It seems like there are different ideas of what sanctuary city means. I already what my understanding is.
related Ithaca Declares Itself a Sanctuary City https://ithacaweek-ic.com/6584/uncategorized/ithaca-declares-itself-a-sanctuary-city/ excerpt: Across the U.S. there are over 200 sanctuary cities, and Ithaca just became one of the newest to join the list. On Feb. 1 the Ithaca Common Council unanimously passed an ordinance to give the city sanctuary status, after a two hour public meeting where dozens of citizens spoke in overwhelming support. The ordinance was a direct result of the travel ban affecting Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya and Somalia signed by President Trump on Jan. 27. A sanctuary city is a city that looks to offer a safe place for illegal immigrants. In order to create this atmosphere, these cities do not accept funds that would go towards enforcing federal immigration laws. Although there is no legal definition of the term, it is assumed that a sanctuary city would illegally protect undocumented immigrants, even if it opposes federal law. In Ithaca’s case, city officials are no longer permitted to ask a person’s immigration status unless they are committing a crime in which their status is relevant. Cynthia Brock, 1st Ward Alderperson, is a member of the Ithaca Common Council and was the driving force behind the construction of the resolution. She said that the term sanctuary city has been used throughout the media across the nation but that it does not properly describe the city of Ithaca. Ithaca has been named a sanctuary city, however local law enforcement will serve and protect the rights of undocumented immigrants without using illegal methods. “What Ithaca did is define what city law enforcement officials will and will not do with regards to enforcement of federal law and that it would give minimal support for immigration officials and immigration enforcement,” Brock said. more at the link
Re: Sanctuary cities, aren't republicans supposed to be about self governance, these cities have decided to be kind to people, how is that a bad thing? DD
Not if the fines are very punitive. If they can't get jobs they won't come. Yet we don't target employers. I am fine with 3 strikes for employers. You're caught three times you are out of business and can't ever own another business. However, Republicans won't do this. They rely on the cheap labor.
You mean take advantage of those very people? It’s been that way forever lol. That’s the left/liberal/dem way. Those in power in inner cities self govern themselves alright. They take all the money and **** on the people that voted them into office. That’s a problem that needs a legit rebellion within the inner party if they ever want to be considered a party again. Don’t you know why the map is always red when looking at the lower 48 (Excluding metro areas) during election years?
I'm less scared of white nationalism than I am poor economic decisions and poor governance . But also , I'm white
Late to this party but ..... I agree with the idea of going after employers of illegal labor The problem with that is the nature of the industries many of them work in - construction (residential) and landscaping, it's nearly impossible to nail down who hired them or where .... They are at a job site for short time, from a half hour to a few days and gone to the next. They are probably hired thru word of mouth or some form of social media or maybe a business card dropped on your porch and paid in cash. Even if they are employed at a singular location, like a restaurant they are usually paid in cash and near impossible to track. We don't have labor enforcement going to every employer matching employees to documentation, again there is often no documentation when they are paid in cash while others use fraudulent SS# ..... and employers know they are very unlikely to be targeted by enforcement. If you can come up with a way to actually hold employers accountable, I'm all ears because if they cannot work, they will self deport or simply not come to begin with and that sounds like problem solved to me.
I mean there are a lot of problems, politically with going after employers. First the employers are citizens and can vote. The workers can't. The employers are likely to have more money and influence on politicians. It's harder to create fear and anger towards the business workers. We know fear and anger when it is directed is motivator for people to vote. In addition there are the logistical hurdles you mentioned. But there are reasons to go after employers if it truly is more important than the economy to reduce illegal immigration.
Yet cities provide far more in tax revenues than they get back. Rural areas get more government aid than they generate.
This is a supply and demand problem. Nearly all enforcement is on the supply side by trying to control the border and going after immigrants themselves. There is very little talk of going after the demand side by going after the businesses they want to hire these immigrants.
That number has to be much higher than that, there were an estimated ~12 million as far back as 2007 and another ~10m have entered during the Biden Harris era alone and they aren't just leaving. It isn't a revolving door where one comes and another leaves, it's a one way street. They come, they stay. I think one of the biggest issues with this is that they are counted on the US census in terms of population for the purpose of representation ..... It essentially gives states greater representation (more seats) in Congress.
What was all the hubub around red states like Texas and Florida politicians doing those things like flying migrants to Democrat controlled sanctuary cities to make a point that their "open border" policies affect border states like Texas and that blue areas like democrat controlled sanctuary cities don't share the burden but do all the talking about wanting open borders. I call this phenomenon Shrodinger's sanctuary City. The designation encourages illegal immigratit while at the same time these areas don't take in enough illegal immigrants according to the same people who complain about sanctuary cities. You don't think 6 years ago guys like Abbot weren't using the sanctuary City talking points like you? The a few years back they flipped the narrative. Totally erased "sanctuary City" from their vernacular and started hamming up the narrative that blue areas of the country just talk and don't take action in taking care of migrants.
On the economy .... there's only one reason we need "growth over stability" and that's to support the level of spending from those drunken teenagers in Congress with our collective credit card. That's a huge part of why both sides have turned a blind eye to solving the immigration issue - they could fix it if they wanted to, really, it's as simple as enforcing current law but they know they need those people helping drive economic growth and inflation otherwise the spending has to at least slow, if not come to a halt. So, both sides keep playing the blame game .... feeding us the lie that we "need immigration reform", no, really, we don't. We could selectively allow people in under current law. More people aren't necessarily a good thing for we the people, just means more demand for literally everything - food, clothing, housing, transportation and a greater impact on the environment. I know most here aren't old enough to recall a time Post WWii & Pre-Reagan where things were much different in terms of labor and earning power where young American's played a much greater role in the economy, to the benefit of themselves and others ... Now, most of those people are non-participants. A lot of people liked Reagan .... but two things he gave us are a thorn in our collective sides today with deficit spending & the original carrot on the stick, the 1986 amnesty bill. Both changed the world .... and I don't believe either were net positives. That deficit spending bill was supposed to be a short term solution to pulling us out of the economic funk of the Carter years .... It didn't go away and now it's the $36 trillion dollar and growing gorilla in the room while our congressmen suddenly become multi-millionaires on $174,000 a year.
So we blaming deficit spending for this lol? The Reagan era coincides with the Jack Welsh CEO era that Reagan ushered in. The inherent advantage America had coming out of WW2 as the only western industrialized nation to not have severe scars from the war where they became for all intents and purposes the global manufacturing hub for the world was losing its steam. As we moved farther away from that advantage, our capital owning class decided that American manufacturing labor is too expensive and that the global South is a great place to do the actual manufacturing because the labor is cheaper. And then CEOs like Jack Welsh converted long standing engineering powerhouses like GE into essentially finance companies. This hollowed out the American economy where we either have professional desk work, construction work or intensive agricultural labor work and Americans don't like doing that third thing is why our economy relies on illegal immigrants labor. Not because of deficit spending lol.
Obviously a rhetorical question, because it would otherwise imply you haven't paid attention to the Republican party in the last, oh, forty or so years.
Harboring criminals is bad. Mkay. Gaetz resigned days before ethics investigation report was expected. https://ethics.house.gov/press-releases/statement-regarding-matter-representative-matt-gaetz Matt Gaetz may have engaged in sexual misconduct and/or illicit drug use, shared inappropriate images or videos on the House floor, misused state identification records, converted campaign funds to personal use, and/or accepted a bribe, improper gratuity, or impermissible gift, in violation of House Rules, laws, or other standards of conduct.
