Too much ice

It's very 'fiscally responsible' of you to support using government resources to target cities in states with 1/10 the undocumented immigrants as other because they called themselves "sanctuary cities".
If you can find me affirming i support the approach in the text you replied to, you will have a rare, valid point.

Observation of the situation =/= support.
 
I get the point but that happens to marginalized and exploited people in America today and 20 years ago.

For instance in the area I grew up in South Nashville it was known people would imitate police officers and detectives and pull over or stop Hispanic people and rob them because they know they carried their cashed checks in bills every Friday/Saturday.

Parse it any way you want but those people are being exploited, in multiple ways starting with our government all the way down to local criminals who prey upon them.

And that's part of the real need for responsible immigration policy. Which we've lacked for the better part of 30 years now.
And neither side is interested in solving the issue.
 
I hope you continue this mindset into the next Dem administration when a state refuses to enforce a federal gun law.

I think it's great.

Trotting out the "Democrats will take your guns" a bit early in the election cycle aren't you?

You have to save that till closer to the election for full effect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tvolsfan
By refusing to partner with ICE, they kind of force ICE to take a larger and stronger presence in their communities, if ICE is to affect its purpose and enforce immigration laws.
Agreed. If the local LEO community is unwilling or unable to be part of the process, then ICE must dedicate more man-hours relative to places where LEO cooperation is occurring.

I continue to lament our lack of good immigration policy. America needs immigrants. Most (many) immigrants are a huge positive for our country. Unfortunately, this issue is too political to fix.
 
Agreed. If the local LEO community is unwilling or unable to be part of the process, then ICE must dedicate more man-hours relative to places where LEO cooperation is occurring.

I continue to lament our lack of good immigration policy. America needs immigrants. Most (many) immigrants are a huge positive for our country. Unfortunately, this issue is too political to fix.
What would either side campaign on if they fixed/simplified legal immigration

We now have Trump , who won the popular vote in no small part , because of the massive failure by the previous administration on illegal immigration.

What do we not see in this massive swing from no enforcement to massive publicity on enforcement?


Hit: any sort of system reform at all.
It’s not even being talked about
 
That would be the prerogative of the state in question, would it not?

Is there a federal law that they must do so?

Amazing how quickly you guys abandon the whole "State's rights" argument when it isn't about reproductive rights or gay people getting married.
I’m here for Minnesota telling the Feds to pound sand.

And I’m betting that while you cheer it here, you’ll squeal like a pig when Florida tells the next Dem admin to do the same.
 
Lol, there are literal videos of ICE agents shooting pepper balls, point blank, into the faces of people standing on public sidewalks, and you want to throw out nonsense about "burning and stealing violence?

I know I shouldn't be, but I'm truly amazed at how much you "1a/2a warriors" just go out of your way to bootlick in these scenarios. Then again, it feeds the narrative that you sold yourself, that immigrants are the cause of all of your ills.

One has to wonder who you will blame next if you run out of immigrants.
You're telling me I'm supposed to care about non-lethal means being used against people defending a foreign invading force actively stealing billions from taxpayers while destroying our cities?

Wake me up when we get to them being hung for treason so I can cheer.
 
I’m here for Minnesota telling the Feds to pound sand.

And I’m betting that while you cheer it here, you’ll squeal like a pig when Florida tells the next Dem admin to do the same.
How many conservatives have denied that the sanctuary cities/states have the right to refuse cooperation? Why are these guys arguing as though that is the dominant opinion of the conservatives discussing it?

Seriously. Why?
 
Last edited:
I’m here for Minnesota telling the Feds to pound sand.

And I’m betting that while you cheer it here, you’ll squeal like a pig when Florida tells the next Dem admin to do the same.
Yet the Minnesota government has complied with their obligations under federal law.

You seem to be upset that the actual citizens of Minnesota are exercising their right to protest the actions of th n federal government.
 
It’s a trendy word the left has adopted with their new fake rage. But yes, I agree the protestors don’t know what fascism is as ICE has been doing this since 2003.

Fake rage is hearby called ceremonious rage because it's a lot of scripted pretentious outrage. They do it as a ritual like Manchurian candidates.
 
I’m here for Minnesota telling the Feds to pound sand.

And I’m betting that while you cheer it here, you’ll squeal like a pig when Florida tells the next Dem admin to do the same.
The lack of consistency between the Fed and States is a problem. Under Obama, Texas ( I think...may have been other states too) attempted to step up enforcement of the border in that state. The Fed smacked that effort down because immigration is deemed a national issue. Now we have states and cities declaring themselves sanctuaries. If the ruling during the Obama admin is correct, and I think it is, then a state or city should not have the ability to declare themselves a sanctuary.

It's inconsistent.
 
Fake rage is hearby called ceremonious rage because it's a lot of scripted pretentious outrage. They do it as a ritual like Manchurian candidates.
It's not scripted. You've got people like Walz going out publicly encouraging it, and mentally ill retards think there are no consequences so they act like animals.

Sadly for the rest of us, there have been basically no consequences thus far. If there had been way earlier, most of this could have been avoided.
 
Yet the Minnesota government has complied with their obligations under federal law.

You seem to be upset that the actual citizens of Minnesota are exercising their right to protest the actions of th n federal government.
Minnesota has refused to comply, save for where required to do so. I’m in favor.

Point to where I “seem to be upset” about the citizenry engaging in lawful protest. I’ll wait.

Do you walk around this confused in your everyday life?
 
Ponder this: Mussolini rejected international socialism in favor of nationalist socialism--i.e. Fascism. In his own words. As well as the words of Gentile, its philosophical creator. I've posted their quotes--literally calling their movement leftist and assuring that, just because they were fighting against the Communists, don't misinterpret that to mean that he didn't consider the capitalists the greater enemy.




Again: He said himself that a rejection of certain implementations of socialism should not be considered a rejection of socialism, and that--again--Capitalists were the greatest enemy.
Consider that he was a politician and an extraordinarily FOS politician. In other words, he lied. Fascism and its subset Nazism aren't real Socialism because it's not the government controlling the means of production but the owners of the means of production controlling the government.
 
The lack of consistency between the Fed and States is a problem. Under Obama, Texas ( I think...may have been other states too) attempted to step up enforcement of the border in that state. The Fed smacked that effort down because immigration is deemed a national issue. Now we have states and cities declaring themselves sanctuaries. If the ruling during the Obama admin is correct, and I think it is, then a state or city should not have the ability to declare themselves a sanctuary.

It's inconsistent.
Inconsistency is not good.

Was it a ruling from SCOTUS?
 
I think it was. But I am really fuzzy about it. I only recall it because I generally default to state's rights over federal but with that issue my normal default didn't make sense.
Is there a differentiation with regards to border enforcement (at the actual border), and immigration law enforcement (within the interior)? I don’t know.
 
I think it was. But I am really fuzzy about it. I only recall it because I generally default to state's rights over federal but with that issue my normal default didn't make sense.
 
The state of Minnesota has forcibly blocked ICE?

Oh, are you're talking about the citizens of Minnesota exercising their constitutionally protected right to protest the actions of the federal government?

120,000 undocumented in Minnesota, and ICE is going door to door and detailing US citizens in the process, while places like Texas and Florida drink up the economic benefit of 2 million additonal local tax payers and consumers bring to their states.

For people who are concerned with how every single dollar is spent by every SNAP recipient, this seems like a situation where you might take issue with the ROI. Well, that and the continuous violations of the rights of US citizens as well.
You act like 120,000 is a small number. That’s 1 1/2 times the size of the county I live in.
 
That would be the prerogative of the state in question, would it not?

Is there a federal law that they must do so?

Amazing how quickly you guys abandon the whole "State's rights" argument when it isn't about reproductive rights or gay people getting married.
Again, you refuse to answer the question why? I suspect because you know the answer to why every Dem politician and Blue city was pro-ICE enforcement until about 2016

For example, Tennessee has had 40,000 illegal criminals arrested and deported by ICE, Minnesota has had about 10,000 at this point.

Why is Minnesota and their officials the only state where ICE is a serious issue?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BreatheUT
Consider that he was a politician and an extraordinarily FOS politician. In other words, he lied.

"Trust me, not the founders."

Fascism and its subset Nazism aren't real Socialism because it's not the government controlling the means of production but the owners of the means of production controlling the government.


The government did not control production?

Fascism nationalized the arms industry, however, unlike traditional socialism, it did not consider that the state should own all the means of production, but more that it should dominate them. The owners of industries could “keep” their businesses, as long as they served the directives of the state. These business owners were supervised by public officials and paid high taxes. Essentially, “private property” was no longer a thing. It also established the tax on capital, the confiscation of goods of religious congregations and the abolition of episcopal rents. Statism was the key to everything, thanks to the nationalist and collectivist discourse, all the efforts of the citizens had to be in favor of the State.
 
It's good to know that the unqualified local police forces in Texas, Alabama, and Tennessee are using their limited resources to enforce federal immigration law rather policing their local communities.

I'm sure you'll be also be happy for local taxpayers to foot the bill when one of those local officers violates a person's constitutional rights in the process, and the county or city is on the hook for the payout.
LOL do you not realize that these local police forces are already arresting illegals for various crimes every day? The jails are full of them, the only difference is certain Blue cities release them back to the streets while normal states and cities contact ICE to remove them
 
  • Like
Reactions: FortSanders

Advertisement



Back
Top