• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

18 Cities Pledge to Stay 'Sanctuary Cities' Despite Trump. They All Have Something...

Re: 18 Cities Pledge to Stay 'Sanctuary Cities' Despite Trump. They All Have Somethin

How do you fill that positions with people who are not trying to work?

It IS important to track those who say they want to work and could work but aren't looking because they might start looking. But for looking at how many people are actually available, you have to stick with those who are actually available.

Where do they get money to support themselves if they dont work?

Follow the money and if rurns out to be tax dollars cut them off
 
Re: 18 Cities Pledge to Stay 'Sanctuary Cities' Despite Trump. They All Have Somethin

Excuse me? It's an unequal application. I can't see how you reached your conclusion.

How so?

The article says they won't tow cars when they find an unlicensed driver. That means they won't tow any unlicensed driver's car. That's equal application of the law. It would be unequal application if they didn't tow the cars of unlicensed illegals but did tow the cars of unlicensed citizens.
 
Re: 18 Cities Pledge to Stay 'Sanctuary Cities' Despite Trump. They All Have Somethin

How so?

The article says they won't tow cars when they find an unlicensed driver. That means they won't tow any unlicensed driver's car. That's equal application of the law. It would be unequal application if they didn't tow the cars of unlicensed illegals but did tow the cars of unlicensed citizens.

Key word you missed in the article: limits the cases

Then there is the insurance issue. Further, I don't believe a car can be registered without proof of insurance, and you can't get insurance if you don't have a drivers license.

Also, the LA County Sheriffs Department, and the California Highway Patrol continue to impound cars driven by unlicensed drivers. Further, the LAPD claims the majority of those found driving without a license are illegal aliens.

Of course, California has now passed a new law that allows illegal aliens to obtain drivers licenses, so my complaint in this specific area will eventually be moot.
 
Re: 18 Cities Pledge to Stay 'Sanctuary Cities' Despite Trump. They All Have Somethin

Where do they get money to support themselves if they dont work?

Follow the money and if rurns out to be tax dollars cut them off
Cut off social security? Disability? Pell grants?
About 2/3 of those not in the labor force are retired, disabled, students age 16-24. Then there are the stay home spouses, independently wealthy, those with family obligations.
 
Re: 18 Cities Pledge to Stay 'Sanctuary Cities' Despite Trump. They All Have Somethin

Municipal governments are not sovereigns, but only creatures of their states. Let the states where this resistance remains take care of it however they see fit. Congress may not make laws that commandeer the machinery of state governments to enforce federal law. The Court established that in two Tenth Amendment cases in the 1990's, New York v. U.S. and Printz v. U.S.

I think more than a few states are eager to help enforce federal immigration laws. Arizona certainly is. But when it made a law which required state officials to do that, Mr. Obama had his Attorney General sue Arizona, and the Supreme Court struck down several parts of the law. In contrast, I'm sure Mr. Trump would encourage state laws like Arizona SB 1070.

You say that it is not possible to enforce federal law in the States in the case of illegal immigration?
 
Re: 18 Cities Pledge to Stay 'Sanctuary Cities' Despite Trump. They All Have Somethin

According to the NY Dept of Labor the unemployment rate is the percentage of people who are actively looking for work. It'll be higher than the number of people collecting unemployment insurance. In 2015 nationwide about 22% of unemployed people were receiving unemployment insurance. So we can probably swag the rate in NYC at around 1.3% given a 6% unemployment rate.

There are 5.4 million adults between the age of 18 and 64 in NYC. About 55% of those work. Add in the 6% that are unemployed and the working population of NYC is about 3.3 million. That means that about 35,000 people, give or take a few, get unemployment insurance.

Unemployment, which is largely funded by payroll taxes, is meant to be a bridge between jobs so many of the 35,000 are going to be short timers who don't want an illegal's job because they expect to find work quickly and in any case working outside their field would hamper the job search. An accountant looking for accounting work can't go to interviews if he's washing dishes. So 34,000 certainly overstates the number of people we could employ in jobs that illegals currently have. Even if we assumed all of them could work there are 10 times that number of illegals actually working in NYC.

You cannot fill all those jobs with the unemployed and as both mayors Bloomberg and DeBlasio point out the city economy would tank without the illegals

Makes a lot of sense. Problem is that illegal immigration means illegal. Just because deportation will hurt the economy, doesn't mean it should not be done.

How would you suggest we go about this? There has to be a way to protect the nation's boundaries and citizenship without resorting to extremes. Because the status quo is obviously doing significant short and long-term damage.
 
Re: 18 Cities Pledge to Stay 'Sanctuary Cities' Despite Trump. They All Have Somethin

You say that it is not possible to enforce federal law in the States in the case of illegal immigration?

Federal agents can of course enforce federal immigration laws anyplace in the U.S. The problem is that there often are not enough of them to do the job, so that they have to rely on state and local authorities for help. Some states are eager to help, because illegal immigration is harming them. Where states are recalcitrant, the federal government can use its spending power to coerce their cooperation by withholding certain federal funds. But federal laws which compel states to enforce them are normally unconstitutional.
 
Last edited:
Re: 18 Cities Pledge to Stay 'Sanctuary Cities' Despite Trump. They All Have Somethin

Federal agents can of course enforce federal immigration laws anyplace in the U.S. The problem is that there often are not enough of them to do the job, so that they have to rely on state and local authorities for help. Some states are eager to help, because illegal immigration is harming them. Where states are recalcitrant, the federal government can use its spending power to coerce their cooperation by withholding certain federal funds. But federal laws which compel states to enforce them are normally unconstitutional.

So it would seem to make sense to have a law that insists on all police and other public employees to apply federal law and make it a criminal offense not to in matters in which the Federal Government is responsible for making the law.
 
Re: 18 Cities Pledge to Stay 'Sanctuary Cities' Despite Trump. They All Have Somethin

Makes a lot of sense. Problem is that illegal immigration means illegal. Just because deportation will hurt the economy, doesn't mean it should not be done.

How would you suggest we go about this? There has to be a way to protect the nation's boundaries and citizenship without resorting to extremes. Because the status quo is obviously doing significant short and long-term damage.

I disagree with your premise. Enforcing law simply for the sake of enforcement, regardless of consequence, doesn't makes a lot of sense to me. It's not the way law works in reality every day. For example we expect our police to use judgment when dealing with people in on the streets and so police are given fairly wide latitude with respect to enforcement of administrative laws (ticket writing etc) and low level crimes. Prosecutors as well have a lot of freedom in determining whether to bring charges in the interest of justice. That recognizes the fact that legislatures can't account for all circumstances when they write laws. You can't separate enforcement of law from the way it affects real people's lives.

Being an illegal immigrant per se doesn't violate NY law. Most illegals have probably committed some administrative ("paperwork") violations to obtain documents to work in NY but those are hardly public safety concerns. I think the city leadership has it exactly right and that deporting people simply for the sake of deporting them would cause more harm than good in terms of forcing businesses to close, putting citizens out of work, causing loss of services to residents and loss of tax revenues.

Illegals come here because they fill an unmet need and are paid more than they would be back home. Those that come with their children see the US being able to give them a better life - so much so that many of them risk dying to get here. Most of them aren't criminals but just people who are desperate and are looking for work.

On the other hand we have a need to know who's in our country and have a way to sensibly control immigration, the current system is clearly broken. First thing we need to do find a way to grant anyone here illegally, but has not committed a violent crime, a worker's visa with the potential to get a green card (i.e. legal permanent non-citizen resident of the US) if that's what both they and we want. And from there citizenship via the normal mechanism that non-citizen residents go through to obtain citizenship. Illegals who've committed violent crimes should be deported - either before or after serving sentence depending on circumstances.

We also need to fix our immigration process. We have a need for these people but the system simply doesn't have a way to let them legally enter the country in any kind of a realistic timeframe. I don't know much about how the process works to say what needs to be fixed but something's wrong if the typical person has to wait something like 15 years to be able to fill jobs that are open today. We also need to be able to better track people once they're here. We have a lot of people who overstay visas and it seems no real way to monitor them.

We don't need a border wall. I don't think it's cost effective. With a reasonable immigration policy I think a lot of the problems with the flow of illegals through the southern border goes away and frees up manpower to deal with the few people who cross who would represent a potentially real threat to the country.
 
Re: 18 Cities Pledge to Stay 'Sanctuary Cities' Despite Trump. They All Have Somethin

So it would seem to make sense to have a law that insists on all police and other public employees to apply federal law and make it a criminal offense not to in matters in which the Federal Government is responsible for making the law.

So are you now against state's rights to govern themselves? If you want that bill to happen, then local authorities would also have to arrest those in possession of marijuana in states that voted it legal even though it is still federally illegal.

Or is this one of those pick and choose which federal law to apply sort of thing?

The best way to combat sanctuary states is to cut off federal funding from them if they don't comply.
 
Re: 18 Cities Pledge to Stay 'Sanctuary Cities' Despite Trump. They All Have Somethin

I disagree with your premise....

Yes, but it doesn't change the fact that it's both fundamentally wrong and illegal to be here illegally. I understand your point though, but it does seem that you feel / are suggesting that our laws are somewhat draconian. How about working across the aisle to revise immigration laws, making them both easier to understand and enforce? I feel that making changes to the immigration laws (as immigration is a federal issue), followed by enforcing the laws, would work better, versus this selective enforcement in individual cities or states. Federal immigration / ICE would have the enforcement freedom on case-by-case bases.

Being an illegal immigrant per se doesn't violate NY law...

But it does violate federal law. And where do we "draw the line", so to speak? Tax fraud, medicare fraud, fake drivers licenses, and a variety of derivatives based on paper-generated "assets" are all "paperwork" violations. I'm not saying deporting people for the sake of deporting them, but it's the reason we have an immigration policy and associated laws. They should either be enforced throughout the nation, or if one feels they are wrong, then they should be adjusted and enforced. Selected enforcement is the problem.

Illegals come here because they fill an unmet need and are paid more than they would be back home...

True, but what is the reason they fill this unmet need? There are plenty of people on basically generational welfare. Put our citizens back to work!

And I understand many are here to be able to give their children better lives. I see it all the time throughout Asian countries, with the huge amounts of SE Asian maids that make more as domestic helpers than as doctors or lawyers back home. But that doesn't mean you grant them (or their children born in the US) citizenship, which is par for the course throughout the world. I feel that those that are here to work and follow the laws (except for entering illegally) should be granted some sort of "amnesty" via some kind of worker's visa, that can be extended annually or at other time frames. Instead of just letting it slide, or mass handing out citizenship.

On the other hand we have a need to know who's in our country and have a way to sensibly control immigration, the current system is clearly broken...

Very much agree.

We also need to fix our immigration process...

One reason many people I know, including myself, are so against any kind of amnesty is because of the hurdles we had to go through to immigrate. We followed all the rules, regulations, and waited our turn (even though it was the supposedly "easy" method). Yet people can break the laws of the land and STILL have it easier for college admissions, credit cards, loans, whatnot. All the years waiting, crap ton of paperwork and lawyers, money, hassles with immigration and your bankers, just to get an EB5 and have to fly back and forth to maintain it before you can swear allegiance, is ridiculous. The US makes it so difficult for legitimate immigrants to get in. For example, couple of years ago, I was held in limbo at LAX immigration for almost 7 hours because I was fkn 2 days over my green card return date, thus missing a family gathering. Second time infraction, but business doesn't wait. I was questioned, questioned, and questioned like some kind of common criminal...for what? "You should have notified the consulate". "You don't seem to respect the privilege of holding your green card, there are other people waiting in line". LMAO. People don't invest seven figures for the American dream just to get treated like **** over a real non-issue, then watch their insurance refuse to pay because your wife got in an auto accident with an illegal alien.

We don't need a border wall...

Agree, but highly doubt Trump meant a literal "wall" of concrete & rebar. Revamp immigration policy, setup a workers visa program for illegals already here if need be, but at the same time ENFORCE the revised laws.
 
Re: 18 Cities Pledge to Stay 'Sanctuary Cities' Despite Trump. They All Have Somethin

So it would seem to make sense to have a law that insists on all police and other public employees to apply federal law and make it a criminal offense not to in matters in which the Federal Government is responsible for making the law.

That is more or less what Arizona SB 1070 did regarding some federal immigration laws. But Mr. Obama had his AG sue Arizona over SB 1070, because it conflicted with his policy of not enforcing those laws. Also, a state might choose not to make a law like Arizona's, either because most of its people felt that enforcing the federal laws would be too burdensome, or because they sympathized with illegal immigrants.
 
Re: 18 Cities Pledge to Stay 'Sanctuary Cities' Despite Trump. They All Have Somethin

So are you now against state's rights to govern themselves? If you want that bill to happen, then local authorities would also have to arrest those in possession of marijuana in states that voted it legal even though it is still federally illegal.

Or is this one of those pick and choose which federal law to apply sort of thing?

The best way to combat sanctuary states is to cut off federal funding from them if they don't comply.

That was a condition I had included in the statement. Who is responsible for immigration law?
 
Re: 18 Cities Pledge to Stay 'Sanctuary Cities' Despite Trump. They All Have Somethin

That is more or less what Arizona SB 1070 did regarding some federal immigration laws. But Mr. Obama had his AG sue Arizona over SB 1070, because it conflicted with his policy of not enforcing those laws. Also, a state might choose not to make a law like Arizona's, either because most of its people felt that enforcing the federal laws would be too burdensome, or because they sympathized with illegal immigrants.

Obama's sleazy methods of governing are coming home to roost. This is happening in a number of situations, where he did things or committed the country to treaties he hadn't the authority to sign.
 
Re: 18 Cities Pledge to Stay 'Sanctuary Cities' Despite Trump. They All Have Somethin

Yes, but it doesn't change the fact that it's both fundamentally wrong and illegal to be here illegally. I understand your point though, but it does seem that you feel / are suggesting that our laws are somewhat draconian. How about working across the aisle to revise immigration laws, making them both easier to understand and enforce? I feel that making changes to the immigration laws (as immigration is a federal issue), followed by enforcing the laws, would work better, versus this selective enforcement in individual cities or states. Federal immigration / ICE would have the enforcement freedom on case-by-case bases.



But it does violate federal law. And where do we "draw the line", so to speak? Tax fraud, medicare fraud, fake drivers licenses, and a variety of derivatives based on paper-generated "assets" are all "paperwork" violations. I'm not saying deporting people for the sake of deporting them, but it's the reason we have an immigration policy and associated laws. They should either be enforced throughout the nation, or if one feels they are wrong, then they should be adjusted and enforced. Selected enforcement is the problem.



True, but what is the reason they fill this unmet need? There are plenty of people on basically generational welfare. Put our citizens back to work!

And I understand many are here to be able to give their children better lives. I see it all the time throughout Asian countries, with the huge amounts of SE Asian maids that make more as domestic helpers than as doctors or lawyers back home. But that doesn't mean you grant them (or their children born in the US) citizenship, which is par for the course throughout the world. I feel that those that are here to work and follow the laws (except for entering illegally) should be granted some sort of "amnesty" via some kind of worker's visa, that can be extended annually or at other time frames. Instead of just letting it slide, or mass handing out citizenship.



Very much agree.



One reason many people I know, including myself, are so against any kind of amnesty is because of the hurdles we had to go through to immigrate. We followed all the rules, regulations, and waited our turn (even though it was the supposedly "easy" method). Yet people can break the laws of the land and STILL have it easier for college admissions, credit cards, loans, whatnot. All the years waiting, crap ton of paperwork and lawyers, money, hassles with immigration and your bankers, just to get an EB5 and have to fly back and forth to maintain it before you can swear allegiance, is ridiculous. The US makes it so difficult for legitimate immigrants to get in. For example, couple of years ago, I was held in limbo at LAX immigration for almost 7 hours because I was fkn 2 days over my green card return date, thus missing a family gathering. Second time infraction, but business doesn't wait. I was questioned, questioned, and questioned like some kind of common criminal...for what? "You should have notified the consulate". "You don't seem to respect the privilege of holding your green card, there are other people waiting in line". LMAO. People don't invest seven figures for the American dream just to get treated like **** over a real non-issue, then watch their insurance refuse to pay because your wife got in an auto accident with an illegal alien.



Agree, but highly doubt Trump meant a literal "wall" of concrete & rebar. Revamp immigration policy, setup a workers visa program for illegals already here if need be, but at the same time ENFORCE the revised laws.

It's not so much that I think our immigration laws are draconian as much as that at this stage of the game enforcing them against illegals who've made lives here and are part of the community economically without regard to the side effects of doing so is a mistake. Ideally yes, we should deport all illegals. Reality is that there are too many to do that and doing so in places like NY would locally do more harm than benefit.

My point about administrative violations really just gets to the idea that people just those crimes as evidence that all illegals are criminals. Well yes they are but what we need to worry are violent criminals, not people who've violated administrative code.

Otherwise I agree with you completely. The system needs to be overhauled. Our immigration policy needs to be more realistic,

I also sympathize with your plight. My mother-in-law emigrated to the US from Colombia in the 50s, married an American, had a child, and made a life here as a green card permanent resident. She finally got off the stick and applied for citizenship after my father in law died and it took her something like 18 months and I don't remember how much money to get it done. It was much easier for my grandparents. They just served in the army in WWI and were pretty much automatically granted citizenship.
 
Re: 18 Cities Pledge to Stay 'Sanctuary Cities' Despite Trump. They All Have Somethin

It's not so much that I think our immigration laws are draconian as much as that at this stage of the game enforcing them against illegals who've made lives here and are part of the community economically without regard to the side effects of doing so is a mistake. Ideally yes, we should deport all illegals. Reality is that there are too many to do that and doing so in places like NY would locally do more harm than benefit.

My point about administrative violations really just gets to the idea that people just those crimes as evidence that all illegals are criminals. Well yes they are but what we need to worry are violent criminals, not people who've violated administrative code.

Otherwise I agree with you completely. The system needs to be overhauled. Our immigration policy needs to be more realistic,

I also sympathize with your plight. My mother-in-law emigrated to the US from Colombia in the 50s, married an American, had a child, and made a life here as a green card permanent resident. She finally got off the stick and applied for citizenship after my father in law died and it took her something like 18 months and I don't remember how much money to get it done. It was much easier for my grandparents. They just served in the army in WWI and were pretty much automatically granted citizenship.


If we build the wall that you do not want and stop the flow of illegals from Mexico there is a chance for compromise about limited amnesty

First everyone with even a minor criminal record during the past 5 years or a serious crime lifetime gets deported

Second anyone drawing welfare during the past 2 years or the next 5 years gets deported

We only want immigrants who can support themselves without government support

If they meet all the requirements they get a green card and work permit

But no citizenship for as long as they live
 
Re: 18 Cities Pledge to Stay 'Sanctuary Cities' Despite Trump. They All Have Somethin

If we build the wall that you do not want and stop the flow of illegals from Mexico there is a chance for compromise about limited amnesty

First everyone with even a minor criminal record during the past 5 years or a serious crime lifetime gets deported

Second anyone drawing welfare during the past 2 years or the next 5 years gets deported

We only want immigrants who can support themselves without government support

If they meet all the requirements they get a green card and work permit

But no citizenship for as long as they live

The way I understand it is that the basic premise for the green card (permanent residency) is as a path to citizenship.

I would suggest that if they meet all the requirements, but have entered the country illegally, they first have to obtain the work permit, which transitions to some sort of conditional residency permit (a purple card or whatever), that lasts for a number of years. Grant them residency and the freedom to enter/exit the country, but conditional on following the laws, and staying within the country a certain amount of time within said years (similar to green card). Eventually, I would think they should be allowed to transition to a green card after a said number of years, and eventually swear allegiance.
 
Re: 18 Cities Pledge to Stay 'Sanctuary Cities' Despite Trump. They All Have Somethin

The way I understand it is that the basic premise for the green card (permanent residency) is as a path to citizenship.

I would suggest that if they meet all the requirements, but have entered the country illegally, they first have to obtain the work permit, which transitions to some sort of conditional residency permit (a purple card or whatever), that lasts for a number of years. Grant them residency and the freedom to enter/exit the country, but conditional on following the laws, and staying within the country a certain amount of time within said years (similar to green card). Eventually, I would think they should be allowed to transition to a green card after a said number of years, and eventually swear allegiance.

Let them apply for citizenship after honorably serving in the military or performing 1,000 hours of community service. But anyone convicted of any felony, drug dealing, or a violent crime needs to go.
 
Re: 18 Cities Pledge to Stay 'Sanctuary Cities' Despite Trump. They All Have Somethin

Let them apply for citizenship after honorably serving in the military or performing 1,000 hours of community service. But anyone convicted of any felony, drug dealing, or a violent crime needs to go.

AFTER they go back home and come back in LEGALLY.
 
Re: 18 Cities Pledge to Stay 'Sanctuary Cities' Despite Trump. They All Have Somethin

The way I understand it is that the basic premise for the green card (permanent residency) is as a path to citizenship.

I would suggest that if they meet all the requirements, but have entered the country illegally, they first have to obtain the work permit, which transitions to some sort of conditional residency permit (a purple card or whatever), that lasts for a number of years. Grant them residency and the freedom to enter/exit the country, but conditional on following the laws, and staying within the country a certain amount of time within said years (similar to green card). Eventually, I would think they should be allowed to transition to a green card after a said number of years, and eventually swear allegiance.

They broke the rules and came here illegally while millions of other people who also wanted to come here obeyed the law.

Provided the border wall is up and fully operational then I think the conditions I laid out are reasonable
 
Re: 18 Cities Pledge to Stay 'Sanctuary Cities' Despite Trump. They All Have Somethin

They broke the rules and came here illegally while millions of other people who also wanted to come here obeyed the law.

Provided the border wall is up and fully operational then I think the conditions I laid out are reasonable

I understand, but what I mean is that the green card is, at its premise, the pathway to citizenship. What I'm saying is that I agree with you, but there needs to be another "status" conferred before they are eligible for the green card, because they broke the laws of the nation to get in. It shouldn't be given out as a reward for breaking the rules, even if they have committed no other crime.
 
Re: 18 Cities Pledge to Stay 'Sanctuary Cities' Despite Trump. They All Have Somethin

I understand, but what I mean is that the green card is, at its premise, the pathway to citizenship. What I'm saying is that I agree with you, but there needs to be another "status" conferred before they are eligible for the green card, because they broke the laws of the nation to get in. It shouldn't be given out as a reward for breaking the rules, even if they have committed no other crime.

A green card is just perminant residency

Maybe for illegal aliens it should be a blue card created by congress for the new law that bars them from citizenship

The amnesty can only go to illegal aliens with squeeky clean records

No major or minor convictions including drunk driving and domestic violence complaints.

If the children are juvenile delinquents then the whole family gets deported

If they have been drawing welfare they all get sent back

Only the best should be allowed to stay

But even they must pay some penalty for being here illegally

And that is for them to never become citizens
 
Re: 18 Cities Pledge to Stay 'Sanctuary Cities' Despite Trump. They All Have Somethin

Good! Those cities can pay their bills that they typically and criminally claim $$$ from the fed. Can anyone produce a copy of the city's welfare programs?
 
Re: 18 Cities Pledge to Stay 'Sanctuary Cities' Despite Trump. They All Have Somethin

Basically, 18 cities are pledging to remain sanctuary cities despite Trump's plans to cut off federal funding. For those who don't know, in sanctuary cities, local officials don't assist federal officials in locating illegal immigrants. Contrary to popular belief, illegals aren't exactly safe in sanctuary cities, they're just harder to aprehend. There are currently 200 cities but just 18 of them will remain after Trump steps into office.

18 Cities Pledge to Stay '''Sanctuary Cities''' Despite Trump. They All Have Something Else in Common...

Btw, all 18 cities have democratic mayors so I'm not gonna clickbait you.

the wife and i have a common bird sanctuary in the yard. its where rare pigeons and crows come to lay their heads for an evening.
 
Back
Top Bottom