Sanctuary Cities

Sanctuary cities are costing taxpayers, and harboring security threats.

My vote would be no... we shouldn't ban them

What we SHOULD do, is withdraw federal funding to areas that decide they will be a sanctuary city/state. If they have the resources, and the populous are in support of become a sanctuary for illegals, then they should be allowed to do so. An arbitrary ban wont do anything, and if you did put a ban on them, the only leverage against them would be to withdraw federal funding.

They should NOT be using federal funding and taxpayer money (aside from the local taxpayers who voted in the officials in their area who will institute sanctuary status) to support non US citizens. And because it would become hard, if not impossible, to be sure that federal funding wouldn't wind up getting used (directly or indirectly) to fund non citizens in these sanctuary areas, the only reasonable thing to do is to withdraw federal funding.

But i guess, in a sense, even without a formal ban, if the cause and effect of it were: become sanctuary -> lose funding... then i guess that would be the same as a ban, simply without the arbitrary wording and outrage that would come from a formal ban on sanctuary cities. But my whole train of thought is,, let them become a sanctuary -> remove federal funding -> then wait for the places to revoke their own sanctuary status in order to feed off the sweet sweet tit that is the federal governments wallet. Putting a formal ban on it only adds more drama to what would be a massive uproar regardless... letting the places become a sanctuary, then revoking it on their own once thy realize the downside would probably be better for PR in terms of the politics of it

edit: grammer and i added a sentance

 

I live in a sanctuary state and I think the Feds should stop giving us money. Then when the 3rd world disease that's infected San Francisco and San Jose spreads to the rest of the Bay Area, I'll flee to Texas and request economic asylum.

I live in a sanctuary city. It's awful. Someone (relatively well-known) once described my hometown as "Detroit without the balls to admit it"

Not only should sanctuary cities/states be banned, all government workers and elected officials involved should be removed. Tried for treason, too (those that actively endorsed and allowed state-sponsored violation of federal immigration law).

LOL. Trump has warned Cali that if these wildfires keep up, no more funding.

Good luck with that one, King Donald.

I'm afraid that earthquakes and wildfires are our demons. Not hurricanes and tornadoes.

What a shitty comment, there are dozens of dead people because of the fires, rated R-

 edit:grammatical.

Do you feel similar compassion for the American citizens murdered by illegal immigrants?

By the way, your post is still grammatically incorrect. Commas aren't periods.

As much as the ones killed by American citizens themselves.

Typical meaningless response to an admittedly petty question.

 

It's a meaningless question in the first place.

Actually, sanctuary cities are a more safe place to live:

 

The data are clear: Crime is statistically significantly lower in sanctuary counties compared to nonsanctuary counties. Moreover, economies are stronger in sanctuary counties—from higher median household income, less poverty, and less reliance on public assistance to higher labor force participation, higher employment-to-population ratios, and lower unemployment.

Among the main findings:

• There are, on average, 35.5 fewer crimes committed per 10,000 people in sanctuary counties compared to nonsanctuary counties.
• Median household annual income is, on average, $4,353 higher in sanctuary counties compared to nonsanctuary counties.
• The poverty rate is 2.3 percent lower, on average, in sanctuary counties compared to nonsanctuary counties.
• Unemployment is, on average, 1.1 percent lower in sanctuary counties compared to nonsanctuary counties.
• While the results hold true across sanctuary jurisdictions, the sanctuary counties with the smallest populations see the most pronounced effects.

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/reports/2017/01/26/297366/the-effects-of-sanctuary-policies-on-crime-and-the-economy/

 

But don't let the truth bother you.....just keep hating.

How exactly do you "ban" a state or city?

While I think it is complete bullshit to offer sanctuary to criminals, we do however in the USA have a duty to follow The Constitution, and according to the US Constitution's 10th Amendment:

 The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Sadly, people in some US states and cities feel it is more important to offer comfort and compassion to outsiders, before they offer comfort and compassion to citizens.

We who are inclined should and could work to change that amendment in the USA, but until such time as it is constitutionally changed... well, we just have to deal with it.

 

[image: i38.photobucket.com]

[image: i38.photobucket.com]

[image: i38.photobucket.com]

That bloody George eh,gets everywhere..always giving..what a kind fella constantly doing things outta the goodness of his heart.

[image: i38.photobucket.com]

Hmmmmm

Ok same source that you use then:)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_city

 

Effects

Crime

A 2017 review study of the existing literature noted that the existing studies had found that sanctuary cities either have no impact on crime or that they lower the crime rate.[5] A second 2017 study in the journal Urban Affairs Review found that sanctuary policy itself has no statistically meaningful effect on crime.[64][3][65][66][67] The findings of the study were misinterpreted by Attorney General Jeff Sessions in a July 2017 speech when he claimed that the study showed that sanctuary cities were more prone to crime than cities without sanctuary policies.[68][69] A third study in the journal Justice Quarterly found evidence that the adoption of sanctuary policies reduced the robbery rate but had no impact on the homicide rate except in cities with larger Mexican undocumented immigrant populations which had lower rates of homicide.[70]

According to a study by Tom K. Wong, associate professor of political science at the University of California, San Diego, published by the Center for American Progress, a progressive think tank: "Crime is statistically significantly lower in sanctuary counties compared to nonsanctuary counties. Moreover, economies are stronger in sanctuary counties – from higher median household income, less poverty, and less reliance on public assistance to higher labor force participation, higher employment-to-population ratios, and lower unemployment."[4] The study also concluded that sanctuary cities build trust between local law enforcement and the community, which enhances public safety overall.[71] The study evaluated sanctuary and non-sanctuary cities while controlling for differences in population, the foreign-born percentage of the population, and the percentage of the population that is Latino."[4]

Economy

Advocates of local enforcement of immigration laws argue that more regulatory local immigration policies would cause immigrants to flee those cities and possibly the United States altogether,[72] while opponents argue that regulatory policies on immigrants wouldn't affect their presence because immigrants looking for work will relocate towards economic opportunity despite challenges living there.[7] Undocumented migrants tend to be attracted to states with more economic opportunity and individual freedom.[73] Because there is no reliable data that asks for immigration status, there is no way to tell empirically if regulatory policies do have an effect on immigrant presence. A study comparing restrictive counties with nonrestrictive counties found that local jurisdictions that enacted regulatory immigration policies experienced a 1–2% negative effect in employment.[7]

Health and well-being

A preliminary study's results imply that the number of Sanctuary cities in the U.S. positively affects well-being in the undocumented immigrant population.[74] Concerning health, a study in North Carolina found that after implementation of section 287(g), prenatal Hispanic/Latina mothers were more likely than non-Hispanic/Latina mothers to have late or inadequate prenatal care. The study's interviews indicated that Hispanics/Latinos in the section 287(g) counties had distrust in health services among other services and had fear about going to the doctor.[75]

Seems to be full of your heroes that 'Org'..ewww

[image: i38.photobucket.com]

[image: i.kym-cdn.com] 

I dont trust Alex Jonesteinberg either

[image: i38.photobucket.com]

Why do you trust this guy

 

Lmao if you say so. Must have missed the post where I casually mentioned that I live in one. I promise that none of that is true.

Alex Jones got confirmed for Fake News. Controlled opposition. I used to just write him off as a sensationalist moron, but it's become clear that someone's pulling his strings.

I still think he's an idiot, though.