all 84 comments

[–]JohnnyMongrel 13 insightful - 3 fun13 insightful - 2 fun14 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

I don't like this silly "libtards pwned" type of content.

It drags down the conversation.

[–]sawboss 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

I don't like seeing the word "liberal" applied to fascists.

[–]JohnnyMongrel 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I don't like seeing labels applied on social media in general. Boring as fuck.

[–]Sylexis 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Let's try to keep this low quality content on Reddit. I'd much rather it be a convo starter rather than an attack.

[–]hennaojisan 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

As saidit grows so will the number of IDF trolls, wandering voaters, and all around buttholes.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

Get rekt libtards. Hurr Durr

[–][deleted]  (40 children)

[deleted]

    [–]sawboss 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

    There is a lot of history and nuance. Immigration has been a heavily politicized issue for most of my life. Difficult to suss out the facts because neither the Democrats nor the Republicans present the facts of the situation. Most of us lack information because it is a taboo subject. It is impossible to ask a question about immigration in America without drawing accusations of "racist", "xenophobe", etc.

    Here's my tl;dr:

    Democrats: "Immigration is great! We need more immigrants!"

    President Trump: "Okay, we will send them to your cities.

    Democrats: "What? No! That's racist!"

    I know, I know it sounds childish. Well I'm sorry, but that is exactly the level of debate on the issue of immigration in America right now. It's infuriating.

    [–]wizzwizz4 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

    Did he really do that? Wow, that's cool. My opinion of the POTUS is improving already. (I still don't like him as a person, though.)

    [–]sawboss 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

    [–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    That article's pushed my opinion back the other way, somewhat, given the potential illegality of the move, the fact that there's no funding assigned… I thought it was a deviation from the trend of using people as political footballs, but I was wrong.

    [–]sawboss 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    It's a troll move. It does expose the hypocrisy of the Democrats, but will that even matter? I don't yet see the evidence that the needle will be moved.

    [–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

    Honestly, I don't know what to think any more. Politicians People keep doing things that make me think less of other politicians people, but few are doing anything to make me like them.

    Maybe I'm just reading the wrong news.


    Edit: Noticed that it's a general trend.

    [–]sawboss 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    Like them? I just want them to make sense.

    [–]wizzwizz4 0 insightful - 3 fun0 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

    Politicians, or people?

    [–]sawboss 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    shit rolls downhill

    [–]Snow 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

    Me too, I guess it's something like "not in my backyard".

    [–]SecretlyHistoric 11 insightful - 5 fun11 insightful - 4 fun12 insightful - 5 fun -  (6 children)

    Essentially, there are a lot of illegal immigrants coming into the US. It's a problem politics have been fighting about for a while now. Some think we need to open our doors to them. Others think that they need to be stopped. The ones who want the open doors, liberals, go against federal law and declare their cities "sanctuary cities" where illegal immigrants wont be deported. Conservatives, who want to deport the illegal immigrants, threatened to move as many illegal immigrants as possible to the sanctuary cities. Liberals are now saying that they don't want that.

    [–]sawboss 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Except the fact that the Democrat party is now openly fascist in all but name.

    [–]JohnnyMongrel 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    [–]Snow 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I clicked "fun" to this comment.

    [–]happysmash27 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I would be fine with that, as someone who supports open borders, but to be fair I'm not exactly in the "Democrat" party.

    [–]Stoner 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Thanks for the rundown.

    [–]SecretlyHistoric 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    No problem. It's kinda oversimplified, but trying to explain the whole history of the illegal immigrant debate would lead to a novel sized explanation. Yay politics!

    [–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (21 children)

    Another dumb thing the president has done in order to distract from how shitty he is. Also the democrats haven't really reacted in the way the meme implies. Useless_Aether is a propaganda account who lives up to their name

    [–]Stoner 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

    Would you care to elaborate? You look like a propaganda shill when you “somebody did a thing" without actually saying what it is.

    Following the standard US media click bait I now assume you have less than no argument for your point of view. Want to change my mind?

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

    Not really. If you really care, just look it up.

    [–]indianusjones 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    No, no: you brought it up, you follow through.

    [–]SecretlyHistoric 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I agree. If you bring it up, bring your sources.

    [–]hennaojisan 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    I hear voat is a good place for fair and openminded democrats like you. Or maybe you might like reddit better. Anywhere but here.

    [–]poestal 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    no; their shouldn't be political "safespaces" for either side of the debate. we should have discourse of our personal beliefs challenged in order to keep each-other grounded, rather than going to each individuals ecochambers or silencing others opinions on neutral subs/forums.

    reddit has become the far left tumblr esque eco-chamber and voat has become the far right 4/8 chans eco-chamber. saidit should be the middle ground.

    [–]hennaojisan 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Yes, I have had enough of echo chambers on both sides but I would prefer that if people can't be civil they just GTFO. U/Useless_Aether is a part of the very heart and spirit of Saidit and there is no reason for a johnny-come-lately to cast aspersions on him. Let there be debate but no idle name-calling. The meek shall inherit the earth if that is all right with you. No context for that last sentence—I just wanted to end on an up note. BTW, I am neither republican nor democrat—a curse on both their houses.

    [–]indianusjones 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

    Useless_Aether is a propaganda account who lives up to their name

    Watch this: attacking the person making the argument (presuming the account is not set up solely for propaganda purposes by an organization) is an argumentative fallacy.

    Even if this person is wrong 9 times out of 10 it does not necessarily mean they are wrong on this point.

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

    But he is wrong on this point

    [–]SecretlyHistoric 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    Still an argument against the person, not the point itself. Take a look at the pyramid of debate.

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    Take a look at Hitchen's razor.

    [–]SecretlyHistoric 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    But you made a claim as well, three actually. One about the president, one about the OP and another about the reaction of Democratics

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    You clearly don't understand how this works. If the OP makes a random claim with no source then I am free to do the same. It's their job to prove the initial claim before I obligated to do a thing. You guys keep going on about the rules of argument but you clearly either don't actually know them or only care when it serves you.

    [–]indianusjones 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    In the case of a claim with no source you're absolutely correct. We've since provided sources. Your turn.

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I have not been provided a source.

    [–]indianusjones 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    Perhaps, but you need to justify your position regardless.

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    I don't. I'm not the one making a claim. They are making a claim that all of the sudden democrats don't want immigrants anymore. I haven't seen that from any reputaple news agency. It's up to the original claimant to defend their postion. Hitchen's Razor. A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. It's not up to me to disprove it.

    [–]indianusjones 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    I take my previous reply ("This is the claim you made...") back as we'd moved to your claim "but he is wrong on this point."

    I happily agree with you that the person making the original claim has the burden of proof.

    We now focus on your statement held in the original post, that is, liberals suddenly don't want illegal aliens as it's now proposed that the immigrants will now be transferred to sanctuary cities.

    The implication, of course, is that liberals (or democrats, etc.) realize they face an increase in crime, traffic, additional burden on social, health, policing, and education services, etc. with the influx of illegal aliens coming to their city. Please tell me if you think my analysis here is incorrect as I can provide statistics to show that this is in fact true.

    I'm not trying to be slick here--we can only infer at the original post's point. The idea I presented above seems reasonable given the effect illegal aliens are known to have on the "native" population. The evidence spans historically also (1920's, etc.).

    Your statement, "no, you're wrong" implies a counter claim. In this case you're implicitly saying, "no, sanctuary cities are actually welcoming the idea of a flood of illegal aliens."

    To this I'd say you're right--I read an article that read about a politician slamming the President for the idea but careful to also say that the immigrants are welcome.

    When we ask the population, however, we find that they feel immigration should be reduced. I highly suspect that the outcome would be sharper if we factored for race. Notice I'm not racist, just stating the numbers.

    So you are, in fact, making a claim by telling the person they are wrong. You are under no obligation to provide evidence for this but your argument is weak if you do not provide evidence for your counter-claim.

    If a police officer writes you a citation for speeding with a radar gun's printed record you can't just say, "you're wrong" without evidence.

    edit: comma

    [–]indianusjones 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Full disclosure: I live in Oregon. We've been taking illegal aliens in the ass for years. Our schools used to be good but are now overburdened. Our healthcare was statistically and observably better but are now over-burdened by health issues (something like 46% of all health-related costs) caused by immigrants.

    The list goes on: higher crime rates, traffic, etc.

    On top of all this illegal aliens don't pay taxes at the rate Oregonians do and, to add insult to injury, the immigrants bring their dependents with them.

    Meanwhile, the argument is, "immigrants will do the work Americans won't do." Bullshit. The truth is that farmers can skirt labor laws using immigrants.

    And for what? So we can save a few bucks on our produce?

    So in reality, the farmers make higher profits while we--those who paid taxes and built the infrastructure--foot the bill and deal with the crime.

    [–]indianusjones 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Useless_Aether is a propaganda account who lives up to their name

    This is the claim you made that we're talking about and I responded to, not the original post.

    [–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    UA is hilarious! :-).

    Although, I often disagree with him.

    [–]happysmash27 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    Like what?

    I'm fine with immigrants in sanctuary cities, but to be fair I'm not in the "Democrat" party.

    [–]HopeThatHalps 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (30 children)

    Last I heard the sanctuary cities were welcoming immigrants.

    What I hate more than anything about the MAGA Rightists is that they just make shit up. Whatever they wish were true, is as good as true. Liberal = socialist, good as true. Social programs never work, might as well be true. For-profit ventures can solve everything, immigrants are dangerous, the press is enemy of the people, it all might as well be true!

    [–]useless_aether[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

    [–]HopeThatHalps 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

    But what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

    [–]indianusjones 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

    The implication (backed by evidence) is that an influx of population in L.A., a sanctuary city, will only exacerbate LA's poverty problem and burden on public services.

    [–]HopeThatHalps 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

    [–]indianusjones 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

    Notice that these responses are from politicians with an observable agenda, that is, the Latino vote.

    See my previous Gallup pole link above for what citizens think.

    [–]HopeThatHalps 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

    It doesn't matter, the fact is that OP's meme is incorrect.

    [–]indianusjones 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    It doesn't matter, the fact is that OP's meme is incorrect.

    But why is OP's meme incorrect? That's the point of this entire thread--you must justify your position.

    If we're moving away now from the politician's response to the original post we're now in red herring argument fallacy territory because you've shifted the argument.

    Are you now understanding why opponents on both sides of most debates get frustrated when people say, "it doesn't matter, (distraction here)" or say, "embryos are humans too" without providing evidence for that fact?!!?

    Is your post a troll? Did I not point to evidence to the contrary?

    How can you read through this entire thread and not know that you need supporting evidence for your claim? Stupid? Lazy? Please help me understand.

    [–]HopeThatHalps 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    But why is OP's meme incorrect?

    OP's meme is not a friendly call for debate, it's an accusation of liberals being hypocrites. It's demonstrably wrong, it's pathetic, end of story.

    [–]indianusjones 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    it's pathetic, end of story

    Oh, no, we don't get off that easy.

    OP's meme is not a friendly call for debate, it's an accusation of liberals being hypocrites.

    Again, we didn't offer evidence for this claim...we could easily verify whether or not you are correct by simply asking the author.

    Let's say for the sake of discussion you're right. Yes, under this premise, the meme is not friendly and yes, it's an accusation of liberals being hypocrites.

    But that doesn't mean he's wrong.

    It's conjecture here that if we flat-out asked liberals whether or not they welcome more immagrants in their city they would likely say, "yes."

    But if we asked them in a poll about topics we know are a direct result of immigration (remember, we had mass immigration in the 1880's, the 1920's, and since the 1970's), we're going to find they don't want the fallout from an influx of immigration.

    So, ideologically the liberals want immigration but ideology doesn't put food on the table.

    Again, I ask the next time you post that you provide facts to support and don't give me this bullshit:

    it's pathetic, end of story

    [–]happysmash27 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Just because a city takes immigrants doesn't mean the state itself must provide aid, although aid would certainly be nice if it was able to provide it.

    [–]indianusjones 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Not necessarily. Most health departments, for example, state clearly that services must be provided for all inhabitants of that State. The reason for this is to prevent the spread of disease.

    Edit: here's California's Health Directive:

    CDPH's key activities and services include protecting people in California from the threat of preventable infectious diseases like Zika virus, HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and viral hepatitis, and providing reliable and accurate public health laboratory services and information about health threats.

    Other critical services include providing nutritional support to low-income women, infants and children, and screening newborns and pregnant women for genetic diseases.

    ...and so on.

    Of course, whenever an illegal commits a crime, well, there's the whole police thing.

    These examples are only just for starters.

    [–]indianusjones 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

    Last I heard the sanctuary cities were welcoming immigrants.

    The city leaders certainly are to (if history is any guide) assuage votes. The people, according to the research, certainly are not.

    What I hate more than anything about the MAGA Rightists is that they just make shit up.

    You're correct but this is a statement about tactics and separate from the "whether or not cities are welcoming immigrants" statement.

    Whatever they wish were true, is as good as true...

    The rest of your post is just a derivative of the above and not germane.

    [–]HopeThatHalps 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

    The city leaders certainly are to (if history is any guide) assuage votes. The people, according to the research, certainly are not.

    Then the meme is still wrong, becuase if your premise is true, then "just like that liberals never wanted immigrants in their cities".

    You're correct but this is a statement about tactics and separate from the "whether or not cities are welcoming immigrants" statement.

    The claim that sanctuary cities are unwelcoming was pulled from thin air. It's a lie worthy of Trump himself. The last time I checked, a mayor is still a credible spokesman for their city - certainly not Cher, sorry.

    [–]indianusjones 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

    HopeThatHelps has destroyed his credibility: I've already addressed this and he seems to either not understand the meme itself completely or is purposefully mis-representing facts:

    "just like that liberals never wanted immigrants in their cities".

    That's not what the meme states. The meme says, And just like that, liberals didn't want illegal immigrants in their cities." This is not the same statement.

    [–]HopeThatHalps 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

    The meme asserts liberals 'flip flopped' on the issue, but your own source suggests "the people" have held a consistent view on immigration. The meme is a "gotcha" that gets nothing.

    [–]indianusjones 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

    The meme depicts a very recent phenomena, i.e. immigrant transfer to immigration cities.

    To be clear, we should poll those for more immigration not directly on the question, but on whether or not they approve of the known fallout.

    Specifically I mean higher crime, homeless rates, larger classroom sizes, etc.

    [–]HopeThatHalps 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

    OK lets simplify, aside from the populist bellwether that is septuagenarian pop singer Cher, what evidence is there that liberals have pulled an about face on immigration as a result of Trumps offer to offload immigrants in their cities?

    [–]indianusjones 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

    Now you're talking. Excellent, and I mean that sincerely!

    I have, as I happily admit zero evidence that liberals have pulled an about-face on immigration given this proposal. On this basis the meme is totally baseless and without merit.

    I consistently contend, however, that liberals (many positions with which I agree) have not thought the issue through.

    Forgive my crassness, but my guess is that many of them are young and haven't paid taxes for 25 years only to find their district's education decline precipitously.

    Look, when I go to the doctor's and I see people who I know damn well are illegal aliens getting better health care than I do I get pretty upset.

    P.S. "septuagenarian pop singer Cher" <-- that's hilarious.

    [–]HopeThatHalps 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    I consistently contend, however, that liberals (many positions with which I agree) have not thought the issue through.

    I'm sort of a nihilist liberal, the main reason I don't mind immigration is because they dillute the unkilled labor market, and by doing so force able bodied people to "get skills", which results in 1) a greater sum overall skill, when a person who can read and write realizes that maybe their talents are being wasted collecting trash and pulling weeds, and 2) unskilled labor gets even cheaper, which drives down the overall cost of living. So my overall view about socialized healthcare, so long as we're benefiting from cheaper low skilled labor, it makes sense to protect the investment and not incentivize them to turn to crime. If you have an "every man is an island" poltical philosophy, then all these islands will perpetualy be at war with one another.

    Look, when I go to the doctor's and I see people who I know damn well are illegal aliens getting better health care than I do I get pretty upset.

    I'd be interested in seeing a study that shows this to be true, because ultiamtely this is anecdotal. It might just be that you are healthier than the illegal immigrant you witnessed getting quality healthcare.

    [–]indianusjones 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    force able bodied people to "get skills"

    In my case I'm IT (enterprise UNIX/Linux grade) and got clobbered after 25 years by a different kind of immigrant: 100,000 H1B Visas p/yr.

    I'd be interested in seeing a study that shows this to be true, because ultiamtely this is anecdotal.

    True. Here you go.

    [–]indianusjones 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    We're done. I've shown evidence, you've shown conjecture. I provided evidence that the populace is not happy about illegal aliens.

    The meme being wrong may be technically true--just like Native American Indians once welcomed the white settlers before they utterly trashed the Indian tribes.

    Update: Holy shit, you stooped so low as to misrepresent the facts themselves! You said:

    "just like that liberals never wanted immigrants in their cities".

    That's not what the meme states. The meme says, And just like that, liberals didn't want illegal immigrants in their cities." This is not the same statement.

    C'mon, man. Read what I sent you. Your credibility is null--I can't trust you to correctly process information.

    [–]HopeThatHalps 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    "just like that liberals never wanted immigrants in their cities".

    You didn't get it, I was intentionally rephrasing the meme to fit with the study you linked to; "didn't want" vs. "never wanted".

    As I said, the meme tries to accuse liberals of being NIMBY's, but that's intenlectually dishonest. What is the evidence for this "flip flop"? Cher?!

    The mayors of several "sanctuary cities" are openly welcoming of immigrants, yesterday, today and the next day. It's too bad the courts will strike down Trump's attempt to offload immigrants in sanctuary cities, because it sounds to me like what Trump wants to give away, the sancturary cities are willing to receive.

    [–]indianusjones 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I like to stay on the topic at hand recognizing recent events, yes.

    [–]Doob 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    Liberals bad!!!1!!!1!

    Another libtard destroyed.

    [–]wendolynne 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

    [–]indianusjones 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    Jenny A. Durkan, a Democrat, is mayor of Seattle.

    See my comments above about city leaders' statements vs. the peoples' position.

    [–]wendolynne 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    the study you linked was published in 2008. People's opinions can change. Get some more recent data. A city does not become a sanctuary city by unilateral decision of the mayor. Rather, the general population is involved, and often is the driving force to make it happen.

    [–]indianusjones 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    People's opinions can change

    My gallup poll link shows that yes, attitudes have changed but is a) not a sea change (sentiment has been this way since the 1880's) and the poll b) does not break the results down by race, that is, the poll does not account for the rising US Latino population.

    Addendum: By the way, I take politians' stance on immigration with a grain of salt. If history is any guide, these politicians will condemn illegal immigration faster than you can say, "voter discontent."

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, 2008: “We do need to address the issue of immigration and the challenge we have of undocumented people in our country. We certainly do not want any more coming in.” Source.

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, 2009: The latest House bill leaves in place nearly all the loopholes of the previous bill, H.R. 3200. Illegal immigrants will be able to gain health care at taxpayer expense through these loopholes (and we aren’t talking emergency care, which remains untouched and available, and isn’t even an issue). We’re talking health coverage, paid wholly or substantially by U.S. taxpayers. Source.

    I grant you the two are not completely in-line but it's like saying, "we should do everything to keep robbers out of our house but since they're here we should serve them dinner on our neighbor's dime."

    The point is that while the economy's bad these guys are all about anti-immigration. When the economy is good they're all about open borders. Meanwhile, you, me, and your kids get screwed no matter what the economy (increased competition, poorer education facilities, larger classrooms, strain on healthcare system, etc.).

    [–]wendolynne 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    immigrants work. Farmers rely on cheap labor. Their economic contribution is larger than their drain on services. The real problem is they drive wages down. Part of the race to the bottom.

    [–]indianusjones 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    So, when you hear "economic contribution" (or similar) ask yourself, "economic contribution benefiting whom?"