(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.