The Real timschochet

First off it’s not my argument for sanctuary cities. I made my arguments earlier. Second, I have no idea but it wouldn’t surprise me that most undocumented immigrants would avoid police (some however do serve as informers for police as I stated before.) I’m not understanding your overall point. I believe in sanctuary cities because I don’t believe in mass deportation, and I am generally sympathetic to undocumented immigrants as you are aware. But the way to eliminate sanctuary cities to legally recognize most of these people. If you’re not willing to do that (and I know you’re not) then I don’t know what to tell you. I will never be for mass deportation or local police being instructed to look at people’s papers like some sort of Gestapo so here we are.

Enjoying this but I gotta run. If you have more specific questions for me I will try and respond later on.

This doesn’t apply to me. Their reasons (and I think you mistate them anyhow are not mine.

Do you not see a parallel here between these high profile incidents and mass shootings? In both cases these anecdotes are being used to make sweeping judgments. Everytime there is a mass shooting, Biden calls for a ban on AR-15s, yet we know that the vast majority of these rifles are never used in any crime and are owned by law abiding citizens. Everytime there is a murder or vicious crime committed by an undocumented immigrant, Trump calls for the deportation of all undocumented immigrants, yet we know that that the vast majority of these people commit no crimes. It seems to me that in both cases these are lazy arguments designed to appeal to emotional thinking rather than than logic and reasonableness. Would you agree?

Well my “common sense” isn’t yours. We certainly look at things differently. But I don’t recall ever making the argument that we should make people legal so that they feel safer reporting crime. I DO believe we should make most undocumented people legal, though not citizens, but I have different reasons for it.

That’s a separate issue from sanctuary cities. My answer is that the increased number of migrants is a national crisis. Long term I think it’s beneficial to our country so long as we deal with it in an organized, regulated fashion, which we are not doing. But I also think it creates great burdens especially short- term which are our national responsibility to bear. So yes I believe that New York and other cities that have to deal with the immediate problems head on deserve federal aid.

I don’t think we should ever rely on such anecdotal evidence to make sweeping judgments. I won’t ever do it if I can help it.

Does the NYC police commissioner propose ending NY as a sanctuary city? If he does I will listen to his argument. But my experience is that the police in sanctuary cities do NOT want to change that status as it would be cost prohibitive and they don’t have the resources, also it would actually lead to an INCREASE in crime since they often use migrants as informers.

The increase in numbers is certainly a strain on resources no question. But that is an entirely different issue than whether or not sanctuary city rules lead to an increase in crime, For that you’re going to have to show numbers which contradict the studies. I don’t think you will.

I understand what Adams is saying. But nowhere in his statement does he ever suggest changing sanctuary city laws. What he wants is federal help.

How are the studies outdated and inaccurate? Are there new studies that contradict them?

1. Agreed. 2. This fact doesn’t make them ineligible to seek asylum. 3. I don’t mean to doubt you but which international law are you referring to and why does it take precedence over our asylum laws which I linked? 4. Why? This is not part of our asylum laws. 5. I assume some are seeking asylum and at least some should be given it IMO. 6 You haven’t proven your point here. Some of those arriving at our border legitimately deserve asylum. Others will not be granted it but legitimately deserve to be called asylum seekers. Your main argument against this appears to be your points 3 and 4 and I don’t find them compelling as they are not part of what the rules actually say.

No surprise that I disagree with your take on most of this but it’s too much to unpack in one post. I’ll focus on one aspect of what you wrote: sanctuary cities. Here is a definition of a sanctuary city: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_city Pleaee go to the third paragraph which cites the numerous studies which show that sanctuary cities have no relationship to increase in crime and actually increase and strengthen the economic prosperity of the cities who are welcoming to migrants. These studies would seem to contradict your arguments.

You’ll have to be more specific. Which specific stance of mine ignores the evidence in your opinion?

Here are the rules for seeking asylum: https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-and-asylum/asylum/obtaining-asylum-in-the-united-states I don’t understand your argument, Why do you believe that it is impossible that anyone arriving at our southern border cannot qualify for this?

As a side note I knew Mr. Roper (Norman Fell) growing up. Distant member of my family.

The main difference between nowadays and the 1930s is that both we and our opponents have nuclear weapons. That means any war with Russia would be unthinkable.

Listen @RaiderHaters Revenge I know this is your position and I respect it. I know you believe this honestly. I disagree. I believe that if we don’t support Ukraine they will lose this war, and if that happens it will cost us a lot more than what we’re proposing to spend now. It very much looks like your side is going to get your way on this. The House of Representatives basically has veto power and Trump and the Republicans who count are opposed to further aid to Ukraine. That’s the bottom line and I don’t believe Biden, the Democrats, or the few Republicans who still support aid are going to defeat those who are now opposed. So we are going to find out who is right about this. Frankly I hope that you are right and I am wrong. This is not an outcome I would ever enjoy being right about.

I will respond later to this in detail.

You’re right, it’s happened before. And it may again. But there is a little bit of a difference here. At FBG, with a very few exceptions, I enjoyed talking to everyone. Here it’s different: there is only a minority of people I enjoy talking to: about 5-6. The majority of people here either irritate or bore me. Sorry but it’s true. Hopefully that could change at some point; I’m open to it. But we’ll see. And that’s the last you’ll hear from me about my posting history, or what people think of me, or whatever. I meant what I wrote: I will discuss issues with folks who want to discuss them with me. Nothing else.

The answer is no. And I’m prepared to discuss that issue as well in detail a little later. But I don’t think it has anything to do with Ukraine.

Thank you. This was the first of 3 reasons I am for doing this. Here are the other 2 reasons: 2. The weapons we’re purchasing are being made in St Louis, Long Beach, Seattle. It’s a boon for our aerospace industry. Frankly I’d rather see the money going to them than to companies in Britain, France, Denmark, etc. 3. Most important of all IMO: our role as the leader of NATO and the Free World. I’m not eager to give that up.

Yes. I’m leaving for dinner so I have to stop for now. I will respond to you in detail later on. But my answer to your question is yes 100%.

Not necessarily. It depends on the murder. A single murder could apply. But most important I want to be sure that the killer is indeed guilty: I certainly don’t agree with the complaint, implied here already, that the process takes too long. If we’re going to do this I want every possible t crossed however long it takes.

Well I’ve spent far too much time here responding to ignorant comments and getting myself entangled in stupid discussions. Thats my own fault. Im trying not to do that anymore. I’m happy and eager to engage in serious discussion as much as other people to desire to with me.