Trump has publicly condemned racism and bigotry of all kinds, especially including that by white supremacists and the KKK. Here is the video: Why am I not surprised that your sources of news lie to you by telling you otherwise.
Bloomberg being the centrist. Curious to see if he ends up making an independent run when he doesn't win the Dem primary. More Democrats should come out and say they at least say the Caravan should either turn back or apply for asylum after coming through a legal point of entry (and then attack Republicans when they are denied and sent home to die). I think it is a winning strategy with moderates.
Bloomberg is one such moderate Dem. Honestly, how many other national caliber, moderate Democrats are there? Can anyone even name five? I can't. And a good indicator of whether they actually are moderate or not is whether they come out and call for these people to turn back.
Bloomberg is odd. He is a moderate compared to some on the left, but he is really not a big believer in personal freedoms. He would make an interesting President.
Nook, you and your people are the racists. You call those who are your political adversaries racists, indiscriminately, without hesitation or remorse, regardless of the actual facts, and then you consistently refuse to apply these same standards to yourselves. People who are obsessed with the topic of "race" are racists. People who advocate treating people differently based on their "race" are racists. And that applies to everyone equally, regardless of what their skin color or their "race" is. Also, anyone who believes that some people are exempt from being racists, based on their "race," is very certainly a racist.
Agree with the OP that we don't need a wall, we just need to stop the desire to come here illegally. You have to penalize companies and states that don't follow the federal rules. 1) $100,000 per person per year fine for illegal hires. Those fines would apply to both companies and hiring individuals. 2) States with sanctuary cities would pay a penalty at a state population level. 3) You may get emergency care but care facilities would be required by federal law to report them. 4) If you're born in the country by an illegal mom, then you too are illegal. No birth citizenships for illegals. 5) States not requiring legal proof of residence before receiving a driver's license or car plates/renewals will be fined at a state population level. 6) Individuals and companies would be responsible for validating a person is legal before renting or selling a home. Fine ranges but would hurt. That should severely slow down the desire to come here because it would be very hard to make a living here if you aren't legal. And if states want to ignore the federal laws, then they can help support the costs with fines. Cheaper and more effective than a wall.
Illegal immigration is unregulated by its very definition, fwiw. Many conservatives, as well, if you get the politics out of the way. They may not understand that's what they're for...but many of them are. It's the typical disjunction of cause/effect. If you support policies that encourage more immigrants to come here illegaly...then you support open borders, you just don't understand that's what you're supporting. This is true. Politics has made it polarized. FWIW...the OP has it wrong. Immigration is actually VERY easy to solve. Neither part wants to do it, though. They'd rather play polticial football with it. Why not? It's CLEARLY in their favor...and why else are they such strong advocates for it. HINT: It is NOT because of their concern for the immigrants. Which Democarats point out very frequently. So, why do you find the obverse so hard to believe? In some cases, yes. It's a simple math problem. Which the Democrats work as well. So...how can you support a blatantly racist party? FWIW...I don't vote Republican, haven't for several elections. I think I will this time though, because frankly Democrats have gone off the edge...this topic just being one of many examples. The race card works both ways. So, I would offer the same advice to you. If you think Democrats don't think about the voting implications of all these things, you are incredibly naive. Yes, they do. Yet most people on their side think they look B E A U tiful. Which is why the game works the way it does. And why immigration doesn't get solved. Why solve a problem that you can use for political advantage? The simple fact remains, though, that MANY Democratic policies around immigration are in fact in favor of open immigration. Maybe not blatantly so...but within the grey, they lean strongly to that. They just can't come out and say (although didn't Pelosi actually do so?)...but that doesn't change the reality of it. If you are in favor of any policy that encourages more immigrants to come here illegally, you are in favor of open borders, because that is the effect of such policies. Anyone who doesn't understand that probably needs to rethink their position on such policies.
If you think it is then maybe we need to define open borders. My understanding is that open borders mean that anyone can come into the country at any time regardless of citizenship etc. That isn't the same as sanctuary cities.
Yes, it is. It encourages more people to cross illegally. Which means it acts the same as wanting open borders. Saying it isn't is like saying if you complete a journey, you get a big prize...and then saying you weren't advocating the journey. Of course you were. Sanctuary cities encourage illegal immigration. Do you disagree with that? If not, then you are agreeing they are essentially opening the borders.
No, it isn't. Sanctuary cities are fine with securing our borders. The only thing sanctuary cities do is not encourage deportation from their city in order to keep families together and have illegal immigrant communities cooperate with law enforcement more because they don't fear deportation. That is in no way saying we should not secure the borders. To make the argument that they are the same thing is a non-starter.
The right way would be for them to present at a port of entry and ask for asylum. It is my understanding that that is what they are intending. Unless you mean coming as a refugee is not the right way to come to America. If that's your meaning, there isn't a right way for poor Hondurans. There is no line to get in. There is no process that will avail them visas. So maybe this isn't the right way, but you're wrong to say there is a right way. There isn't. That doesn't make any sense. Makes sense to have a part for the rich because the rich have money. But why should anyone be a party for the poor over the middle class? The middle class has more people, votes, and money than the poor. If there are any policy priorities to help the poor, it's only for benevolence, not because the poor have any power. They don't. It's funnny; if I was for open borders, you'd think I would know. I don't think that's quite right. A sanctuary city is not a no-deportation zone. They don't want local resources used for enforcing federal immigration law. They aren't going to get in the way of an ICE raid. They just want to be sure to avoid distrust of local police or other local agencies by illegal immigrants that will cause them to avoid reporting crimes or take other actions that hurt public safety and the proper functioning of local government.
Yes, I didn't clarify enough. The city will not be sending anyone for deportation. They certainly won't try and trump Federal Jurisdiction. That would be illegal.
Lots of people have beliefs or perspectives without realizing the implications. Are you for policies that entice immigrants to come here illegally, or that prevent their enforcement? Meaning...they are essentially leaning towards open borders. If you aren't enforcing the borders, you're advocating for open borders. Borders that aren't enforced are....open. Oh, but they have done exactly that! Even in places that weren't sanctuary cities. Directly leading to criminals not being captured and deported. People have died because of it. Yet they've doubled down on their positions. And apparently done so while simultaneously convincing their base they haven't, and aren't actually advocating open borders. Astute politically...but you'd think it would eventually backfire. Which is probably why Bloomberg and others are now urging Democrats to speak out about wanting to enforce the borders. I think the backfiring had already been happening All of which demonstrates my point. Each of these is essentially leaning towards open borders. Along with any other policy that either prevents enforcement of the borders, or entices others to come here illegally.
I could say the same of you, that you don't recognize the implications of your advocacy here, but I'm trying to refrain from the strawmanning you're doing. If sanctuary cities are an enticement to illegal immigrants, couldn't you also say our bill of rights and respect of civil liberties are enticements? After all, it is these stupid rights that stop law enforcement from just profiling hispanics and then throwing them out of the country without any process. If we just ran roughshod over the people, illegal immigrants wouldn't want to come here. Isn't that tantamount to supporting open borders? How about we torture, murder, and dismember all the illegal immigrants we get our hands on? They come here because they know we won't torture, murder, and dismember them. We're practically begging them to come. But of course you don't like that argument. You think these two things, sanctuary cities and civil rights, are totally different and my argument is ridiculous (which of course it is). We don't have civil rights for the sake of immigrants but for the sake of Americans, citizen and resident. The illegal immigrants are essentially free riders on our civil rights construct. But you're stuck on this idea, it seems to me, that sanctuary cities exist for the sake of illegal immigrants. You see it as a benefit carved out for immigrants, therefore it can't help but be a specific enticement in the way respect for civil rights and a strong economy can't be singled out. But I don't think sanctuary practices are there for illegal immigrants. They exist to better serve Americans. Fear of calling the cops when you need help, or the fire department, fearing to send your kids to public school, fearing going to the hospital for treatment, these all have negative ramifications for the community the illegal immigrants live in. It's not from a bleeding heart for illegals that I think sanctuary practices are important. It;s to protect the rest of us from the consequences of ill-considered enforcement practices. Thinking about it that way, I'd say no it's not an enticement to illegal immigrants any more than civil rights are an enticement. It's just good governance. On this, I can agree in this way: Texas state borders should be open, and US federal borders should be regulated. Texas -- and especially municipal authorities -- should not be responsible for enforcing federal borders, only their state borders. And their state borders are open, so there's not much enforcing to be done. We can choose to cooperate with the federal government using state tax dollars if we want to do the federal government's job, and the dipshit Abbott does want to. That's fine, but we're not doing it because we have to do it or because it is morally incumbent on us to do it. States rights and all that. If you choose not to enforce someone else's law it doesn't have to be because you oppose it; you're just not the right body to enforce it. Local cops, imo, are definitely not the right body for enforcing immigration law because it undermines their own mission to protect. You didn't cite anything, but I do recall some tiff about some California town spoiling some ICE operation. I think I can understand it a bit because even outside of the sanctuary debate, deportation actions can be very disruptive to communities. Families get broken up. Companies lose workers. Churches lose congregants. On and on. And I've met enough crazy communists (meant pejoratively by endearingly at the same time) in government to believe they think they can help matters by stopping the feds from doing their jobs. I don't approve of it personally. And they may fall under the sanctuary city umbrella generally, but you don't have to oppose federal deportation actions to be a principled advocate for sanctuary policy. So, yeah, there's always going to be some crazy liberal, usually in California, who will be available for conservatives to paint the rest of the country with. Just like how conservatives always have Kansas to embarrass them.
