Why should we agree to reward sanctuary cities in latest Schumer/Biden senate bill?

[Millhouse]

(02-05-2024, 06:58 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's actually much more, as you included suicides by gun in that number.  The number of gun related homicides is ~14-15k (up from previous years btw) so it's more like 8 times more deaths from fentanyl than guns.


This is really indisputable.  One of the more interesting things of late is this complete unwillingness to acknowledge any fault in the Dem or their policies.  To the point that two prominent left leaning posters here couldn't name a single Dem policy they disagreed with.  Even if you think Trump is the literal antichrist you should still be able to find fault in the Dems where it exists.  It's like they believe if you acknowledge any problems on the Dem side that it equals an endorsement of Trump.  It's interestingly as cult like a behavior as they accuse the MAGA crowd of engaging in.

Well it's no secret I don't like the far left and the far right, and I especially don't like Trump as a person as all are detrimental to our country in their various unique ways.

I also will admit I am no legal expert on immigration law. So I have to ask what was the difference during President Obamas two terms when he deported more illegals (than Trump did on average) than these last three years under Biden who deported roughly 1/4 to 1/3 the amount Obama did? Back then we didn't have Covid and an explosive overdose fentanyl crisis either, so whats the difference? 

[Mickeypoo]

(02-07-2024, 11:45 AM)Millhouse Wrote: Well it's no secret I don't like the far left and the far right, and I especially don't like Trump as a person as all are detrimental to our country in their various unique ways.

I also will admit I am no legal expert on immigration law. So I have to ask what was the difference during President Obamas two terms when he deported more illegals (than Trump did on average) than these last three years under Biden who deported roughly 1/4 to 1/3 the amount Obama did? Back then we didn't have Covid and an explosive overdose fentanyl crisis either, so whats the difference? 

Obama wasn't trying to import a new voter base?  Just a guess.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-07-2024, 11:45 AM)Millhouse Wrote: Well it's no secret I don't like the far left and the far right, and I especially don't like Trump as a person as all are detrimental to our country in their various unique ways.

I also will admit I am no legal expert on immigration law. So I have to ask what was the difference during President Obamas two terms when he deported more illegals (than Trump did on average) than these last three years under Biden who deported roughly 1/4 to 1/3 the amount Obama did? Back then we didn't have Covid and an explosive overdose fentanyl crisis either, so whats the difference? 

A very good question.  Why would any POTUS want, or allow, their border to be essentially non-existent?  People, especially people in power, don't make these kind of decisions unless they benefit.  So what's the benefit, and of equal importance, who is benefitting?  Why is this suddenly a major issue in 2024, but not the preceding three years?  

[Belsnickel]

(02-07-2024, 12:06 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: Obama wasn't trying to import a new voter base?  Just a guess.

Considering immigrants like that aren't able to vote, no.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-07-2024, 02:19 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Considering immigrants like that aren't able to vote, no.

For now.

https://ktla.com/news/local-news/california-city-considers-granting-illegal-immigrants-the-right-to-vote/

[masonbengals fan]

(02-07-2024, 01:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A very good question.  Why would any POTUS want, or allow, their border to be essentially non-existent?  People, especially people in power, don't make these kind of decisions unless they benefit.  So what's the benefit, and of equal importance, who is benefitting?  Why is this suddenly a major issue in 2024, but not the preceding three years?  

Love to see someone/anyone in the media ask Joe this exact question in a setting where he couldn't immediately turn tail and run away. 

[XenoMorph]

(02-07-2024, 02:19 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Considering immigrants like that aren't able to vote, no.

oh they are trying to give them the right to vote because Joe biden gives them free things.. (the plan)   Bring them in keep them depended on the Gov and tell them if they dont vote for you they lose all the free perks they are getting.

And really probly already have been voting based on how no id is needed in some places

[Belsnickel]

(02-07-2024, 04:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: For now.

https://ktla.com/news/local-news/california-city-considers-granting-illegal-immigrants-the-right-to-vote/

But a city would only be able to grant the right to vote for local elections. They cannot allow them to vote in state or federal elections.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-07-2024, 05:44 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: But a city would only be able to grant the right to vote for local elections. They cannot allow them to vote in state or federal elections.

Bel, my friend, you're much smarter than that.  This is a trial balloon.  You're in no way naive enough not to think there will not be a push for this at the state and federal level if local efforts are successful.  I'm sure it will be coupled by accusations of racism or nationalism if you oppose it as well.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-07-2024, 05:29 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: Love to see someone/anyone in the media ask Joe this exact question in a setting where he couldn't immediately turn tale and run away. 

Getting a reporter with the balls to actually ask coupled with getting a straight answer out of a politician, you might as well ask for a unicorn horn or hen's teeth.

[Belsnickel]

(02-07-2024, 08:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Bel, my friend, you're much smarter than that.  This is a trial balloon.  You're in no way naive enough not to think there will not be a push for this at the state and federal level if local efforts are successful.  I'm sure it will be coupled by accusations of racism or nationalism if you oppose it as well.

This is something that has existed in some cities for years, though. It's not a new development and has been going on for close to a decade at least and it hasn't moved past that in any meaningful way. Only California, Maryland, and Vermont (and DC) have municipalities that allow non-citizens to vote in local elections. All states have language in their constitutions that indicate specifically citizens have the right to vote. There is no affirmative right to vote at the federal level, but a 1996 law prohibits non-citizens from voting in federal elections.

The amount of disentanglement it would take to have any serious push on this would be huge.

FWIW, it is a very interesting discussion to have, the idea of non-citizens voting. Here is a link for a brief rundown of the arguments: https://ballotpedia.org/Arguments_for_and_against_laws_permitting_noncitizens_to_vote_in_the_United_States

I've actually written position papers on both sides of this topic for various reasons, often in discussions around the characteristics of a polyarchy the way we quantify them.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-07-2024, 09:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is something that has existed in some cities for years, though. It's not a new development and has been going on for close to a decade at least and it hasn't moved past that in any meaningful way. Only California, Maryland, and Vermont (and DC) have municipalities that allow non-citizens to vote in local elections. All states have language in their constitutions that indicate specifically citizens have the right to vote.

To be sure.  And state constitutions can be changed.  Let's not pretend that the world of 1996, as you mention later, is the world of today.

Quote:There is no affirmative right to vote at the federal level, but a 1996 law prohibits non-citizens from voting in federal elections.

A federal law prohibits a national gun registry.  That doesn't prevent the Dems from continually demanding universal background checks, which would require a, you guessed it, national gun registry.  For that matter a federal gun law prohibits gun manufacturers from being sued for the misuse of their product.  That doesn't prevent people from suing them, or from Biden lying about them being them only industry with such protections, and that such protections need to end.

Our laws are only worth as much as those in power are willing to adhere to, and enforce, them (the past four years in LA County have dramatically proven that to me).  The fear of what Trump might do if reelected should make any left leaning person keenly aware of this.

Quote:The amount of disentanglement it would take to have any serious push on this would be huge.

Maybe, lets even say probably.  Would you say it's impossible?  Or that it's not something some members of the Democratic party would push for?  Let's be real, unthinkable positions from the 90's are now commonplace, and this is a process that builds on itself.

Quote:FWIW, it is a very interesting discussion to have, the idea of non-citizens voting. Here is a link for a brief rundown of the arguments: https://ballotpedia.org/Arguments_for_and_against_laws_permitting_noncitizens_to_vote_in_the_United_States

I've actually written position papers on both sides of this topic for various reasons, often in discussions around the characteristics of a polyarchy the way we quantify them.

I can understand the argument that anyone paying taxes should have a say in governance.  After all, our nation was partly founded on outrage over a rejection of that principle.  That being said, I don't think we ascribe the appropriate level of civil responsibility to the right to vote that we could, and definitely should.  Voting should require a commitment to, and responsibility for, the state.  That being the case, citizenship should be required.  A vested, long term, interest should be present to exercise that type of political power, especially given the potential long term ramifications.

[Belsnickel]

(02-07-2024, 10:53 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: To be sure.  And state constitutions can be changed.  Let's not pretend that the world of 1996, as you mention later, is the world of today.

There isn't enough support to even allow legal residents to vote. Changing a state constitution requires more than a party controlling a state house.

(02-07-2024, 10:53 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A federal law prohibits a national gun registry.  That doesn't prevent the Dems from continually demanding universal background checks, which would require a, you guessed it, national gun registry.  For that matter a federal gun law prohibits gun manufacturers from being sued for the misuse of their product.  That doesn't prevent people from suing them, or from Biden lying about them being them only industry with such protections, and that such protections need to end.

Our laws are only worth as much as those in power are willing to adhere to, and enforce, them (the past four years in LA County have dramatically proven that to me).  The fear of what Trump might do if reelected should make any left leaning person keenly aware of this.

While true, what I would say is that the issue of voting is something altogether different. Immigrants that do not have legal authority to be here are not going to go to a polling place. They aren't going to risk proving their residence because they will be concerned that will be used against them in much the same way gun rights folks have concerns over a national registry. So even if we lifted prohibitions, any immigrant that is here illegally that has an iota of self-preservation would not hit the polls.

(02-07-2024, 10:53 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Maybe, lets even say probably.  Would you say it's impossible?  Or that it's not something some members of the Democratic party would push for?  Let's be real, unthinkable positions from the 90's are now commonplace, and this is a process that builds on itself.

Impossible? No, nothing is. Improbable? Absolutely. Back when San Francisco made their move to allow noncitizens to vote, not even focusing on illegal immigrants but legal noncitizens, 71% of people opposed that move in a national poll including a majority of Democrats and the question being asked in a way that just focused on allowing illegal immigrants to vote did not change the results in a statistically significant way. So the US population views this idea poorly. Keep in mind, as well, that this was in 2018 when a higher percentage of Democrats were being pro-immigrant in an effort to contrast with the move by Trump. I would wager that if a poll were taken today the results would be closer to 75-80% unfavorable of that move with around 2/3rds of Democrats being against it.

This is a politically untenable position. That isn't saying it couldn't change down the road. We all know how much societal norms shift over time. However, there is less than a 0.5% chance of this happening in our lifetimes with this current environment. It would take a monumentally radical shift in the national mindset for it to become a position worth taking up.

(02-07-2024, 10:53 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I can understand the argument that anyone paying taxes should have a say in governance.  After all, our nation was partly founded on outrage over a rejection of that principle.  That being said, I don't think we ascribe the appropriate level of civil responsibility to the right to vote that we could, and definitely should.  Voting should require a commitment to, and responsibility for, the state.  That being the case, citizenship should be required.  A vested, long term, interest should be present to exercise that type of political power, especially given the potential long term ramifications.

I don't disagree. At the same time, though, there are some noncitizens I would put in that category and some citizens I would say are not. I have a permanent resident brother-in-law who is essentially stateless. Citizenship would mean disadvantaging himself with regards to his RAF pension, but he lacks the right to vote in either the UK or the US. He's a social scientist with a background in economics and ecological public policy. He is more knowledgeable and engaged in the politics of our country than most people we both know, but he is unable to vote.

It's just an interesting thought experiment I like to go through sometimes.

[Mickeypoo]

(02-07-2024, 02:19 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Considering immigrants like that aren't able to vote, no.

Oh they are trying.  New York tried to allow approx. 800k non citizens to vote in the local elections.  It got shot down, but they tried.  

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/23/nyregion/noncitizen-voting-rights-nyc.html

[Mickeypoo]

(02-07-2024, 05:44 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: But a city would only be able to grant the right to vote for local elections. They cannot allow them to vote in state or federal elections.

C'mon man, you've got to be kidding me.  I bet you couldn't even type that with a straight face.  lol.

[Belsnickel]

(02-08-2024, 09:53 AM)Mickeypoo Wrote: C'mon man, you've got to be kidding me.  I bet you couldn't even type that with a straight face.  lol.

Typing out facts? Of course I can do that with a straight face.

[Mickeypoo]

(02-08-2024, 09:58 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Typing out facts? Of course I can do that with a straight face.

Lol.  True, it was facts.  You were just ignoring the bigger picture in what those attempts will lead to and why they would allow it at the local level to begin with.  If you are not a citizen you shouldn't be able to vote and there shouldn't be a second thought about it.  The fact that elected officials are trying to make it happen is insane.  Should be an immediate removal from office.