CDZ The argument "undocumented immigrants won't report crimes due to fear, hurting America" this is bunk

[shockedcanadian]

Is this argument a valid one for keeping Sanctuary Cities open?

What is it about this argument that rubs me the wrong way, where would I begin? In the interest if keeping this short, it is such a poor argument. "We need sanctuary cities because if we don't have them, there will be people too afraid of being reported to report crimes".

First, in and of itself this argument suggests that there is a hell of alot of crime going on in these communities if this is a significant concern.

Second, anyone can easily and anonymously call the police or some snitch line and report a person who committed a crime.

Third, it might be the most limp wristed, disingenuous argument of the lot.

You either have a country or you don't. You have federal laws against illegal immigration or you don't.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your argument is bunk. Let's move on.

 

[Picaro]

There is no such thing as an 'undocumented immigrant', they're criminal illegal aliens, and of course criminals don't tend to report other criminals, true enough. And no, they don't deserve any pity for their self-inflicted condition; criminals preying on other criminals isn't something we need to get concerned with.

'Sanctuary cities' is just a fake name for a virulent racist criminal syndicate. Arrest the criminals violating Federal laws and deport them along with their illegal alien criminals.

 

[william the wie]

Is this argument a valid one for keeping Sanctuary Cities open?

What is it about this argument that rubs me the wrong way, where would I begin? In the interest if keeping this short, it is such a poor argument. "We need sanctuary cities because if we don't have them, there will be people too afraid of being reported to report crimes".

First, in and of itself this argument suggests that there is a hell of alot of crime going on in these communities if this is a significant concern.

Second, anyone can easily and anonymously call the police or some snitch line and report a person who committed a crime.

Third, it might be the most limp wristed, disingenuous argument of the lot.

You either have a country or you don't. You have federal laws against illegal immigration or you don't.

Picaro gave the right rebuttal for ending sanctuary cities if you want to close them down. But given that the competent flee from and criminals run to sanctuary cities I suspect that sanctuary cities are too valuable to the Republican coalition to crack down on prior to the 2018 mid-terms. When enough snowflakes get whacked the problem will start solving itself. Much like the biker gangs in Canada, Europe and Australia are being replaced by more disciplined and competent Asian gangs who pay bigger and better bribes that will happen in the US too but the US also has better gang intelligence networks and stronger anti-corruption laws. The gangs will shift locations and destroy some parts of the US but mostly the D power base.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Is this argument a valid one for keeping Sanctuary Cities open?

What is it about this argument that rubs me the wrong way, where would I begin? In the interest if keeping this short, it is such a poor argument. "We need sanctuary cities because if we don't have them, there will be people too afraid of being reported to report crimes".

First, in and of itself this argument suggests that there is a hell of alot of crime going on in these communities if this is a significant concern.

Second, anyone can easily and anonymously call the police or some snitch line and report a person who committed a crime.

Third, it might be the most limp wristed, disingenuous argument of the lot.

You either have a country or you don't. You have federal laws against illegal immigration or you don't.

Picaro gave the right rebuttal for ending sanctuary cities if you want to close them down. But given that the competent flee from and criminals run to sanctuary cities I suspect that sanctuary cities are too valuable to the Republican coalition to crack down on prior to the 2018 mid-terms. When enough snowflakes get whacked the problem will start solving itself. Much like the biker gangs in Canada, Europe and Australia are being replaced by more disciplined and competent Asian gangs who pay bigger and better bribes that will happen in the US too but the US also has better gang intelligence networks and stronger anti-corruption laws. The gangs will shift locations and destroy some parts of the US but mostly the D power base.

Sure.

 

[DarkFury]

Is this argument a valid one for keeping Sanctuary Cities open?

What is it about this argument that rubs me the wrong way, where would I begin? In the interest if keeping this short, it is such a poor argument. "We need sanctuary cities because if we don't have them, there will be people too afraid of being reported to report crimes".

First, in and of itself this argument suggests that there is a hell of alot of crime going on in these communities if this is a significant concern.

Second, anyone can easily and anonymously call the police or some snitch line and report a person who committed a crime.

Third, it might be the most limp wristed, disingenuous argument of the lot.

You either have a country or you don't. You have federal laws against illegal immigration or you don't.

Picaro gave the right rebuttal for ending sanctuary cities if you want to close them down. But given that the competent flee from and criminals run to sanctuary cities I suspect that sanctuary cities are too valuable to the Republican coalition to crack down on prior to the 2018 mid-terms. When enough snowflakes get whacked the problem will start solving itself. Much like the biker gangs in Canada, Europe and Australia are being replaced by more disciplined and competent Asian gangs who pay bigger and better bribes that will happen in the US too but the US also has better gang intelligence networks and stronger anti-corruption laws. The gangs will shift locations and destroy some parts of the US but mostly the D power base.

It should also be noted that a illigeal immigrant who is a crime victim can apply for a special visa to stay in the country until trial. And the government can also extend that visa for a reward.

 

[william the wie]

Thanks for the reply DF. The maps in your sig really make my point. The Ds are losing their tax base while their tax consumers grow like Topsy. When that hits critical mass is unpredictable. What is predictable is this dichotomy is going to worsen.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, it is not.

 

[jwoodie]

Sure.

Incomplete sentences are indicators of incomplete thoughts.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sure.

Incomplete sentences are indicators of incomplete thoughts.

Only for inadequate readers. Look up the use of exclamation.

 

[jwoodie]

Sure.

Incomplete sentences are indicators of incomplete thoughts.

Only for inadequate readers. Look up the use of exclamation.

Sure.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Is this argument a valid one for keeping Sanctuary Cities open?

I think the risk that crimes will go unreported if the sole witnesses to them are illegal aliens forms part of a sound argument for maintaining the sanctity of sanctuary cities. Is there an argument for the persistence of sanctuary cities that soundly relies on just that premise and the facts that support it? Maybe, but I don't know what it is, which is not the same thing as knowing whether such an argument exists.

 

[william the wie]

I have to agree with Xelor creating a felon magnet like sanctuary cities keeps normal right wing Americans safer, produces tax and job flight to red states