Atwater declares itself 'sanctuary city for business, ALLOWS OWNERS TO OPEN

[iceberg]

Well ... if you support “sanctuary” designations for this and for firearms you have no right to complain about the same for immigrants.

Yea, but what about...

In any event, there's a huge difference between wanting your legal business to reopen vs coming here illegally and demanding the same rights.

Feel free to try that in any other country.

No difference. You are choosing to break a law because you personally feel it is wrong. No different than sanctuary cities or people who leave water for migrants in tbe desert.

And...keep in mind. Opening up business too soon runs a risk of another surge in the epidemic so, arguably you are putting people’s lives at risk by selectively choosing to break this law.

You pretty much lost your moral high road over sanctuary cities.

We don't share the same morality so please stop pushing everything to an extreme stance.

No, probably not. I do not have a problem with people leaving water for illegal immigrants in the desert. I have no idea where you stand on it, what laws you consider just or unjust, constitutional or unconstitutional.

But when people argue that sanctuary cities for illegal immigrant but support same for guns and Covid...they have lost their legitimacy, in my view to criticize by choosing a cafeteria model.

What does, leaving them water and being humane have to do with them coming here illegally? Of course I would help them if needed so the slam on my morality is a bullshit extreme emotional ploy to portray me as evil, you good.

Gets old.

Oh for Gods sakes. First you take an indirect slam at my morality. So I carefuly, so as not to make wrong assumptions about you, state that that I do not know where you are on these issues, and you still go off.

The leaving them water comment was in relation to case that was in the news last year.

Man who faces 20 years in prison for ‘giving migrants food and water’ sees case end in mistrial

Conference in July will decide how to proceed after hung jury fails to determine ‘humanitarian’ geography teacher’s guilt

www.independent.co.uk

Extending 'Zero Tolerance' To People Who Help Migrants Along The Border

Scott Warren of the humanitarian group 'No More Deaths' faces three felony counts for harboring migrants. The number of U.S. citizens arrested for harboring is on the rise.

www.npr.org

I never said a thing about your morality. Or are you saying I am not usually direct? No one has ever told me that one before.

And asking you to stop attacking my morality is not going off.

You've seen me go off. That wasn't it.

You have a bad habit of extremifying everything.

Again...you are taking it all wrong. I didn’t attack your morality. I said I don’t know so as to AVOID setting you off on another round of “you are making assumptions about me”.

Honestly debating with you consistently takes this bizarro personal turn I don’t encounter elsewhere.

You state - we don’t share the same morality (whatever that means)
I state - I won’t make assumptions about your morality.

Now, I did post articles about tbe law being broken. What are your thoughts on that?

You said I lost my moral high road. This was off a very brief statement to make such a broad assertation. It's, usually done to paint the other side as evil or wrong.

You seem to keep saying things you say you never said. But to me this questions morality. You like to read into what I say yet you hate it done to you.

Yea convos with you get pretty frustrating.

 

[WEATHER53]

Liberals better get there quick and find a way to infect some people otherwise another step towards case closed.

 

[Coyote]

Well ... if you support “sanctuary” designations for this and for firearms you have no right to complain about the same for immigrants.

Yea, but what about...

In any event, there's a huge difference between wanting your legal business to reopen vs coming here illegally and demanding the same rights.

Feel free to try that in any other country.

No difference. You are choosing to break a law because you personally feel it is wrong. No different than sanctuary cities or people who leave water for migrants in tbe desert.

And...keep in mind. Opening up business too soon runs a risk of another surge in the epidemic so, arguably you are putting people’s lives at risk by selectively choosing to break this law.

You pretty much lost your moral high road over sanctuary cities.

We don't share the same morality so please stop pushing everything to an extreme stance.

No, probably not. I do not have a problem with people leaving water for illegal immigrants in the desert. I have no idea where you stand on it, what laws you consider just or unjust, constitutional or unconstitutional.

But when people argue that sanctuary cities for illegal immigrant but support same for guns and Covid...they have lost their legitimacy, in my view to criticize by choosing a cafeteria model.

What does, leaving them water and being humane have to do with them coming here illegally? Of course I would help them if needed so the slam on my morality is a bullshit extreme emotional ploy to portray me as evil, you good.

Gets old.

Oh for Gods sakes. First you take an indirect slam at my morality. So I carefuly, so as not to make wrong assumptions about you, state that that I do not know where you are on these issues, and you still go off.

The leaving them water comment was in relation to case that was in the news last year.

Man who faces 20 years in prison for ‘giving migrants food and water’ sees case end in mistrial

Conference in July will decide how to proceed after hung jury fails to determine ‘humanitarian’ geography teacher’s guilt

www.independent.co.uk

Extending 'Zero Tolerance' To People Who Help Migrants Along The Border

Scott Warren of the humanitarian group 'No More Deaths' faces three felony counts for harboring migrants. The number of U.S. citizens arrested for harboring is on the rise.

www.npr.org

I never said a thing about your morality. Or are you saying I am not usually direct? No one has ever told me that one before.

And asking you to stop attacking my morality is not going off.

You've seen me go off. That wasn't it.

You have a bad habit of extremifying everything.

Again...you are taking it all wrong. I didn’t attack your morality. I said I don’t know so as to AVOID setting you off on another round of “you are making assumptions about me”.

Honestly debating with you consistently takes this bizarro personal turn I don’t encounter elsewhere.

You state - we don’t share the same morality (whatever that means)
I state - I won’t make assumptions about your morality.

Now, I did post articles about tbe law being broken. What are your thoughts on that?

You said I lost my moral high road. This was off a very brief statement to make such a broad assertation. It's, usually done to paint the other side as evil or wrong.

You seem to keep saying things you say you never said. But to me this questions morality. You like to read into what I say yet you hate it done to you.

Yea convos with you get pretty frustrating.

I think you read way way more into everything I say then is there or take things way more personally then meant. Moral highroad is common term, not one referring to your morals in particular. When people make a lot of noise about sanctuary cities breaking the law and how they should be punished, but then support sanctuary cities that allow law breaking for other things, they have lost the moral high road to be critical of sanctuary cities. It isn’t a reflection of your particular morals which, as I stated, I don’t know (we have never discussed them).

It is really hard to have a conversation with you when it becomes walking on eggshells rather than discussing the issue, which I tried to bring back into the convo.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Well ... if you support “sanctuary” designations for this and for firearms you have no right to complain about the same for immigrants.

Yea, but what about...

In any event, there's a huge difference between wanting your legal business to reopen vs coming here illegally and demanding the same rights.

Feel free to try that in any other country.

No difference. You are choosing to break a law because you personally feel it is wrong. No different than sanctuary cities or people who leave water for migrants in tbe desert.

And...keep in mind. Opening up business too soon runs a risk of another surge in the epidemic so, arguably you are putting people’s lives at risk by selectively choosing to break this law.

You pretty much lost your moral high road over sanctuary cities.

We don't share the same morality so please stop pushing everything to an extreme stance.

No, probably not. I do not have a problem with people leaving water for illegal immigrants in the desert. I have no idea where you stand on it, what laws you consider just or unjust, constitutional or unconstitutional.

But when people argue that sanctuary cities for illegal immigrant but support same for guns and Covid...they have lost their legitimacy, in my view to criticize by choosing a cafeteria model.

What does, leaving them water and being humane have to do with them coming here illegally? Of course I would help them if needed so the slam on my morality is a bullshit extreme emotional ploy to portray me as evil, you good.

Gets old.

Oh for Gods sakes. First you take an indirect slam at my morality. So I carefuly, so as not to make wrong assumptions about you, state that that I do not know where you are on these issues, and you still go off.

The leaving them water comment was in relation to case that was in the news last year.

Man who faces 20 years in prison for ‘giving migrants food and water’ sees case end in mistrial

Conference in July will decide how to proceed after hung jury fails to determine ‘humanitarian’ geography teacher’s guilt

www.independent.co.uk

Extending 'Zero Tolerance' To People Who Help Migrants Along The Border

Scott Warren of the humanitarian group 'No More Deaths' faces three felony counts for harboring migrants. The number of U.S. citizens arrested for harboring is on the rise.

www.npr.org

I never said a thing about your morality. Or are you saying I am not usually direct? No one has ever told me that one before.

And asking you to stop attacking my morality is not going off.

You've seen me go off. That wasn't it.

You have a bad habit of extremifying everything.

Again...you are taking it all wrong. I didn’t attack your morality. I said I don’t know so as to AVOID setting you off on another round of “you are making assumptions about me”.

Honestly debating with you consistently takes this bizarro personal turn I don’t encounter elsewhere.

You state - we don’t share the same morality (whatever that means)
I state - I won’t make assumptions about your morality.

Now, I did post articles about tbe law being broken. What are your thoughts on that?

You said I lost my moral high road. This was off a very brief statement to make such a broad assertation. It's, usually done to paint the other side as evil or wrong.

You seem to keep saying things you say you never said. But to me this questions morality. You like to read into what I say yet you hate it done to you.

Yea convos with you get pretty frustrating.

I think you read way way more into everything I say then is there or take things way more personally then meant. Moral highroad is common term, not one referring to your morals in particular. When people make a lot of noise about sanctuary cities breaking the law and how they should be punished, but then support sanctuary cities that allow law breaking for other things, they have lost the moral high road to be critical of sanctuary cities. It isn’t a reflection of your particular morals which, as I stated, I don’t know (we have never discussed them).

It is really hard to have a conversation with you when it becomes walking on eggshells rather than discussing the issue, which I tried to bring back into the convo.

I get your difficulty..in communicating!

Especially, since many buy into the blind assumption that declaring a city a 'Sanctuary' anything has any force of law--it does not....it's on the same level as passing a non-binding resolution..it's just a statement..with no force of law. Local LEA are NOT required to aid the Federal LEA in the enforcement of Federal law. There are no laws being broken unless someone actively aids and abets an illegal. Refusing to notify the Fed upon the release of a prisoner does not raise to that level..as many courts have found, time and time again.

It's one of the more persistent falsehoods in the immigration enforcement conversation. People stretch..reach for conspiracy statutes for ambiguous wording, but the courts have ruled on this...many times. Illegals are picked up and deported from California every day...the Sanctuary thing is just a political thing..and it requires the Feds to do all the heavy lifting---oh well..not as though Trump is actually trying to deport mass amounts of people anyway..it's just a wedge issue he can be sure will get his people foaming at the mouth.

Same for the Democrats..they love the issue as well...they see it as the best way to keep Hispanics voting D...out of anger and frustration.

But Sanctuary whatever..is just a media play...IMO.

 

[FA_Q2]

Well ... if you support “sanctuary” designations for this and for firearms you have no right to complain about the same for immigrants.

Yea, but what about...

In any event, there's a huge difference between wanting your legal business to reopen vs coming here illegally and demanding the same rights.

Feel free to try that in any other country.

No difference. You are choosing to break a law because you personally feel it is wrong. No different than sanctuary cities or people who leave water for migrants in tbe desert.

And...keep in mind. Opening up business too soon runs a risk of another surge in the epidemic so, arguably you are putting people’s lives at risk by selectively choosing to break this law.

You pretty much lost your moral high road over sanctuary cities.

We don't share the same morality so please stop pushing everything to an extreme stance.

No, probably not. I do not have a problem with people leaving water for illegal immigrants in the desert. I have no idea where you stand on it, what laws you consider just or unjust, constitutional or unconstitutional.

But when people argue that sanctuary cities for illegal immigrant but support same for guns and Covid...they have lost their legitimacy, in my view to criticize by choosing a cafeteria model.

Apple != Orange and it certainly does not support your supposition. They may have used the sanctuary as a play on words but the two situations have nothing to do with each other whatsoever.

 

[jwoodie]

Well ... if you support “sanctuary” designations for this and for firearms you have no right to complain about the same for immigrants.

Congratulations on the stupidest post of the month.

 

[Coyote]

Well ... if you support “sanctuary” designations for this and for firearms you have no right to complain about the same for immigrants.

Congratulations on the stupidest post of the month.

That is all you can come up with?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Well ... if you support “sanctuary” designations for this and for firearms you have no right to complain about the same for immigrants.

You mean ILLEGAL ALIENS.

Idiot

 

[Coyote]

Well ... if you support “sanctuary” designations for this and for firearms you have no right to complain about the same for immigrants.

You mean ILLEGAL ALIENS.

Idiot

You one of them cafeteria lawbreakers?

 

[WEATHER53]

Sanctuary like in church and not like on sidewalk

 

[jwoodie]

You one of them cafeteria lawbreakers?