Sanctuary Cities. Immigrants. Our Cities Still Need Them To Keep Thriving.

[charwin95]

The story of immigrants is a two-way street. We all know about the extremists whose only mission is wreak terror among our population (Just look at London and its mayor Sadiq Khan who is prolly a terrorist himself). These are the immigrants we don't want.

The other side of the coin is non-terror immigrants take jobs that no one else will take. They pile into rental units where others won't rent in order to make things work for themselves. They make money and they spend money. They bring in new types of foods and services. They add to a city's dying population and the cities end up thriving.

Today, we have over 80 sanctuary cities in the US. Most are liberal urban centers. Where I live, it isn't a sanctuary city. The city is modernizing, but its restaurants, businesses, stores and such aren't full. A few places still attract a crowd. Yet, the city isn't thriving even though it's a lead city in a large metropolitan area. An example a big city not thriving would be St. Louis, MO. It has the population and the metropolitan area, but once the workday is over, people go home to their suburban homes.

"More than 80 cities in the United States,[69] including Washington D.C., New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, San Diego, San Jose, Salt Lake City, Phoenix, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, Detroit, Jersey City, Minneapolis, Miami, Denver, Baltimore, Seattle, Portland, Oregon and Portland, Maine, have sanctuary policies, which vary locally.[70] "

Immigration to the United States - Wikipedia

If your city cannot thrive without immigrants, you're doing it wrong.

Illegals bring no value to any city.

Immigrants should be an enhancement to your way of life and what your city is doing, not the be all, end all of your city.

"San Francisco, CA average salary is $99,284, median salary is $94,191 with a salary range from $21,439 to $1,826,000."

San Francisco Salaries, Average Salary & Jobs Pay in San Francisco, CA

Unemployment rate for San Francisco is 3.3 percent

unemployment rate for san francisco - Bing

San Francisco is a sanctuary city

The average yearly income in Atlanta is $60,219

atlanta annual income - Bing

The unemployment rate in Atlanta is 5. 5 percent

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, Georgia Metropolitan Unemployment Rate and Total Unemployed | Department of Numbers

Atlanta is NOT a sanctuary city.

Do you understand my skepticism with your post?

Illegals do not live in San Francisco, they live in the regions outside of San Francisco. They live in areas like Oakland and Hayward, relative shit holes compared to San Francisco.

The unemployment rate in San Francisco has no correlation with illegals.

Atlanta's unemployment rate has no correlation with illegals, either. SF being a sanctuary city doesn't matter, look at LA metro with 6.1% being a sanctuary city.

There is NO correlation between unemployment and immigration.

Now you are trying like hell to claim there is?

San Francisco is not the concentration of illegals but there are lots of illegals in SF. Not just Hispanics but lots of illegal Asians.

 

[charwin95]

There are no laws that mandate a "living wage."

Maybe not yet where you run your sweat shop, but thanks to idjits like you, there will be, all over the country.

If you're trying to shoot for becoming the dumbest poster on this site, you're running a good race.

Thanks to me, people who can't get a job can get offers of $20 to $25 per hour while the retail, warehouse, and fast food industries don't pay HALF that... and I don't give a rat's ass about unnecessary background checks.

.

I don't disagree that Jim Bowie is dumb and ignorant.

Retail, warehouse and fast food industries don't pay half of $25/hour. Really? My entry level is $16+ per hour such as warehouse, clerks or janitor and so the rest of the enterprises that I know.

Background checks is part of my hiring protocols. Can you explain ------- why it's not necessary?

I missed what you do for a living. Do you mind telling us?

 

[Correll]

If your city cannot thrive without immigrants, you're doing it wrong.

Illegals bring no value to any city.

Immigrants should be an enhancement to your way of life and what your city is doing, not the be all, end all of your city.

"San Francisco, CA average salary is $99,284, median salary is $94,191 with a salary range from $21,439 to $1,826,000."

San Francisco Salaries, Average Salary & Jobs Pay in San Francisco, CA

Unemployment rate for San Francisco is 3.3 percent

unemployment rate for san francisco - Bing

San Francisco is a sanctuary city

The average yearly income in Atlanta is $60,219

atlanta annual income - Bing

The unemployment rate in Atlanta is 5. 5 percent

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, Georgia Metropolitan Unemployment Rate and Total Unemployed | Department of Numbers

Atlanta is NOT a sanctuary city.

Do you understand my skepticism with your post?

But what is the cost of living in san francisco.



I live in a rust belt city. i know a guy who moved here a few years ago from California and he had interesting things to say about the way illegals live and work, pretty much as slaves.


Interestingly enough, he is a died in the wool lefties, and yet, could make no connection between the fact of slave labor and Democratic city and state.


He blamed it all on the "corruption" you see in "all port cities". LOL!!!

The undocumented population in San Francisco must be satisfied with the wage structure as they could easily make it to many other cities / states that have no sanctuary cities.

I think you underestimate the barriers that could be in place, from violent criminals they owe money to, to the poverty that prevents them from affording a bus ticket, to the fear of travelling as a criminal in a society they do not speak the language.






The KKK used to argue that we could raise the wages of whites in this country if we shipped the blacks back to Africa. We used to have this guy, J.B. Stoner, that would get on tv during the elections and promise the people that "If you elect me governor of Georgia, I'll work to ship all the (expletive deleted) back to Africa."

Nobody really thought that was a viable option; stoner would garner, at best 30,000 votes. That was probably 2 percent of the population. Now it's 28 percent of the population when the skin color went from black to brown. Amazing.

Supply and demand is real. I've seen it is the difference in wages from a big city, with large poor populations, to smaller cities/towns without such large pools of labor.

I don't get your point. You argue supply and demand which is what brings undocumented immigrants to America.

I think YOU don't understand the totality of the barriers argument. I've worked in some aspect of this issue since 1976 and have argued the think tank issues on these boards that the build the wall, deport 'em all crowd has made for at least a decade and a half. They cannot or will not answer the questions that have been posed. For example:

Getting into America via human smugglers from Mexico averages about $1500 or so. Supposing you had a wall, for a few dollars more, those people could get on a plane and legally enter Canada (which is opening its doors to immigrants.) From there, they could walk across the northern border to the U.S. to find jobs and / or be with family. So, do you propose a wall along the northern border? Alaska is a stone's throw from Russia. Wall that up to? Cubans can get to Miami. Shall we put a wall up around Florida to guarantee Floridians the equal protection of the laws? Are you going to be the one to tell people no more access to the beaches in the name of fighting so - called "illegal immigration?"

People love to argue about this subject while not giving a rat's ass about the Freedoms and Liberties they jeopardize - Freedoms and Liberties our forefathers fought, bled, and died to secure. And the build the wall, deport 'em all factions don't care how many Freedoms and Liberties have been lost nor how many more will be taken.

There are far better solutions, but the build the wall, deport 'em all people think they have a monopoly on solutions... too stupid to figure out exactly who is financing their campaign nor WHY.[/QUOTE]



Somewhat more than HALF of the illegals in this country came across the southern border.

That is no accident. Sealing that avenue would be a positive step to fixing this problem.


There are not human smuggling rings operating out of Canada. Your assumption that it would be an easy replacement for the Southern Border, to illegals, is not proven.


Your argument that we need to build a wall around Florida for "equal protection of the law" seems silly. The coast guard and/or navy can and should protect US from invasion over the seas.




The time for slow and deliberate discussion on the very BEST way to fix this problem was back in the 80s.


That time was squandered by lefties with constant and vile use of the Race Card.


Now, we have to do everything and do it now, without further discussion.


NO MORE TALK. ACTION!

 

[Correll]

The story of immigrants is a two-way street. We all know about the extremists whose only mission is wreak terror among our population (Just look at London and its mayor Sadiq Khan who is prolly a terrorist himself). These are the immigrants we don't want.

The other side of the coin is non-terror immigrants take jobs that no one else will take. They pile into rental units where others won't rent in order to make things work for themselves. They make money and they spend money. They bring in new types of foods and services. They add to a city's dying population and the cities end up thriving.

Today, we have over 80 sanctuary cities in the US. Most are liberal urban centers. Where I live, it isn't a sanctuary city. The city is modernizing, but its restaurants, businesses, stores and such aren't full. A few places still attract a crowd. Yet, the city isn't thriving even though it's a lead city in a large metropolitan area. An example a big city not thriving would be St. Louis, MO. It has the population and the metropolitan area, but once the workday is over, people go home to their suburban homes.

"More than 80 cities in the United States,[69] including Washington D.C., New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, San Diego, San Jose, Salt Lake City, Phoenix, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, Detroit, Jersey City, Minneapolis, Miami, Denver, Baltimore, Seattle, Portland, Oregon and Portland, Maine, have sanctuary policies, which vary locally.[70] "

Immigration to the United States - Wikipedia

If your city cannot thrive without immigrants, you're doing it wrong.

Illegals bring no value to any city.

Immigrants should be an enhancement to your way of life and what your city is doing, not the be all, end all of your city.

"San Francisco, CA average salary is $99,284, median salary is $94,191 with a salary range from $21,439 to $1,826,000."

San Francisco Salaries, Average Salary & Jobs Pay in San Francisco, CA

Unemployment rate for San Francisco is 3.3 percent

unemployment rate for san francisco - Bing

San Francisco is a sanctuary city

The average yearly income in Atlanta is $60,219

atlanta annual income - Bing

The unemployment rate in Atlanta is 5. 5 percent

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, Georgia Metropolitan Unemployment Rate and Total Unemployed | Department of Numbers

Atlanta is NOT a sanctuary city.

Do you understand my skepticism with your post?

But what is the cost of living in san francisco.



I live in a rust belt city. i know a guy who moved here a few years ago from California and he had interesting things to say about the way illegals live and work, pretty much as slaves.


Interestingly enough, he is a died in the wool lefties, and yet, could make no connection between the fact of slave labor and Democratic city and state.


He blamed it all on the "corruption" you see in "all port cities". LOL!!!

Carry On, Carrion

There are no Liberals. Collusion with wage-gouging pseudo-Conservatives proves that they are two wings of the same vulture. Quit trying push on us one fictional side by emphasizing its fraternal twin.

Your point about the "wage gouging pseudo-conservatives" is fair.


Both sides of the aisle have been complete vile bastards on this issue and should be held accountable.

 

[Humorme]

I live in a city without a lot of illegals. I pay a white American to cut my grass. It is not ruinously expensive.

>>I live in a city without a lot of illegals. I pay a white American to cut my grass. It is not ruinously expensive.<<

My OP isn't about race so much as immigration or in today's world illegal immigration. My personal beliefs are that there should be a clear established line. I rather have legal immigration, but the liberals allowed illegal immigration and we're stuck with it. It doesn't make sense to deport all the illegals and maybe some can get legal status. Thus, we have the sanctuary cities and their policies. If you want to make it about race, in this case, whites, then it's about smart whites vs not so smart whites who run these cities. It's not just whites who run these cities, but I'm just making it simple.

Maybe having a white American cut your grass is a sign of quality in your city. However, I don't think it will last.

Basically what I'm saying is the sanctuary cities will thrive more and your city won't be thriving as much. People die daily. You can't just get 100,000K increase in population in a few years through birth.

I find that people making these arguments about legal v illegal immigration to be selling a pig in a poke.

Let me see if I understand you:

You are "for" legal (sic) immigration. According to the anti-immigration activists "legal immigration" is code for citizenship. So you have no problem with immigrants provided they went through some legal process aimed at requiring people to become citizens.

Now, let us forget the fact that this year alone at least 780,000 people will take the oath and become citizens. Radical Muslims, communists, atheists, murderers, social outcasts and all manner of people you would find to be objectionable under most circumstances are welcome... they did it "legally" as you are so fond of calling it.

These 780,000 people (this year alone) can now be a part of the body politic, having the privilege of voting and then drawing out of Socialist Security, Medicare, Medicaid, AND voting in their version of what they think America ought to be.

Meanwhile, you get your boxers in a bunch because low wage people come here and work jobs that Americans obviously don't want... don't try to "school" me until you've spent a couple of weeks here with me. Here the whites and the "legal" Americans don't apply for the jobs; they don't want the jobs; they won't work them when they get them. ANYBODY who thinks differently is welcome to spend a couple of weeks with me and I will shatter your presupposition all to Hell.

But, I will not give up trying to get the substance of your argument.

Nonsense. It doesn't work that way. Are you saying that 780,000 this year alone will become irresponsible citizens?
Give us a proof that 780,000 will commit those kind of crimes you mentioned. Most or all of these people comes here for better life for their families and only chance they have in their lifetime. Not to make themselves miserable.

I did not say 780,000 would become irresponsible citizens. Don't insult me and embarrass yourself. I'm going to pretend, for the moment, that your IQ is higher than that.

Of the 780,000 that come here, many will be on Socialist Security, medicare, medicaid, etc. way before they have worked a regular working career. Many of them will be from countries that are antithetical to all that America was intended to represent. BTW, did I say all of them? Did I say most of them?

Of those that come here, they will commit more violent crimes than the undocumented Hispanics (who make up over 90 percent of the undocumented foreigners.)

So you think that "legal foreigners" are all legit? Do you want to start with the 9 / 11 hijackers or before? Would you like something more recent like Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, who killed 14 people and wounded 22 more? How man instances like that have the undocumented population committed? Were you thinking of the Tsarnev brothers when you made that faux pas? Here is a list of Muslim terrorist attacks in the U.S. How many of those do you think were done by "legal" immigrants as you like to call them?

I'm just telling you the truth. And I totally totally disagree with your point.

These immigrants that just became US citizens has been here in US minimum of 5 years. They have jobs already. You assumed that these new citizens just arrived to America.
How many illegals vs legal immigrants committed crimes? Most are law abiding citizens came to America for better living.

For real? By now you do understand that I don't assume a damn thing, don't you? You shouldn't make silly statements that don't deserve anyone to dignify it with a response.

 

[Humorme]

I live in a city without a lot of illegals. I pay a white American to cut my grass. It is not ruinously expensive.

>>I live in a city without a lot of illegals. I pay a white American to cut my grass. It is not ruinously expensive.<<

My OP isn't about race so much as immigration or in today's world illegal immigration. My personal beliefs are that there should be a clear established line. I rather have legal immigration, but the liberals allowed illegal immigration and we're stuck with it. It doesn't make sense to deport all the illegals and maybe some can get legal status. Thus, we have the sanctuary cities and their policies. If you want to make it about race, in this case, whites, then it's about smart whites vs not so smart whites who run these cities. It's not just whites who run these cities, but I'm just making it simple.

Maybe having a white American cut your grass is a sign of quality in your city. However, I don't think it will last.

Basically what I'm saying is the sanctuary cities will thrive more and your city won't be thriving as much. People die daily. You can't just get 100,000K increase in population in a few years through birth.

I find that people making these arguments about legal v illegal immigration to be selling a pig in a poke.

Let me see if I understand you:

You are "for" legal (sic) immigration. According to the anti-immigration activists "legal immigration" is code for citizenship. So you have no problem with immigrants provided they went through some legal process aimed at requiring people to become citizens.

Now, let us forget the fact that this year alone at least 780,000 people will take the oath and become citizens. Radical Muslims, communists, atheists, murderers, social outcasts and all manner of people you would find to be objectionable under most circumstances are welcome... they did it "legally" as you are so fond of calling it.

These 780,000 people (this year alone) can now be a part of the body politic, having the privilege of voting and then drawing out of Socialist Security, Medicare, Medicaid, AND voting in their version of what they think America ought to be.

Meanwhile, you get your boxers in a bunch because low wage people come here and work jobs that Americans obviously don't want... don't try to "school" me until you've spent a couple of weeks here with me. Here the whites and the "legal" Americans don't apply for the jobs; they don't want the jobs; they won't work them when they get them. ANYBODY who thinks differently is welcome to spend a couple of weeks with me and I will shatter your presupposition all to Hell.

But, I will not give up trying to get the substance of your argument.

Nonsense. It doesn't work that way. Are you saying that 780,000 this year alone will become irresponsible citizens?
Give us a proof that 780,000 will commit those kind of crimes you mentioned. Most or all of these people comes here for better life for their families and only chance they have in their lifetime. Not to make themselves miserable.

I did not say 780,000 would become irresponsible citizens. Don't insult me and embarrass yourself. I'm going to pretend, for the moment, that your IQ is higher than that.

Of the 780,000 that come here, many will be on Socialist Security, medicare, medicaid, etc. way before they have worked a regular working career. Many of them will be from countries that are antithetical to all that America was intended to represent. BTW, did I say all of them? Did I say most of them?

Of those that come here, they will commit more violent crimes than the undocumented Hispanics (who make up over 90 percent of the undocumented foreigners.)

So you think that "legal foreigners" are all legit? Do you want to start with the 9 / 11 hijackers or before? Would you like something more recent like Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, who killed 14 people and wounded 22 more? How man instances like that have the undocumented population committed? Were you thinking of the Tsarnev brothers when you made that faux pas? Here is a list of Muslim terrorist attacks in the U.S. How many of those do you think were done by "legal" immigrants as you like to call them?

I'm just telling you the truth. And I totally totally disagree with your point.

These immigrants that just became US citizens has been here in US minimum of 5 years. They have jobs already. You assumed that these new citizens just arrived to America.
How many illegals vs legal immigrants committed crimes? Most are law abiding citizens came to America for better living.

You should answer your own question by doing some serious research. I've already given you a few examples.

Now, if you want to talk "crimes," you can come up with undocumented foreigners, but when you look beyond that, you get the real story. For undocumented foreigners the crimes will be no driver's license, insurance, and petty crimes affiliated with their inability to get the "permission" of some lazy bureaucrat for the privilege of existing.

The "legal" variety of foreigner excels at things like terrorism, murder and violent terroristic activity.

 

[Humorme]

>>I live in a city without a lot of illegals. I pay a white American to cut my grass. It is not ruinously expensive.<<

My OP isn't about race so much as immigration or in today's world illegal immigration. My personal beliefs are that there should be a clear established line. I rather have legal immigration, but the liberals allowed illegal immigration and we're stuck with it. It doesn't make sense to deport all the illegals and maybe some can get legal status. Thus, we have the sanctuary cities and their policies. If you want to make it about race, in this case, whites, then it's about smart whites vs not so smart whites who run these cities. It's not just whites who run these cities, but I'm just making it simple.

Maybe having a white American cut your grass is a sign of quality in your city. However, I don't think it will last.

Basically what I'm saying is the sanctuary cities will thrive more and your city won't be thriving as much. People die daily. You can't just get 100,000K increase in population in a few years through birth.

I find that people making these arguments about legal v illegal immigration to be selling a pig in a poke.

Let me see if I understand you:

You are "for" legal (sic) immigration. According to the anti-immigration activists "legal immigration" is code for citizenship. So you have no problem with immigrants provided they went through some legal process aimed at requiring people to become citizens.

Now, let us forget the fact that this year alone at least 780,000 people will take the oath and become citizens. Radical Muslims, communists, atheists, murderers, social outcasts and all manner of people you would find to be objectionable under most circumstances are welcome... they did it "legally" as you are so fond of calling it.

These 780,000 people (this year alone) can now be a part of the body politic, having the privilege of voting and then drawing out of Socialist Security, Medicare, Medicaid, AND voting in their version of what they think America ought to be.

Meanwhile, you get your boxers in a bunch because low wage people come here and work jobs that Americans obviously don't want... don't try to "school" me until you've spent a couple of weeks here with me. Here the whites and the "legal" Americans don't apply for the jobs; they don't want the jobs; they won't work them when they get them. ANYBODY who thinks differently is welcome to spend a couple of weeks with me and I will shatter your presupposition all to Hell.

But, I will not give up trying to get the substance of your argument.

Americans do those jobs already. It is only in high immigration areas that they get pushed out of that job market by being undercut.

Incorrect Correll.
There are jobs available now. But where are they? The best excuses ------ is and was they are not getting pay high enough to entice white Americans.
So I ask this question many many times but not a single one of you can answer this simple question. Let me ask this AGAIN.
If you have to work in the agricultural jobs, janitors, waiters, buss boy -------- How much do you think is the fair labor wages? ANYONE?

Illegals are now getting paid close to $18/per hour.
There is shortage of construction workers, house cleaning, agricultural workers etc etc etc. But where are my fellow Americans?

Did you ever ask Trump why he hired and still hiring foreign workers?

1. Can you explain why there is not a single industry in the US that has a 50%> work force of illegals or immigrants? Every industry has a 50% + of citizens/legal workers. AG has a special visa just for them with no annual cap, why is it not being used to bring in the labor shortage for crops?

2. Illegals aren't being paid close to $18 per hour, not even as an average. In some instances they can earn that or even a little more picking crops, but it is by no means a barometer of what they make overall.

You did not answer any of questions. Why?

1. In the corporate world it's impossible to hire illegals. But there are legal immigrants with green cards or anchor babies and not sure where you got the 50%.
Bringing foreign workers for crops cost more because you have to house and feed them and corral make sure they don't run and hide. So why bother when they are available here.
Farmers that are coming from Asia or other countries like Africa via H2A visa. Do you honestly believe they came here just to pick strawberries? They sent their best educated kids to apply hoping for a better job than farmers.

2. True but the trend is about $18 due to shortages of these people. Farmers are desperate. Even rebuilding of Houston after Harvey they are getting paid between $25 to $35 as we speak.

Wages rise on California farms. Americans still don't want the job

Who and what are you referencing?

 

[Humorme]

"San Francisco, CA average salary is $99,284, median salary is $94,191 with a salary range from $21,439 to $1,826,000."

San Francisco Salaries, Average Salary & Jobs Pay in San Francisco, CA

Unemployment rate for San Francisco is 3.3 percent

unemployment rate for san francisco - Bing

San Francisco is a sanctuary city

The average yearly income in Atlanta is $60,219

atlanta annual income - Bing

The unemployment rate in Atlanta is 5. 5 percent

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, Georgia Metropolitan Unemployment Rate and Total Unemployed | Department of Numbers

Atlanta is NOT a sanctuary city.

Do you understand my skepticism with your post?

But what is the cost of living in san francisco.



I live in a rust belt city. i know a guy who moved here a few years ago from California and he had interesting things to say about the way illegals live and work, pretty much as slaves.


Interestingly enough, he is a died in the wool lefties, and yet, could make no connection between the fact of slave labor and Democratic city and state.


He blamed it all on the "corruption" you see in "all port cities". LOL!!!

The undocumented population in San Francisco must be satisfied with the wage structure as they could easily make it to many other cities / states that have no sanctuary cities.

I think you underestimate the barriers that could be in place, from violent criminals they owe money to, to the poverty that prevents them from affording a bus ticket, to the fear of travelling as a criminal in a society they do not speak the language.






The KKK used to argue that we could raise the wages of whites in this country if we shipped the blacks back to Africa. We used to have this guy, J.B. Stoner, that would get on tv during the elections and promise the people that "If you elect me governor of Georgia, I'll work to ship all the (expletive deleted) back to Africa."

Nobody really thought that was a viable option; stoner would garner, at best 30,000 votes. That was probably 2 percent of the population. Now it's 28 percent of the population when the skin color went from black to brown. Amazing.

Supply and demand is real. I've seen it is the difference in wages from a big city, with large poor populations, to smaller cities/towns without such large pools of labor.

I don't get your point. You argue supply and demand which is what brings undocumented immigrants to America.

I think YOU don't understand the totality of the barriers argument. I've worked in some aspect of this issue since 1976 and have argued the think tank issues on these boards that the build the wall, deport 'em all crowd has made for at least a decade and a half. They cannot or will not answer the questions that have been posed. For example:

Getting into America via human smugglers from Mexico averages about $1500 or so. Supposing you had a wall, for a few dollars more, those people could get on a plane and legally enter Canada (which is opening its doors to immigrants.) From there, they could walk across the northern border to the U.S. to find jobs and / or be with family. So, do you propose a wall along the northern border? Alaska is a stone's throw from Russia. Wall that up to? Cubans can get to Miami. Shall we put a wall up around Florida to guarantee Floridians the equal protection of the laws? Are you going to be the one to tell people no more access to the beaches in the name of fighting so - called "illegal immigration?"

People love to argue about this subject while not giving a rat's ass about the Freedoms and Liberties they jeopardize - Freedoms and Liberties our forefathers fought, bled, and died to secure. And the build the wall, deport 'em all factions don't care how many Freedoms and Liberties have been lost nor how many more will be taken.

There are far better solutions, but the build the wall, deport 'em all people think they have a monopoly on solutions... too stupid to figure out exactly who is financing their campaign nor WHY.

Somewhat more than HALF of the illegals in this country came across the southern border.

That is no accident. Sealing that avenue would be a positive step to fixing this problem.


There are not human smuggling rings operating out of Canada. Your assumption that it would be an easy replacement for the Southern Border, to illegals, is not proven.


Your argument that we need to build a wall around Florida for "equal protection of the law" seems silly. The coast guard and/or navy can and should protect US from invasion over the seas.




The time for slow and deliberate discussion on the very BEST way to fix this problem was back in the 80s.


That time was squandered by lefties with constant and vile use of the Race Card.


Now, we have to do everything and do it now, without further discussion.


NO MORE TALK. ACTION![/QUOTE]

What a load of yammering idiocy!

1) Your side has consistently failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. There is no "problem" in and of itself with people coming across the border. If so, maybe the people from California should not come to Georgia

2) If the Coast Guard and the Navy can protect Florida then the Army could protect the southern border...OR, wait a minute... Are we talking enforcing immigration laws or are we talking National Security? It's not the job of the Coast Guard or the Navy to protect Florida. It's just a little boat ride from Monterrey to Tallahassee. So, what, you are admitting that you want to use the military to enforce domestic immigration laws AND, adding insult to injury, using the military to enforce civil misdemeanors??????????? You see what I mean about your side taking a giant sh!+ on OUR Freedoms and Liberties?

3) You know, you're right about one thing: there are no smuggling rings in Canada. The Hispanics don't need one... yet. The issue is, you advocate blowing BILLIONS in tax dollars and not taking five minutes to anticipate a future problem. IF the foreigner is cut off from making entry in one spot, where will the NEXT point of entry be?

You mean I'm having a conversation with someone that is so dense that all they seek is instant gratification on this issue without a single thought as to its cost (IN TERMS OF FREEDOM AND LIBERTY) plus no thoughts as to how the issue progresses IF you win your little wall idea? Really?

What's going to stop people from going to Canada and walking across the border IF you could build a wall big enough to keep the Hispanics out at the southern border... and BTW, you cannot build such a wall....

 

[Liquid Reigns]

You did not answer any of questions. Why?

I answered all your questions, I even gave you examples showing what I stated, Corporations can hire illegals, they have hired illegals, the question is did they hire them "knowingly". You do know what an I-9 form is right? You do know what documents are required right? You do know illegals purchase those documents all the time right?

1. In the corporate world it's impossible to hire illegals. But there are legal immigrants with green cards or anchor babies and not sure where you got the 50%.
Bringing foreign workers for crops cost more because you have to house and feed them and corral make sure they don't run and hide. So why bother when they are available here.
Farmers that are coming from Asia or other countries like Africa via H2A visa. Do you honestly believe they came here just to pick strawberries? They sent their best educated kids to apply hoping for a better job than farmers.

Farmers hire through agencies that get the H2A workers, thus they cut out the requirements of feeding an housing them. H2A visas can not apply to change status to another visa, if they fail to leave when their visa expires, then they become illegally here themselves and can be deported rather easily when caught.

2. True but the trend is about $18 due to shortages of these people. Farmers are desperate. Even rebuilding of Houston after Harvey they are getting paid between $25 to $35 as we speak.

Wages rise on California farms. Americans still don't want the job

Farmers can mechanize and have been. The issue with farm labor is it is seasonal, usually 3 -5 weeks at a time.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

The story of immigrants is a two-way street. We all know about the extremists whose only mission is wreak terror among our population (Just look at London and its mayor Sadiq Khan who is prolly a terrorist himself). These are the immigrants we don't want.

The other side of the coin is non-terror immigrants take jobs that no one else will take. They pile into rental units where others won't rent in order to make things work for themselves. They make money and they spend money. They bring in new types of foods and services. They add to a city's dying population and the cities end up thriving.

Today, we have over 80 sanctuary cities in the US. Most are liberal urban centers. Where I live, it isn't a sanctuary city. The city is modernizing, but its restaurants, businesses, stores and such aren't full. A few places still attract a crowd. Yet, the city isn't thriving even though it's a lead city in a large metropolitan area. An example a big city not thriving would be St. Louis, MO. It has the population and the metropolitan area, but once the workday is over, people go home to their suburban homes.

"More than 80 cities in the United States,[69] including Washington D.C., New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, San Diego, San Jose, Salt Lake City, Phoenix, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, Detroit, Jersey City, Minneapolis, Miami, Denver, Baltimore, Seattle, Portland, Oregon and Portland, Maine, have sanctuary policies, which vary locally.[70] "

Immigration to the United States - Wikipedia

If your city cannot thrive without immigrants, you're doing it wrong.

Illegals bring no value to any city.

Immigrants should be an enhancement to your way of life and what your city is doing, not the be all, end all of your city.

"San Francisco, CA average salary is $99,284, median salary is $94,191 with a salary range from $21,439 to $1,826,000."

San Francisco Salaries, Average Salary & Jobs Pay in San Francisco, CA

Unemployment rate for San Francisco is 3.3 percent

unemployment rate for san francisco - Bing

San Francisco is a sanctuary city

The average yearly income in Atlanta is $60,219

atlanta annual income - Bing

The unemployment rate in Atlanta is 5. 5 percent

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, Georgia Metropolitan Unemployment Rate and Total Unemployed | Department of Numbers

Atlanta is NOT a sanctuary city.

Do you understand my skepticism with your post?

Illegals do not live in San Francisco, they live in the regions outside of San Francisco. They live in areas like Oakland and Hayward, relative shit holes compared to San Francisco.

The unemployment rate in San Francisco has no correlation with illegals.

Atlanta's unemployment rate has no correlation with illegals, either. SF being a sanctuary city doesn't matter, look at LA metro with 6.1% being a sanctuary city.

There is NO correlation between unemployment and immigration.

Now you are trying like hell to claim there is?

San Francisco is not the concentration of illegals but there are lots of illegals in SF. Not just Hispanics but lots of illegal Asians.

I agree, they may not live in SF, but the sure do work there.

 

[Correll]

But what is the cost of living in san francisco.



I live in a rust belt city. i know a guy who moved here a few years ago from California and he had interesting things to say about the way illegals live and work, pretty much as slaves.


Interestingly enough, he is a died in the wool lefties, and yet, could make no connection between the fact of slave labor and Democratic city and state.


He blamed it all on the "corruption" you see in "all port cities". LOL!!!

The undocumented population in San Francisco must be satisfied with the wage structure as they could easily make it to many other cities / states that have no sanctuary cities.

I think you underestimate the barriers that could be in place, from violent criminals they owe money to, to the poverty that prevents them from affording a bus ticket, to the fear of travelling as a criminal in a society they do not speak the language.






The KKK used to argue that we could raise the wages of whites in this country if we shipped the blacks back to Africa. We used to have this guy, J.B. Stoner, that would get on tv during the elections and promise the people that "If you elect me governor of Georgia, I'll work to ship all the (expletive deleted) back to Africa."

Nobody really thought that was a viable option; stoner would garner, at best 30,000 votes. That was probably 2 percent of the population. Now it's 28 percent of the population when the skin color went from black to brown. Amazing.

Supply and demand is real. I've seen it is the difference in wages from a big city, with large poor populations, to smaller cities/towns without such large pools of labor.

I don't get your point. You argue supply and demand which is what brings undocumented immigrants to America.

I think YOU don't understand the totality of the barriers argument. I've worked in some aspect of this issue since 1976 and have argued the think tank issues on these boards that the build the wall, deport 'em all crowd has made for at least a decade and a half. They cannot or will not answer the questions that have been posed. For example:

Getting into America via human smugglers from Mexico averages about $1500 or so. Supposing you had a wall, for a few dollars more, those people could get on a plane and legally enter Canada (which is opening its doors to immigrants.) From there, they could walk across the northern border to the U.S. to find jobs and / or be with family. So, do you propose a wall along the northern border? Alaska is a stone's throw from Russia. Wall that up to? Cubans can get to Miami. Shall we put a wall up around Florida to guarantee Floridians the equal protection of the laws? Are you going to be the one to tell people no more access to the beaches in the name of fighting so - called "illegal immigration?"

People love to argue about this subject while not giving a rat's ass about the Freedoms and Liberties they jeopardize - Freedoms and Liberties our forefathers fought, bled, and died to secure. And the build the wall, deport 'em all factions don't care how many Freedoms and Liberties have been lost nor how many more will be taken.

There are far better solutions, but the build the wall, deport 'em all people think they have a monopoly on solutions... too stupid to figure out exactly who is financing their campaign nor WHY.

Somewhat more than HALF of the illegals in this country came across the southern border.

That is no accident. Sealing that avenue would be a positive step to fixing this problem.


There are not human smuggling rings operating out of Canada. Your assumption that it would be an easy replacement for the Southern Border, to illegals, is not proven.


Your argument that we need to build a wall around Florida for "equal protection of the law" seems silly. The coast guard and/or navy can and should protect US from invasion over the seas.




The time for slow and deliberate discussion on the very BEST way to fix this problem was back in the 80s.


That time was squandered by lefties with constant and vile use of the Race Card.


Now, we have to do everything and do it now, without further discussion.


NO MORE TALK. ACTION!

What a load of yammering idiocy!

1) Your side has consistently failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. There is no "problem" in and of itself with people coming across the border. If so, maybe the people from California should not come to Georgia[/QUOTE]


Your claim that there is no problem with people coming across the border is absurd. And dismissed.




2) If the Coast Guard and the Navy can protect Florida then the Army could protect the southern border...OR, wait a minute... Are we talking enforcing immigration laws or are we talking National Security? It's not the job of the Coast Guard or the Navy to protect Florida. It's just a little boat ride from Monterrey to Tallahassee. So, what, you are admitting that you want to use the military to enforce domestic immigration laws AND, adding insult to injury, using the military to enforce civil misdemeanors??????????? You see what I mean about your side taking a giant sh!+ on OUR Freedoms and Liberties?[/QUOTE]

I consider invasion to be a National Security issue. And yes, I'm fine with putting the military on the border if that is what it takes.

Domestic immigration laws? WTF, is that?




3) You know, you're right about one thing: there are no smuggling rings in Canada. The Hispanics don't need one... yet. The issue is, you advocate blowing BILLIONS in tax dollars and not taking five minutes to anticipate a future problem. IF the foreigner is cut off from making entry in one spot, where will the NEXT point of entry be?[/QUOTE]


We can hassle Canada about their causing a problem for US if it occurs. Neighbors that are not assholes, don't generally let people invade their neighbors from their territory.




You mean I'm having a conversation with someone that is so dense that all they seek is instant gratification on this issue without a single thought as to its cost (IN TERMS OF FREEDOM AND LIBERTY) plus no thoughts as to how the issue progresses IF you win your little wall idea? Really?[/QUOTE]


I would love to have had a long in depth debate on the issue. Unfortunately we can't. THe enemy has made an art over using discussion of the issue to avoid ever doing anything about the issue.

You don't like it? Take it up with those that caused it. IF that was your goal? Yell at the mirror.



What's going to stop people from going to Canada and walking across the border IF you could build a wall big enough to keep the Hispanics out at the southern border... and BTW, you cannot build such a wall....[/QUOTE]


Canadians. They won't want to piss US off by letting assholes invade US like that.


They are smarter than Mexicans.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

What a load of yammering idiocy!

1) Your side has consistently failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. There is no "problem" in and of itself with people coming across the border. If so, maybe the people from California should not come to Georgia

Talk about idiocy. SMFH Why should illegals be given any "relief"? Crossing an international border is not the same as crossiing state lines within a country. watafuknmoron.

2) If the Coast Guard and the Navy can protect Florida then the Army could protect the southern border...OR, wait a minute... Are we talking enforcing immigration laws or are we talking National Security? It's not the job of the Coast Guard or the Navy to protect Florida. It's just a little boat ride from Monterrey to Tallahassee. So, what, you are admitting that you want to use the military to enforce domestic immigration laws AND, adding insult to injury, using the military to enforce civil misdemeanors??????????? You see what I mean about your side taking a giant sh!+ on OUR Freedoms and Liberties?

The US Coast Guard is not military. I'll ask you again, what freedoms or liberties have you lost from immigration laws?

3) You know, you're right about one thing: there are no smuggling rings in Canada. The Hispanics don't need one... yet. The issue is, you advocate blowing BILLIONS in tax dollars and not taking five minutes to anticipate a future problem. IF the foreigner is cut off from making entry in one spot, where will the NEXT point of entry be?

How would a person from south of our southern border get a passport and a visa to enter Canada to begin with? If they could get one for Canada they could get one for the US. Again, watafuknmoron

You mean I'm having a conversation with someone that is so dense that all they seek is instant gratification on this issue without a single thought as to its cost (IN TERMS OF FREEDOM AND LIBERTY) plus no thoughts as to how the issue progresses IF you win your little wall idea? Really?

What freedoms and liberties have you lost from immigration laws?

What's going to stop people from going to Canada and walking across the border IF you could build a wall big enough to keep the Hispanics out at the southern border... and BTW, you cannot build such a wall....

What makes you think they can get a passport and a visa to enter Canada to begin with? Hell, if they could get those things they would be able to enter the US legally you fucking idiot.

 

[Unkotare]

.....The US Coast Guard is not military. ......

???????

Of course it is.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

.....The US Coast Guard is not military. ......

???????

Of course it is.

They perform maritime law duties and operate under DHS. They can be transferred to the US Navy under conditions of war via US Congress.

 

[Humorme]

The undocumented population in San Francisco must be satisfied with the wage structure as they could easily make it to many other cities / states that have no sanctuary cities.

I think you underestimate the barriers that could be in place, from violent criminals they owe money to, to the poverty that prevents them from affording a bus ticket, to the fear of travelling as a criminal in a society they do not speak the language.






The KKK used to argue that we could raise the wages of whites in this country if we shipped the blacks back to Africa. We used to have this guy, J.B. Stoner, that would get on tv during the elections and promise the people that "If you elect me governor of Georgia, I'll work to ship all the (expletive deleted) back to Africa."

Nobody really thought that was a viable option; stoner would garner, at best 30,000 votes. That was probably 2 percent of the population. Now it's 28 percent of the population when the skin color went from black to brown. Amazing.

Supply and demand is real. I've seen it is the difference in wages from a big city, with large poor populations, to smaller cities/towns without such large pools of labor.

I don't get your point. You argue supply and demand which is what brings undocumented immigrants to America.

I think YOU don't understand the totality of the barriers argument. I've worked in some aspect of this issue since 1976 and have argued the think tank issues on these boards that the build the wall, deport 'em all crowd has made for at least a decade and a half. They cannot or will not answer the questions that have been posed. For example:

Getting into America via human smugglers from Mexico averages about $1500 or so. Supposing you had a wall, for a few dollars more, those people could get on a plane and legally enter Canada (which is opening its doors to immigrants.) From there, they could walk across the northern border to the U.S. to find jobs and / or be with family. So, do you propose a wall along the northern border? Alaska is a stone's throw from Russia. Wall that up to? Cubans can get to Miami. Shall we put a wall up around Florida to guarantee Floridians the equal protection of the laws? Are you going to be the one to tell people no more access to the beaches in the name of fighting so - called "illegal immigration?"

People love to argue about this subject while not giving a rat's ass about the Freedoms and Liberties they jeopardize - Freedoms and Liberties our forefathers fought, bled, and died to secure. And the build the wall, deport 'em all factions don't care how many Freedoms and Liberties have been lost nor how many more will be taken.

There are far better solutions, but the build the wall, deport 'em all people think they have a monopoly on solutions... too stupid to figure out exactly who is financing their campaign nor WHY.

Somewhat more than HALF of the illegals in this country came across the southern border.

That is no accident. Sealing that avenue would be a positive step to fixing this problem.


There are not human smuggling rings operating out of Canada. Your assumption that it would be an easy replacement for the Southern Border, to illegals, is not proven.


Your argument that we need to build a wall around Florida for "equal protection of the law" seems silly. The coast guard and/or navy can and should protect US from invasion over the seas.




The time for slow and deliberate discussion on the very BEST way to fix this problem was back in the 80s.


That time was squandered by lefties with constant and vile use of the Race Card.


Now, we have to do everything and do it now, without further discussion.


NO MORE TALK. ACTION!

What a load of yammering idiocy!

1) Your side has consistently failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. There is no "problem" in and of itself with people coming across the border. If so, maybe the people from California should not come to Georgia

Your claim that there is no problem with people coming across the border is absurd. And dismissed.




2) If the Coast Guard and the Navy can protect Florida then the Army could protect the southern border...OR, wait a minute... Are we talking enforcing immigration laws or are we talking National Security? It's not the job of the Coast Guard or the Navy to protect Florida. It's just a little boat ride from Monterrey to Tallahassee. So, what, you are admitting that you want to use the military to enforce domestic immigration laws AND, adding insult to injury, using the military to enforce civil misdemeanors??????????? You see what I mean about your side taking a giant sh!+ on OUR Freedoms and Liberties?[/QUOTE]

I consider invasion to be a National Security issue. And yes, I'm fine with putting the military on the border if that is what it takes.

Domestic immigration laws? WTF, is that?




3) You know, you're right about one thing: there are no smuggling rings in Canada. The Hispanics don't need one... yet. The issue is, you advocate blowing BILLIONS in tax dollars and not taking five minutes to anticipate a future problem. IF the foreigner is cut off from making entry in one spot, where will the NEXT point of entry be?[/QUOTE]


We can hassle Canada about their causing a problem for US if it occurs. Neighbors that are not assholes, don't generally let people invade their neighbors from their territory.




You mean I'm having a conversation with someone that is so dense that all they seek is instant gratification on this issue without a single thought as to its cost (IN TERMS OF FREEDOM AND LIBERTY) plus no thoughts as to how the issue progresses IF you win your little wall idea? Really?[/QUOTE]


I would love to have had a long in depth debate on the issue. Unfortunately we can't. THe enemy has made an art over using discussion of the issue to avoid ever doing anything about the issue.

You don't like it? Take it up with those that caused it. IF that was your goal? Yell at the mirror.



What's going to stop people from going to Canada and walking across the border IF you could build a wall big enough to keep the Hispanics out at the southern border... and BTW, you cannot build such a wall....[/QUOTE]


Canadians. They won't want to piss US off by letting assholes invade US like that.


They are smarter than Mexicans.[/QUOTE]

Dude for real. Learn how to make distinctions between what I said and what you say.

1) You don't have the authority to dismiss anyone

2) The military has NO jurisdiction in domestic law enforcement

3) You're as unrealistic as they come, Junior. If the United States cannot stop foreigners without a wall (which is absolute BULLSHIT) then only an idiot would try to make us believe that Canada could stop foreigners from crossing the border.

You don't make sense. You're telling people that the only way that the U.S. can stop undocumented foreigners is with a wall. But, somehow Canada can prevent foreigners from walking across the northern border to get into the U.S. Nobody on this board smokes that much weed.

4) If you're accusing me of being responsible for the immigration debacle, you really are nuts. I can guarantee you that YOU have done many times more things to cause the problem... INCLUDING TAKING THE REAL SOLDIERS OUT OF THE FIGHT.

5) If you are going to sit there and advocate that we use the military to enforce domestic laws regarding immigration, you are not smart enough to be in this discussion and you need some courses in civics, law and history.

"The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) signed on June 18, 1878 by President Rutherford B. Hayes. The purpose of the act – in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807 – is to limit the powers of the federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States."

Posse Comitatus Act - Wikipedia

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Dude for real. Learn how to make distinctions between what I said and what you say.

1) You don't have the authority to dismiss anyone

2) The military has NO jurisdiction in domestic law enforcement

You better check your own Posse Comitatus link dumbass, it says the Army and Air Force can be used to include the states themselves allowing the National Guard to become law enforcement. Hell the Army reserve units were placed on the border by the President just a few years ago, to include the states having the NG performing drills there.

Yea, your still in the lead for the dumbest poster on the board.

3) You're as unrealistic as they come, Junior. If the United States cannot stop foreigners without a wall (which is absolute BULLSHIT) then only an idiot would try to make us believe that Canada could stop foreigners from crossing the border.

How many illegals have entered by crossing the Canadian border illegally? If they can't get passports and visas to enter Canada, how will they enter from Canada?

You don't make sense. You're telling people that the only way that the U.S. can stop undocumented foreigners is with a wall. But, somehow Canada can prevent foreigners from walking across the northern border to get into the U.S. Nobody on this board smokes that much weed.

A wall will limit and lower the number quite dramatically compared to what has crossed in the past.

4) If you're accusing me of being responsible for the immigration debacle, you really are nuts. I can guarantee you that YOU have done many times more things to cause the problem... INCLUDING TAKING THE REAL SOLDIERS OUT OF THE FIGHT.

Real soldiers out of the fight? You mean you Patriot Network dumb fucks? The Tax Protestor, Sovereign Citizen idiots? The wanna-be soldiers in the "Militias". The Christian Identity Movement, Libertarian Socialists. All the groups you are a participant in? Did I miss any?

5) If you are going to sit there and advocate that we use the military to enforce domestic laws regarding immigration, you are not smart enough to be in this discussion and you need some courses in civics, law and history.

"The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) signed on June 18, 1878 by President Rutherford B. Hayes. The purpose of the act – in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807 – is to limit the powers of the federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States."

Posse Comitatus Act - Wikipedia

I don't believe you're smart enough to be able to comprehend your own link.

 

[james bond]

The story of immigrants is a two-way street. We all know about the extremists whose only mission is wreak terror among our population (Just look at London and its mayor Sadiq Khan who is prolly a terrorist himself). These are the immigrants we don't want.

The other side of the coin is non-terror immigrants take jobs that no one else will take. They pile into rental units where others won't rent in order to make things work for themselves. They make money and they spend money. They bring in new types of foods and services. They add to a city's dying population and the cities end up thriving.

Today, we have over 80 sanctuary cities in the US. Most are liberal urban centers. Where I live, it isn't a sanctuary city. The city is modernizing, but its restaurants, businesses, stores and such aren't full. A few places still attract a crowd. Yet, the city isn't thriving even though it's a lead city in a large metropolitan area. An example a big city not thriving would be St. Louis, MO. It has the population and the metropolitan area, but once the workday is over, people go home to their suburban homes.

"More than 80 cities in the United States,[69] including Washington D.C., New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, San Diego, San Jose, Salt Lake City, Phoenix, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, Detroit, Jersey City, Minneapolis, Miami, Denver, Baltimore, Seattle, Portland, Oregon and Portland, Maine, have sanctuary policies, which vary locally.[70] "

Immigration to the United States - Wikipedia

If your city cannot thrive without immigrants, you're doing it wrong.

Illegals bring no value to any city.

Immigrants should be an enhancement to your way of life and what your city is doing, not the be all, end all of your city.

"San Francisco, CA average salary is $99,284, median salary is $94,191 with a salary range from $21,439 to $1,826,000."

San Francisco Salaries, Average Salary & Jobs Pay in San Francisco, CA

Unemployment rate for San Francisco is 3.3 percent

unemployment rate for san francisco - Bing

San Francisco is a sanctuary city

The average yearly income in Atlanta is $60,219

atlanta annual income - Bing

The unemployment rate in Atlanta is 5. 5 percent

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, Georgia Metropolitan Unemployment Rate and Total Unemployed | Department of Numbers

Atlanta is NOT a sanctuary city.

Do you understand my skepticism with your post?

Illegals do not live in San Francisco, they live in the regions outside of San Francisco. They live in areas like Oakland and Hayward, relative shit holes compared to San Francisco.

The unemployment rate in San Francisco has no correlation with illegals.

Atlanta's unemployment rate has no correlation with illegals, either. SF being a sanctuary city doesn't matter, look at LA metro with 6.1% being a sanctuary city.

There is NO correlation between unemployment and immigration.

Now you are trying like hell to claim there is?

>>Illegals do not live in San Francisco, they live in the regions outside of San Francisco. They live in areas like Oakland and Hayward, relative shit holes compared to San Francisco.

The unemployment rate in San Francisco has no correlation with illegals.<<

I didn't say they lived in San Francisco, but I would guess they prolly (I'm using prolly here just to tweak Cpt Rock) work there. Those people with money need someone to maintain their homes, cut the grass and the like. Thus, the unemployment rate in SF does have a correlation.

>>Atlanta's unemployment rate has no correlation with illegals, either. SF being a sanctuary city doesn't matter, look at LA metro with 6.1% being a sanctuary city. <<

Your prejudiced logic seems to fail me. Illegals come because of work even though it's low paying. They accept jobs that Americans won't take.

 

[james bond]

I've been looking at Sacramento, CA. It seems the homeless in San Francisco have moved there. Just today, I read an article in the Sacramento Bee about this. Their downtown is filled with homeless. Thus, the sanctuary cities have been able to solve their homeless problems, too. Too many cons don't seem to get it. The mayor in Sacramento wants to end homeless in his city. The guy doesn't have a clue on how to do this.

Should you give money to homeless people on the street?

Don't get me wrong. I'm on the middle-right conservative side like how the US pop works out. It's just that I know a good policy when I see one .

 

[Humorme]

The story of immigrants is a two-way street. We all know about the extremists whose only mission is wreak terror among our population (Just look at London and its mayor Sadiq Khan who is prolly a terrorist himself). These are the immigrants we don't want.

The other side of the coin is non-terror immigrants take jobs that no one else will take. They pile into rental units where others won't rent in order to make things work for themselves. They make money and they spend money. They bring in new types of foods and services. They add to a city's dying population and the cities end up thriving.

Today, we have over 80 sanctuary cities in the US. Most are liberal urban centers. Where I live, it isn't a sanctuary city. The city is modernizing, but its restaurants, businesses, stores and such aren't full. A few places still attract a crowd. Yet, the city isn't thriving even though it's a lead city in a large metropolitan area. An example a big city not thriving would be St. Louis, MO. It has the population and the metropolitan area, but once the workday is over, people go home to their suburban homes.

"More than 80 cities in the United States,[69] including Washington D.C., New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, San Diego, San Jose, Salt Lake City, Phoenix, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, Detroit, Jersey City, Minneapolis, Miami, Denver, Baltimore, Seattle, Portland, Oregon and Portland, Maine, have sanctuary policies, which vary locally.[70] "

Immigration to the United States - Wikipedia

If your city cannot thrive without immigrants, you're doing it wrong.

Illegals bring no value to any city.

Immigrants should be an enhancement to your way of life and what your city is doing, not the be all, end all of your city.

"San Francisco, CA average salary is $99,284, median salary is $94,191 with a salary range from $21,439 to $1,826,000."

San Francisco Salaries, Average Salary & Jobs Pay in San Francisco, CA

Unemployment rate for San Francisco is 3.3 percent

unemployment rate for san francisco - Bing

San Francisco is a sanctuary city

The average yearly income in Atlanta is $60,219

atlanta annual income - Bing

The unemployment rate in Atlanta is 5. 5 percent

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, Georgia Metropolitan Unemployment Rate and Total Unemployed | Department of Numbers

Atlanta is NOT a sanctuary city.

Do you understand my skepticism with your post?

Illegals do not live in San Francisco, they live in the regions outside of San Francisco. They live in areas like Oakland and Hayward, relative shit holes compared to San Francisco.

The unemployment rate in San Francisco has no correlation with illegals.

Atlanta's unemployment rate has no correlation with illegals, either. SF being a sanctuary city doesn't matter, look at LA metro with 6.1% being a sanctuary city.

There is NO correlation between unemployment and immigration.

Now you are trying like hell to claim there is?

>>Illegals do not live in San Francisco, they live in the regions outside of San Francisco. They live in areas like Oakland and Hayward, relative shit holes compared to San Francisco.

The unemployment rate in San Francisco has no correlation with illegals.<<

I didn't say they lived in San Francisco, but I would guess they prolly (I'm using prolly here just to tweak Cpt Rock) work there. Those people with money need someone to maintain their homes, cut the grass and the like. Thus, the unemployment rate in SF does have a correlation.

>>Atlanta's unemployment rate has no correlation with illegals, either. SF being a sanctuary city doesn't matter, look at LA metro with 6.1% being a sanctuary city. <<

Your prejudiced logic seems to fail me. Illegals come because of work even though it's low paying. They accept jobs that Americans won't take.

Grasping at straws and denying the facts in front of your face is illogical. If anyone has prejudiced logic, it would be you.

You couldn't tell the posters here what side of the issue I'm on if your life depended on it. Why didn't you use Chicago to try and bolster your claim?

The facts are, there is no correlation between unemployment and sanctuary cities. If San Francisco can afford their sanctuary city and not dip into the federal dole, you, me and the federal government have no legitimate interests in how they run their damn city.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Virtually all manual labor down here 40 miles from the border is done by latinos. I have absolutely no idea if the ones I hire are legal or not. Nor, do I care. All I care about is whether or not they do the work I want done correctly and timely. If they do, I will hire them again, and again. No questions asked.