Sanctuary city = Treason

a reply to: Wayfarer

There are many suffering in our own country.
New York and big cities have increasing populations of homeless and high percentages of people living in poverty.

The subject of this OP - the mayor is governing a city with one of the highest crime and murder rates in the country. 30% of the people in Chicago live below the poverty level.

If you truly have compassion, perhaps you should think about how to help these people first, and so should the mayor of Chicago.
This is nationalism - taking care of your own people.
Why has that become a bad thing?

a reply to: BlueAjah

Its not bad at all, in fact its quite good. I take issue when we take care of 'our people' at the exclusion of 'other people'. Any justification of suffering is bad, however you slice it. If you truly have compassion, you would be looking to help both the homeless and those living in poverty, as well as those seeking a new life here. To deny one group because you think others have priority is, as I mentioned earlier, simply exercising mental gymnastics to absolve yourself of guilt over the fact that you willfully endorse the suffering of people (a rightfully unpalatable stance).

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: BlueAjah

But it does. Its the meaning of the poem that's important and implies our immigration system is whats lacking. You failed to mention how those acting against the round up and deportation of Jews in WW2 Germany were in fact treasonous bad people. Are they bad people for not following their duly appointed mandates/laws?

can you show me the verse that states you can come here, join a gang, commit crimes, and still be an illegal who shouldn't be deported? I just don't remember that one.

Quit being led, start to use the brain you were given. Look up what Trump actually said, not what you were told he said.

a reply to: Wayfarer

Are you for the US conquering the world to bring rights to all those suffering under the yoke of tyranny in other countries? Are you for EVERY person in a poor nation suffering all coming in to the US?

What you're arguing for is ludicrous. We can't take in everyone who's suffering without falling apart ourselves, and I'm pretty sure if we tried to conquer the world to fix everything it'd be world war 3.

We are not in the position to solve all the worlds suffering. There's a balance to how one does things that you want to completely disregard to the detriment of all.

Without balance we become the same as the very nations people are running from, this helps NO ONE.

If you want to keep the US a place worth immigrating to, you need a strong immigration policy that's enforced that protects the stability of the US. Letting people come here willy nilly and be exploited does anything but protect stability.

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: BlueAjah

Its not bad at all, in fact its quite good. I take issue when we take care of 'our people' at the exclusion of 'other people'. Any justification of suffering is bad, however you slice it. If you truly have compassion, you would be looking to help both the homeless and those living in poverty, as well as those seeking a new life here. To deny one group because you think others have priority is, as I mentioned earlier, simply exercising mental gymnastics to absolve yourself of guilt over the fact that you willfully endorse the suffering of people (a rightfully unpalatable stance).

But that is exactly what is happening. Americans that have lived in this country all their lives, and who have paid into the system are being denied or ignored, in favor of those that are illegal/undocumented.

If they are telling the American unemployed, homeless and needy that there isn't enough funding to assist them, then providing, homes, food, jobs and income to the illegals, this creates nothing but increased hatred and division. Of course, the anger and frustration of the American being slighted is often misplaced, the people they should be fighting are the ones on Capitol Hill, but it is the guy standing in line collecting the benefits denied to the American that is going to feel their wrath.

No one wants to see anyone else suffer, but sometimes that difficult choice has to be made. We all ached and cried when Sophie had to choose, but sometimes you have to make a bad choice because all you are given is bad choices. Even letting everyone die because you don't want to make any choice at all, is a bad choice.

Re: Network Dude - Nobody is arguing in favor of harboring criminals (though that is a discussion for another thread). Once again its quite telling of your personal character that you associate criminality with immigrants (ie. a demonstration of your ingrained prejudices). Do you have numbers/metrics/statistics for how many immigrants are criminals or how many citizens fall prey to immigrant crime?

Re: Pupplove - No, I am not for the US conquering any nation whatsoever. What I am saying isn't ludicrous, you merely assume so because you've been led to believe it and so you accept it at face value. What aspects are ludicrous exactly? I suspect you'll need to spend some (mostly futile) time digging around for exactly how we can't support them. Try not to fall back on conservative fear-mongering about not enough food, social services, no housing, take our jobs rhetoric. I think you'll find our inability to sustain more people is a sociologically driven issue rather than logistics. Furthermore, necessity perpetuates innovation. Of the 319 million people living in the US now, do you think that number won't grow? Can your argument about not taking in 1 million immigrants hold water when in a 20 year period (2010-2030) our population will have increased approximately 53 million?

a reply to: Wayfarer

We can't support them because the rich prats that want them here want them here to exploit them. Get rid of the rich prats doing this and MAYBE you have an argument. As is, their being here destroys our economy.

They are undocumented, and exploited for cheap labor. They are poor and miserable. Which leads to crime. Is why all our inner cities are so crime ridden, poor and desperate people.

You scream for letting them in and not send them away, but neither bitch about or do not a damn thing to solve why it's a problem in the first place.

IF the US was a self reliant economy, in which we actually managed to prevent this kind of exploitation, MAYBE, but to get to such a state we need to A: Get control of the situation, not ignore it like you seem to want, and B: Actually enforce laws that protect workers rights, and come down hard on companies using cheap labor exploits like illegal immigrants.

What the US needs is a strong sense of nationalism again. Trade is fine, as long as you're economy can survive without it. We've lost that power and become dependents on others for our own survival. Until we can sustain ourselves we have no business trying to sustain anyone else.

a reply to: Puppylove

Not ignore it like I seem to want? Can you quote me on that or are you just pulling bull out of your ass to further your point? Your assumptions are heavily steeped in conservative talking points but lack any aspect of critical thinking.

1. We can support them, it has nothing to do with rich prats. We dispose million of tons of food every year because its better to let it rot than feed people with it. The government, not rich prats, subsidizes destruction or rotting of crops to maintain pricing levels for farmers so they don't glut the market (but alas, if only there where mouths to put all this excess food into instead of letting it rot back into the ground, oh well!)

2. Yes, the are exploitable for cheap labor, and this has mostly been a prerogative of autocratic individuals exercising their lobbying power in Washington. Yes, they are more and many are miserable, however this is in no way a linked correlation between crime (in fact, almost all crime is committed by citizens, not immigrants).

3. I am in fact trying to solve the problem, but its often half the country with a mindset like or similar to yours that thwarts corrective action out of an overabundance of fear/racism/nationalism/greed or selfishness.

4. The US will never have a self reliant economy again. Globalism is here to stay, and I believe it is the correct modality. This however has nothing to do with exploitation of immigrants. The issue isn't self reliance, but rather the fact that a bunch of primarily older white people want to return to a time in which manufacturing jobs payed great wages and high benefits. This will never happen again, we are in the future now, not the past, and no amount of sticking our heads in the sand and pretending we can return to some barbaric halcyon days of yore will change that. We can either look forward and adapt or (much more like what is happening now) we can stick our fingers in our ears and scream/gnash our teeth and enact restrictive trade regulations, deport suffering people, and bandy nationalism as the cure to all our countries ails.

P.S. - our president elect exclusively endorses or directly owns manufacturing in ONLY oversea's markets. What better individual to fix the system as you see it than one who has been taking advantage of it his whole life. People often change instantly the moment their given great power and responsibility don't they, so I think we should all feel totally safe in that fantasy.

a reply to: Puppylove

Until we can sustain ourselves we have no business trying to sustain anyone else.

I have had people seeking benefits, angry because they were told if they came to America they would be rich because the everyone is rich in America. They don't understand nor do they want to live or be fed in shelters. Many think they are entitled to the same luxuries they think all Americans have, and think they are being discriminated against because the government is not providing them with the luxuries they expect to receive.

The America they are being sold, no longer exists, if it ever did. If there is no funding to care for those that invested in the system, there is absolutely no funding available for those that just walk in and expect a seat at the table. I volunteer time to serve the members of our community. We have never turned anyone away that comes looking for food. We have even given seconds to people we know we had already provided with supplies, taking into consideration that it may not be out of greed or for them to sell back in their communities, but that they may actually be providing for those that can't come themselves or fear coming. We know that some of our supplies get sold, and some people hoard, but we don't call them out on it, but it does create a shortage at the end of the day.

The local businesses and families have been overly generous in the past, but the businesses have had to cut back on their charity due to profits loses, and families that used to donate so generously, are now on the receiving end. Even I have been bitten by the lack of funding bug. I fight a desperate battle at the end of each month just to hold on to my home. I know it is just a matter of time, that I too will be homeless, and that time is rushing up on me so fast that it is terrifying to think about, so I don't. I take it one day at a time, and I am grateful to make it through the night to a new sunrise.

I don't expect anyone to pay my mortgage, and I know when the day comes that I can know longer pay it, no one is going to go to the bank and pay it for me. I am blessed because I doubt I will be out on the street. My family is too large to allow that to happen, but I will not impose on any one of them for too long. I will make my rounds. I love them too much to make them have to endure me for too long. I wish I could say that I am an oddity, but too many other hard working Americans are finding themselves in the same plight as myself.

It is not that we are not loving, kind, compassionate, and generous, it is because we have given all that we have to give and the pot is empty.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: odzeandennz

Why do you believe this is not treason? Can you elaborate on that?

Terrorists aren't terrorists until they commit an act of terror. Just being in the country illegally isn't an act of terror. If terrorists come from Chicago, which is still an if, would it be any different than holding San Diego's mayor responsible for terrorism because the 9/11 hijackers lived there in 2000?

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: Puppylove

Not ignore it like I seem to want? Can you quote me on that or are you just pulling bull out of your ass to further your point? Your assumptions are heavily steeped in conservative talking points but lack any aspect of critical thinking.

1. We can support them, it has nothing to do with rich prats. We dispose million of tons of food every year because its better to let it rot than feed people with it. The government, not rich prats, subsidizes destruction or rotting of crops to maintain pricing levels for farmers so they don't glut the market (but alas, if only there where mouths to put all this excess food into instead of letting it rot back into the ground, oh well!)

2. Yes, the are exploitable for cheap labor, and this has mostly been a prerogative of autocratic individuals exercising their lobbying power in Washington. Yes, they are more and many are miserable, however this is in no way a linked correlation between crime (in fact, almost all crime is committed by citizens, not immigrants).

3. I am in fact trying to solve the problem, but its often half the country with a mindset like or similar to yours that thwarts corrective action out of an overabundance of fear/racism/nationalism/greed or selfishness.

4. The US will never have a self reliant economy again. Globalism is here to stay, and I believe it is the correct modality. This however has nothing to do with exploitation of immigrants. The issue isn't self reliance, but rather the fact that a bunch of primarily older white people want to return to a time in which manufacturing jobs payed great wages and high benefits. This will never happen again, we are in the future now, not the past, and no amount of sticking our heads in the sand and pretending we can return to some barbaric halcyon days of yore will change that. We can either look forward and adapt or (much more like what is happening now) we can stick our fingers in our ears and scream/gnash our teeth and enact restrictive trade regulations, deport suffering people, and bandy nationalism as the cure to all our countries ails.

P.S. - our president elect exclusively endorses or directly owns manufacturing in ONLY oversea's markets. What better individual to fix the system as you see it than one who has been taking advantage of it his whole life. People often change instantly the moment their given great power and responsibility don't they, so I think we should all feel totally safe in that fantasy.

1. Buy a truck. Plenty of shelters and soup kitchens would love it. Oh wait, probably some govt agency has regulations for that.

2. 100% of the illegals have broken the law.

3. Then you can solve it with your own sweat, blood, tears and money.

4. Move to a place closer to your ideology.

PS. You really don't understand why Trump has his products made overseas, do you.


I would suggest that if you are so truly compassionate in your heart and not for some ideology, there are many ministries you could join and help people directly, hands on!

a reply to: Wayfarer

The statue of liberty does not advocate criminal acts, including illegally entering a nation. We welcome immigrants. We always have and we always will. But there is a right way and a wrong way. We have laws. Good intentions aside, we have laws and they are not subject to individual preference.

NOTE: I will not have this thread derailed into nazi comparisons. There is absolutely nothing even remotely similar to what I am talking about and what happened in nazi Germany. NOTHING. Period. Full stop.

Would Jesus advocate criminal acts? Is it selfish to expect people to obey the law? Or is it selfish to say the law does not apply to you, that you have special privileges?

They are free to come here and seek a better life. There is nothing stopping them from doing so legally. But we do have laws meant to stop them from doing so illegally.

a reply to: Wayfarer

I am not sure you understand the definitions of the words you are using.

a reply to: Wayfarer

Nobody is arguing in favor of harboring criminals (though that is a discussion for another thread).

No. That is the topic of THIS thread.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: odzeandennz

Why do you believe this is not treason? Can you elaborate on that?

Terrorists aren't terrorists until they commit an act of terror. Just being in the country illegally isn't an act of terror. If terrorists come from Chicago, which is still an if, would it be any different than holding San Diego's mayor responsible for terrorism because the 9/11 hijackers lived there in 2000?

A terrorist is a terrorist. Terrorism can take many forms, not just the actual violent act. Many people are involved in an act of violence, not just the one committing the act itself. For example, consider the supply chain in the Army. They may not take up arms, but they are still part of the Army and play an important roll in war. Being in the country illegally is a crime, but not in itself an act of terror. The difference between San Diego's mayor and Chicago's mayor is that Chicago's mayor has openly stated that Chicago is a sanctuary for illegal aliens and he has no idea if they are terrorists or not. You can not deny the potential exists. Had he taken a position against illegal aliens and a terrorist was discovered in his city that would be different. But when he says illegal aliens are welcome here even though he has no idea who they are or what they will do...that is a completely different story. He is creating conditions in which it is not only possible but likely that illegal alien terrorists will take advantage of. For that, he is responsible. And that is the act of treason I am referring to.

Treason is a very specific charge, that only occurs during times of war. And for aiding, abetting or joining the enemy the country is at war with.

While I completely agree that sanctuary cities need to be reprimanded, and made to follow the law. Their failure or refusal to do so is not "treason."

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
And that is the act of treason I am referring to.

It's not your call so...

a reply to: BlueAjah

There are also laws against running red lights. But just the other day I watched a cop turn his lights on, go through the light, and straight into McDonald's. They fix parking tickets, for friends and family. People skirt taxes, etc. The law is flaunted every day and no one gives a damn. So I refuse to give a damn about this because Juan from across the border didn't just steal my information security job, he's apple picking or cleaning someone's pool.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel (D) has openly declared that Chicago is, and will remain, a sanctuary city for illegal aliens.

As I said in a post in another thread related to this topic, I believe the best solution is the following:

1 - Cut off *all* federal funding that can be cut to these sanctuary cities.

2 - Do the same to *all* of the states that these cities reside in, as those governor's are allowing it to happen.

Once you do that watch the sh#t hit the fan. Once the money dries up all hell will break loose.

The cities and especially the states are incredibly dependent on federal funds. The governor's of these states will then be mobilized to actually do something. Watch.

All the ICE folks will need to do is come in afterwards and take all the illegals away. No fuss, no muss from the Feds.

He who controls the money controls the outcome. Always.

My $0.02...

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Wayfarer

Nobody is arguing in favor of harboring criminals (though that is a discussion for another thread).

No. That is the topic of THIS thread.

You are missing the point and belaboring the semantics. Show me where I or anyone else in this thread said "we should harbor criminals'. I'll wait.

Meanwhile, what we're actually discussing is the validity of the laws. You are arguing in favor of following a law regardless of whether it is morally right to do so. You would make a good robot, but not a good moral person.

Apartheid was legal - I suppose you believe it was right and just and everyone that was complicit in it was good and righteous?

Holocaust was legal - I suppose you believe it was what needed to be done regardless of whether you liked it or not?

Slavery was legal - I suppose you believe that as long as the laws were on the books it was a good thing and anyone who fought against it or harbored slaves was deserved to be imprisoned or killed?

Colonialism was legal - I suppose you believe as long as you have a mandate from your nation you are free to kill, rape, maim, murder and steal?

Laws are not necessarily moral, laws are an extension of power. Those in power make the laws, and often for the sake of perpetuating that power (through whatever system is in place). If you blindly follow whatever law is in front of you, then you are as culpable as those who designed them in the first place, and for whatever evil selfish ends.

Lastly, your insistence that we not draw corollaries to Nazism is a pitiful attempt to divert attention from a historical situation that in many ways mirrors this.