....):

Quote:From a logistical perspective, the aforementioned way it helps local law enforcement do their job, not wanting different law enforcement agencies to overlap, or believing that local government should be able to make the decision about how the handle immigration all fit the bill. From a moralistic perspective not believing that illegal immigration matters, being morally opposed to the idea of illegal immigration, or not supporting the idea of deporting individuals fit the bill (regardless of how you feel about them).

I gave you three logistical reasons why someone might support sanctuary cities and three moralistic reasons.

3+3 = 6

You can have fun arguing whether or not you agree with these, but just because you don't find them personally compelling, doesn't mean there aren't plenty of people out there who do.

Again, this is why talking about the motivation for a policy is so difficult.

Let's look at the 3 logistical reasons then.

1. it helps local law enforcement do their job,

I spotted you this one, and it utterly fails to explain the depth of the policies.

2. not wanting different law enforcement agencies to overlap,

So ensuring that arrestees are not turned over to ICE, actively barring immigration enforcement from being in courthouses to detain, and refusing to holdover any detained and/or arrested persons is simply because they dont want overlap?

Sorry that is utterly laughable given the scope of actions.

3. believing that local government should be able to make the decision about how the handle immigration all fit the bill.

So the view that a local government can usurp a power exclusively reserved for decision by the Federal government in the Constitution is now a vindication? Good god.

It is interesting how the liberals and progressives are sounding more and more like defenders of the principles of the Confederate States of America than at any other time in my existence.....

If that is a valid reasoning in your mind, then I guess the reasoning on why the southern states left the Union in 1861 should ring true and vindicated as a valid action for you as well, does it not?

I find this last one, especially with the issues 150 years ago vis a vis the states rights issues, *and*, in this case the Supremacy Clause to boot, to be amazingly vapid. And, humorously hypocritical in that respect as well.

But to rub salt in wound, this is what I come to expect from Progressives re: the Constitution and rule of law. So I would not be surprised at those holding this line of rationale, to be honest.

------

Now lets turn to your three 'moralistic viewpoints'

Quote:From a moralistic perspective not believing that illegal immigration matters, being morally opposed to the idea of illegal immigration, or not supporting the idea of deporting individuals fit the bill

Okay lets see how each of those compares to my grossly and blithely ignorant act of lumping them as 'open borders'.

Quote: not believing that illegal immigration matters

Uhhh.... I dont see an iota of difference there. Hummer.

Quote:being morally opposed to the idea of illegal immigration

Hmmmm...... seems pretty much spot on to the ideal of 'open borders'.

Quote:not supporting the idea of deporting individuals fit the bill

That is an interesting one.... so while not necessarily 'open borders', the ideal of stopping all enforcement actions of deporting seem to this blithely ignorant person to be the same three-eyed first cousin, but just worded a tad differently.

Interesting combination there -- not open borders, but damnit! NO DEPORTATION! Seems deep south stupid there, but still it *could* occur.

So yeah, all three of your moralistic reasons are just different incantations of the 'No borders mantra'. I think I would be comfortable in saying there is one reason underlying all of those.

So to recap the triumvirate of rationales we have exposed is:

a) deep commitment to precept of 'open borders' simply *because* of the concept of open borders;
b) a deep and feverent ideal that local governments should dictate what is an explicit power reserved for the federal government; or
c) base building.

Quite the trio of rationales we have uncovered in this process. Idealistically against the concept of borders, idealistically against the power of the Federal government and the explicit original wording of the Constitution (for just ***** and giggles here I presume), or pragmatically to build a base. Fascinating trio here I must say.

Look man, get riled up over these all you want. I have 0 skin in the game as I'm not advocating for these positions. I'm simply pointing out that there are plausible reasons besides wanting more Democratic votes as to why someone would support the sanctuary city policies.

You get riled up when liberals try to extrapolate as to why conservatives do things like try and pass voter ID laws, or build the wall, or any other hot button topic. And those too are prime examples as to why trying to ascribe a rationale for supporting a policy is a dangerous road to go down.

Furthermore, in this situation, you haven't even explained how sanctuary city policies directly lead to granting illegal immigrants the right to vote. You'd have to at least tie that to a general amnesty plan for any and all illegal immigrants regardless of how long they've been in the US for that to be a plausible reason for someone supporting sanctuary city policies.

(01-22-2019 12:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Yes I am making leaps in people's rationale. Funnily, somewhat based on the comments of a former vice-chair of the Texas Democratic party. Bad me.

And, even spotting for 'local enforcement issues', it still doesnt explain the very deep depth of the sanctuary city initiative. I said I will grant you the need for local cops *not* to be the enforcement method, but the sanctuary city and state policies go parsecs beyond that. I guess that is 'sarcasm' that cuts into your thin skin, so I will try to avoid using loaded language like 'parsecs'.....

And your second point is that they are 'morally against detainer and deportation'' Great. I'll spot you even that. How is that 'no borders no how" *any* better than the 'building voting bases'? Not my problem that *you* jumped to that island. But it seems from this perspective that that is equivalently as bad as building voting bases.

Or are these questions and comments too biting for you?

I will grant you I did make one snide comment -- the 'dancing' verbiage. Great. But from this perspective that seems an apt description at this point. What would be better commentary that will soothe your soul? 'Fluid reasoning' any better?

You just aren't getting my point if you're asking me how a theoretical person supporting an open borders policy is any better than someone advocating for a policy position specifically to build voting bases.

This is what is so incredibly frustrating, as I've been incredibly clear about the issue I've taken with you and Owl#'s posts.

(01-22-2019 04:59 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 01:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 12:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 12:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 12:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Yeah, and I love your overly aggressive and snide "responses" as well.

That reply is because your response didn't even come close to actually tackling the crux of my comment, which is that you and Owl# are making jumps in conclusion about the rationale for people's thoughts.

This wasn't about debating the merits of sanctuary cities (which is a perfectly reasonable debate), but rather the idea you both promote that the only reason Dems support certain immigration policies is because they want to broaden the voting base.

I provided 6 plausible reasons why liberals might support sanctuary cities that have nothing to do with creating more voters and you attacked the positions stated.

And I've even said that there are certainly some Dems who do hold your and OWL#'s view that the only reason to support some of these policies is to create more Dem voters. But your response made it clear you're not interested in hearing that this is a minority opinion. After all, neither of us are talking about facts here, just opinions. Which is why discussing motivations is a really tricky thing to do.

whatever.

By the way, your 6 looks like 2 here (one that I already brought up, but doesnt make any lick of sense when considering the depth of the policies, but dont let that stop you from counting it....):

Quote:From a logistical perspective, the aforementioned way it helps local law enforcement do their job, not wanting different law enforcement agencies to overlap, or believing that local government should be able to make the decision about how the handle immigration all fit the bill. From a moralistic perspective not believing that illegal immigration matters, being morally opposed to the idea of illegal immigration, or not supporting the idea of deporting individuals fit the bill (regardless of how you feel about them).

I gave you three logistical reasons why someone might support sanctuary cities and three moralistic reasons.

3+3 = 6

You can have fun arguing whether or not you agree with these, but just because you don't find them personally compelling, doesn't mean there aren't plenty of people out there who do.

Again, this is why talking about the motivation for a policy is so difficult.

Let's look at the 3 logistical reasons then.

1. it helps local law enforcement do their job,

I spotted you this one, and it utterly fails to explain the depth of the policies.

2. not wanting different law enforcement agencies to overlap,

So ensuring that arrestees are not turned over to ICE, actively barring immigration enforcement from being in courthouses to detain, and refusing to holdover any detained and/or arrested persons is simply because they dont want overlap?

Sorry that is utterly laughable given the scope of actions.

3. believing that local government should be able to make the decision about how the handle immigration all fit the bill.

So the view that a local government can usurp a power exclusively reserved for decision by the Federal government in the Constitution is now a vindication? Good god.

It is interesting how the liberals and progressives are sounding more and more like defenders of the principles of the Confederate States of America than at any other time in my existence.....

If that is a valid reasoning in your mind, then I guess the reasoning on why the southern states left the Union in 1861 should ring true and vindicated as a valid action for you as well, does it not?

I find this last one, especially with the issues 150 years ago vis a vis the states rights issues, *and*, in this case the Supremacy Clause to boot, to be amazingly vapid. And, humorously hypocritical in that respect as well.

But to rub salt in wound, this is what I come to expect from Progressives re: the Constitution and rule of law. So I would not be surprised at those holding this line of rationale, to be honest.

------

Now lets turn to your three 'moralistic viewpoints'

Quote:From a moralistic perspective not believing that illegal immigration matters, being morally opposed to the idea of illegal immigration, or not supporting the idea of deporting individuals fit the bill

Okay lets see how each of those compares to my grossly and blithely ignorant act of lumping them as 'open borders'.

Quote: not believing that illegal immigration matters

Uhhh.... I dont see an iota of difference there. Hummer.

Quote:being morally opposed to the idea of illegal immigration

Hmmmm...... seems pretty much spot on to the ideal of 'open borders'.

Quote:not supporting the idea of deporting individuals fit the bill

That is an interesting one.... so while not necessarily 'open borders', the ideal of stopping all enforcement actions of deporting seem to this blithely ignorant person to be the same three-eyed first cousin, but just worded a tad differently.

Interesting combination there -- not open borders, but damnit! NO DEPORTATION! Seems deep south stupid there, but still it *could* occur.

So yeah, all three of your moralistic reasons are just different incantations of the 'No borders mantra'. I think I would be comfortable in saying there is one reason underlying all of those.

So to recap the triumvirate of rationales we have exposed is:

a) deep commitment to precept of 'open borders' simply *because* of the concept of open borders;
b) a deep and feverent ideal that local governments should dictate what is an explicit power reserved for the federal government; or
c) base building.

Quite the trio of rationales we have uncovered in this process. Idealistically against the concept of borders, idealistically against the power of the Federal government and the explicit original wording of the Constitution (for just ***** and giggles here I presume), or pragmatically to build a base. Fascinating trio here I must say.

Look man, get riled up over these all you want. I have 0 skin in the game as I'm not advocating for these positions. I'm simply pointing out that there are plausible reasons besides wanting more Democratic votes as to why someone would support the sanctuary city policies.

You get riled up when liberals try to extrapolate as to why conservatives do things like try and pass voter ID laws, or build the wall, or any other hot button topic. And those too are prime examples as to why trying to ascribe a rationale for supporting a policy is a dangerous road to go down.

Furthermore, in this situation, you haven't even explained how sanctuary city policies directly lead to granting illegal immigrants the right to vote. You'd have to at least tie that to a general amnesty plan for any and all illegal immigrants regardless of how long they've been in the US for that to be a plausible reason for someone supporting sanctuary city policies.

I have no idea what tangent you are chasing down here.

My point is that there is at least some evidence, actually a decent amount of evidence, that the Democratic platform that backs the condoning of illegal immigration at the present is simply and basically a part of 'growing the base'.

That can be a very logical offshoot of of the tangent in two distinct ways. Over time, illegal immigrants have kids, who are granted birthright citizenship. That may not 'grow the base' for the parents generation. But over the course of the stay, since there is now an 'anchor tie', that can tend to massively and significantly impact that
voter base.

Secondly, the shorter term effect of the Democratic policies is the drive for amnesty -- and the incessant call for a 'pathway to citizenship'. Again, that is a call for even more directly growing the voter base without having to wait for the 'anchor family' situation to ripen.

No offense, but it seems somewhat odd that someone who is so passionate about the issue cant put those pieces together. Sanctuary cities and jurisdictions are put into place to simply 'run the clock', so to speak.

And, once again, that has been an explicit goal in conversations I have heard. But, hey, wth, I am a blithely ignorant ******* so I dont know **** from shinola.....

And the issue that I have is that you are making every single effort to escape the result which is plain as day.

Look, in all honesty, if the Republicans could do a similar thing and import a gazillion and a half Cubans to anchor the next generation vote, they would do something on the equal. It is the reality of our political system, and a wonderful loophole to import the next generation of 'in your pocket voters'. Criminy, as I have heard people of a certain stature outline their wishes for votes and immigration on one side, I have heard the same stature on the other side almost beg to have the same situation to game. Im just calling a spade a spade here.

I find it really interesting that you are so adamant that it doesnt exist.....

The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Dems want as many illegals here as they can get. Every policy is meant to maximize illegals. Why would Dems want them so badly?

Voters, now and in the future.

Simple. All the other reasons are just deflections.

(01-23-2019 02:53 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Dems want as many illegals here as they can get. Every policy is meant to maximize illegals. Why would Dems want them so badly?
Voters, now and in the future.
Simple. All the other reasons are just deflections.

Precisely.

The more poor, uneducated people you can bring in, the better, "Keep 'em dumb, keep 'em poor, keep 'em dependent on handouts, and you will keep 'em voting democrat," works.

(01-23-2019 07:21 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-23-2019 02:53 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Dems want as many illegals here as they can get. Every policy is meant to maximize illegals. Why would Dems want them so badly?
Voters, now and in the future.
Simple. All the other reasons are just deflections.

Precisely.

The more poor, uneducated people you can bring in, the better, "Keep 'em dumb, keep 'em poor, keep 'em dependent on handouts, and you will keep 'em voting democrat," works.

I mean, it’s also pretty simple to suggest the only reason Republicans want to build a wall on the southern border is because they’re racist and scared of people of color.

Oh, let me do voter ID laws next!

(01-23-2019 09:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-23-2019 07:21 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-23-2019 02:53 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Dems want as many illegals here as they can get. Every policy is meant to maximize illegals. Why would Dems want them so badly?
Voters, now and in the future.
Simple. All the other reasons are just deflections.

Precisely.

The more poor, uneducated people you can bring in, the better, "Keep 'em dumb, keep 'em poor, keep 'em dependent on handouts, and you will keep 'em voting democrat," works.

I mean, it’s also pretty simple to suggest the only reason Republicans want to build a wall on the southern border is because they’re racist and scared of people of color.

Oh, let me do voter ID laws next!

Actually, voter ID laws are a good example of the left wanting barriers to illegals voting removed. There is no good reason voter ID would,discriminate against any lawful citizen:of any race. This come one, come all attitude is one that wants non citizens to vote.

So bring it on,Lad.

(01-23-2019 09:54 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-23-2019 09:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-23-2019 07:21 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-23-2019 02:53 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Dems want as many illegals here as they can get. Every policy is meant to maximize illegals. Why would Dems want them so badly?
Voters, now and in the future.
Simple. All the other reasons are just deflections.

Precisely.

The more poor, uneducated people you can bring in, the better, "Keep 'em dumb, keep 'em poor, keep 'em dependent on handouts, and you will keep 'em voting democrat," works.

I mean, it’s also pretty simple to suggest the only reason Republicans want to build a wall on the southern border is because they’re racist and scared of people of color.

Oh, let me do voter ID laws next!

Actually, voter ID laws are a good example of the left wanting barriers to illegals voting removed. There is no good reason voter ID would,discriminate against any lawful citizen:of any race. This come one, come all attitude is one that wants non citizens to vote.

So bring it on,Lad.

I think the Democratic argument is that voter ID laws somehow deter eligible, mostly Democrat-leaning voters from voting. I can certainly see how some voters might say "Heck, if I have to show an ID, it's not worth voting." Even if that's true, it's not clear why the group that would react that way would be disproportionately Democratic. But everyone seems convinced that it would be -- otherwise neither the Democrats nor the Republicans would care so much about it.