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

[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.