Sanctuary Cities.

[BilliardsBall]

If I may ask, where does Christ set criminals free ?

All are criminals before God at some point in their lives. All are sinners, all are fallen. I believe Christ died to erase the judgment against us in the Law of God.

 

[Ponder This]

What is the good reason?

There are many good reasons not to allow people to reside in the country undocumented (aka illegally): national security being the most obvious.

The question is: what good reason do people have to remain in the country and not be documented?
To wit: if they regard themselves as being Americans, then why aren't they making more of an effort to be Americans?

 

[Faithofchristian]

All are criminals before God at some point in their lives. All are sinners, all are fallen. I believe Christ died to erase the judgment against us in the Law of God.

That all depends on one thing ?

If that Criminal Repents of their sin, Then God wipes their sin clean by the blood of Christ Jesus. Then they stand before God without sin, because their sin is covered by the blood of Christ Jesus.

 

[Curious George]

There are many good reasons not to allow people to reside in the country undocumented (aka illegally): national security being the most obvious.

The question is: what good reason do people have to remain in the country and not be documented?
To wit: if they regard themselves as being Americans, then why aren't they making more of an effort to be Americans?

And your "most obvious reason" is no more applicable to dreamers as a class than it is to all natural born citizens as a class.

 

[Prestor John]

Huh. While I don't live in San Diego, I do have family and a friend that does. They don't seem to feel that they are living in third world squalor... In fact, they even like it there.

No one ever said that the entirety of San Diego was as a third world country.

We were talking about those large regions, especially to the south, which look and feel like an extension of Tijuana.

I have lived in San Diego my entire life and I do love it here, but I also notice all the changes that have taken place.

 

[Prestor John]

What we have here is an equivocation.

No. We do not.

You want to define American as either having been born in America, or having gone through the citizenship process.

No, we are not talking about what I "want". We are talking about what is and is not.

If we were talking about what I "want", then I would say that I do not want the jus soli principle and would not consider someone a citizen of the U.S.A just because they were born here.

I would make it that only those born to U.S. citizens, or Lawful Permanent Residents (who lived and worked in the U.S.), would be considered citizens.

The practice of having "anchor babies" by foreign nationals is extremely offensive to me.

However, we are not talking about what I "want". We are talking about what is and is not.

Anyone who lives in the U.S. by means of circumventing the immigration process is not an American.

I lived in Canada for a few years. Even though I had the proper Visa, that in no way made me a Canadian.

Even if I were to sneak into Canada today and decide to stay forever, that would not make me a Canadian either.

That is you want to say that only a Citizen is an American.

That is the legal definition. Yes.

Why ought only a Citizen be an American?

Why ought only a relative be a member of my family?

Of course, people can be adopted into a family, but not against the will of the family.

The reason that only citizens are Americans is because not only do citizens gain all the benefits enjoyed by those who live here, but they also share in all the responsibilities of said citizenship.

Why ought someone who is born here be considered a citizen?

I haven't the slightest idea. I disagree with that principle.

Are we discussing wealth?

Is not American citizenship valuable? Is it worth nothing to you? Does it not present a wealth of opportunity?

Ok. That still is not a good reason to deport them.

According to who? To someone who places no value on being an American citizen, like you?

So, according to you, the fact that everything the children of those con-artists and thieves have was stolen is not good enough reason to return it?

How would they be failing the American people?

By devaluing and confusing what it is to be an American.

 

[Curious George]

No. We do not.

No, we are not talking about what I "want". We are talking about what is and is not.

If we were talking about what I "want", then I would say that I do not want the jus soli principle and would not consider someone a citizen of the U.S.A just because they were born here.

I would make it that only those born to U.S. citizens, or Lawful Permanent Residents (who lived and worked in the U.S.), would be considered citizens.

The practice of having "anchor babies" by foreign nationals is extremely offensive to me.

Then most "Americans" have no right to be here.

However, we are not talking about what I "want". We are talking about what is and is not.

Anyone who lives in the U.S. by means of circumventing the immigration process is not an American.

They did not circumvent anything. They would need to have willfully acted to do that.

I lived in Canada for a few years. Even though I had the proper Visa, that in no way made me a Canadian.

We are not talking about a vacation.

Even if I were to sneak into Canada today and decide to stay forever, that would not make me a Canadian either.

You are not a child.


Is not American citizenship valuable? Is it worth nothing to you? Does it not present a wealth of opportunity?
[/quote]
Perfect, then they should be allowed to keep it as they are closer to someone who has found lost property or a good faith purchaser for value.

According to who? To someone who places no value on being an American citizen, like you?

So, according to you, the fact that everything the children of those con-artists and thieves have was stolen is not good enough reason to return it?

According to me most Americans, he'll most people, are descendants of con artists and thieves.

By devaluing and confusing what it is to be an American.

That is your opinion. I think that it is you who are devaluing and confusing what it means to be American.

 

[Prestor John]

Then most "Americans" have no right to be here.

Before you go into the argument that I know is coming I just want to clarify that my opinion I shared concerning jus soli was in reference to today.

Obviously, jus soli was necessary during the formation and development of this nation, but I believe it to not be necessary today.

They did not circumvent anything. They would need to have willfully acted to do that.

Incorrect.

Whether or not they were active participants in circumventing the immigration process is irrelevant.

They either entered the country without inspection or are overstaying on an expired Visa.

An unconscious person forced into the trunk of a car and driven across the border is no less a smuggled person just because they were not aware of it at the time.

We are not talking about a vacation.

Neither was I. I did a lot of work in Canada.

You are not a child.

Neither are most of the DREAMers.

Although, even if my parents snuck me into Canada when I was a child, I still wouldn't be a Canadian until I received my Certificate of Canadian Citizenship.

Perfect, then they should be allowed to keep it as they are closer to someone who has found lost property or a good faith purchaser for value.

Yeah, my stealing wealth analogy only goes so far. You are butchering it at this point.

Anyways, they can't keep what they never had and most if not all of them willingly committed fraud at some point in order to continue receiving the benefits of living here.

We should not reward people for continually breaking our laws.

"Don't worry folks! If you trick and lie to us enough times we'll reward you!"

According to me most Americans, he'll most people, are descendants of con artists and thieves.

Irrelevant to this discussion unless these con-artist and thief ancestors weren't American citizens themselves.

Citizenship is not determined by where you live or how long you have lived there, but rather by the citizenship of your parents, where you were born or if you lawfully emigrated.

That's it.

That is your opinion. I think that it is you who are devaluing and confusing what it means to be American.

No, it is not my opinion. Americans are the citizens of the United States.

It does not matter if you are a God-fearing conservative or a God-hating liberal - if you are a citizen of the United States - you are an American.

It does not matter if you were born in the U.S. or in Mexico - if you are a citizen of the United States - you are an American.

I'm proud to be an American and I know its value.

You would make it worthless if you could.

 

[Curious George]

Before you go into the argument that I know is coming I just want to clarify that my opinion I shared concerning jus soli was in reference to today.

Obviously, jus soli was necessary during the formation and development of this nation, but I believe it to not be necessary today.

Wait so you want to what you do when you benefit but want different rules for others?

Incorrect.

Whether or not they were active participants in circumventing the immigration process is irrelevant.

It is absolutely relevant. Unless you are trying to make this strict liability. Usually we require a mens rea to find a crime.

They either entered the country without inspection or are overstaying on an expired Visa.

An unconscious person forced into the trunk of a car and driven across the border is no less a smuggled person just because they were not aware of it at the time.

I think that is wrong. While they are still an illegal immigrant and would be deported, I do not think they would be convicted. They did not act of their own volition which defeats the actus reus.

Neither was I. I did a lot of work in Canada.

Neither are most of the DREAMers.

You do not think most dreamers were not children at the time of entry?

Although, even if my parents snuck me into Canada when I was a child, I still wouldn't be a Canadian until I received my Certificate of Canadian Citizenship.

That is where we disagree. If you were snuck into Canada as a young child and you grew up in Canadian culture, had Canadian friends and Canadian networks, and knew no other culture, I can not see how we could rightly call you anything but.

Yeah, my stealing wealth analogy only goes so far. You are butchering it at this point.

It was a bad analogy from the beginning. I even asked you if we were talking about wealth to confirm you wanted to go down that road.

Anyways, they can't keep what they never had and most if not all of them willingly committed fraud at some point in order to continue receiving the benefits of living here.

Awesome, if they never had it they never could have stolen it.

We should not reward people for continually breaking our laws.

We aren't. We are just making citizens people who have spent nearly the entirety of their lives in America.

"Don't worry folks! If you trick and lie to us enough times we'll reward you!"

So I assume that you are in favor of eliminating the statute of limitations for all crimes?

Irrelevant to this discussion unless these con-artist and thief ancestors weren't American citizens themselves.

Lol, you are the one who brought it up.

Citizenship is not determined by where you live or how long you have lived there, but rather by the citizenship of your parents, where you were born or if you lawfully emigrated.

That's it.

Currently, yes. But I don't see any reason why it should be limited to that.
[/quote]
No, it is not my opinion. Americans are the citizens of the United States.
[/quote]
Sure it is.

It does not matter if you are a God-fearing conservative or a God-hating liberal - if you are a citizen of the United States - you are an American.

It does not matter if you were born in the U.S. or in Mexico - if you are a citizen of the United States - you are an American.

I'm proud to be an American and I know its value.

You would make it worthless if you could.

Lol...oh would I? That is colorful.

 

[Ponder This]

And your "most obvious reason" is no more applicable to dreamers as a class than it is to all natural born citizens as a class.

How do you distinguish between a dreamer and another undocumented person in the country? Pray tell.
Natural born citizens have birth certificates and they are not above the law. Documented non-citizens are... documented (and not above the law).

And what's the prognosis for Sanctuary Cities? Dreamers that (like any other "American") remain undocumented (illegal) non-citizens (no right to vote or say in how they are governed) indefinitely, being indistinguishable from common criminals? Do you actually support this as a solution?!?

Is it reasonable that people from anywhere in the world may enter the United States freely, live there freely, and be above the law of the United States?!?

Will you claim to have a "good reason" that justifies this complete lack of foresight and abdication of responsibility?
And do you regard this as the intent of the bible verse quoted in the OP that supposedly serves as the justification for Sanctuary Cities?

Wait, let me guess: you have a link to some studies that show crime in Sanctuary cities is "low". Therefore, it is okay that the law not apply to them.

And because they are just like any other United States citizen (culturally), they cannot be citizens of any other nation (in actuality).

 

[Curious George]

How do you distinguish between a dreamer and another undocumented person in the country? Pray tell.
Natural born citizens have birth certificates and they are not above the law. Documented non-citizens are... documented (and not above the law).

And what's the prognosis for Sanctuary Cities? Dreamers that (like any other "American") remain undocumented (illegal) non-citizens (no right to vote or say in how they are governed) indefinitely, being indistinguishable from common criminals? Do you actually support this as a solution?!?

Is it reasonable that people from anywhere in the world may enter the United States freely, live there freely, and be above the law of the United States?!?

Will you claim to have a "good reason" that justifies this complete lack of foresight and abdication of responsibility?
And do you regard this as the intent of the bible verse quoted in the OP that supposedly serves as the justification for Sanctuary Cities?

Wait, let me guess: you have a link to some studies that show crime in Sanctuary cities is "low". Therefore, it is okay that the law not apply to them.

And because they are just like any other United States citizen (culturally), they cannot be citizens of any other nation (in actuality).

Well I would distinguish by the paper trail. Living off grid is pretty hard to do. If we can establish that a person has lived here since they were a minor, have continued living here for some amount of time after that I do not see the problem.

Nope, no links. Let's be honest, is there any statistic that would change your mind?

I do not see what is confusing about my position. I can follow yours. You believe there are rules for a reason. You believe those rules have been broken. You believe there should be consequences for breaking those rules.

I see that their was no intention to break the rules. There was no control over the ability to break the rules. And once control was established this group of people were put in a crap predicament.

If you discovered today that you were born in Bolivia, would you forgo all you have and return to Bolivia where you had no network, no safeguards, no foreseeable opportunity, and had to overcome cultural barriers?

Yeah, I see no reason to send people who were brought over as children, have committed no felonies, and are productive contributing members of society to a foreign country because a rule was broken and they had no intention to break that rule or control over whether that rule was broken.

 

[Ponder This]

I do not see what is confusing about my position.

I understand that you oppose deportation...
but please clarify:
Are you saying that Sanctuary Cities are the solution? Or that neither Sanctuary Cities nor Deportation are a solution? Are you saying that Sanctuary Cities are the lesser of two evils? What exactly are you saying about Sanctuary Cities? This much seems unclear in your position and it is the part most relevant to the thread.

I can follow yours. You believe there are rules for a reason. You believe those rules have been broken. You believe there should be consequences for breaking those rules.

I'm saying there are reasons for the rules that exist concerning citizenship and concerning residence within a nation. It isn't merely that the rules should be followed: there is a good reason for those rules to exist.

Is there a good reason for Sanctuary Cities to exist? How are Sanctuary Cities a solution? My position is that Sanctuary Cities haven't solved and will not solve the problem as you or I see it. It may have "worked" for draft dodging during the Vietnam War, but it doesn't work to solve illegal immigration.

Yeah, I see no reason to send people who were brought over as children, have committed no felonies, and are productive contributing members of society to a foreign country because a rule was broken and they had no intention to break that rule or control over whether that rule was broken.

It seems that this situation is a bit like a family who as one of them is about to leave their home, discover a baby is sitting on their doorstep, abandoned there by the rightful parents with the expectation that this family will now raise the child. You cannot make a law that demands that the family care for the babies left on their doorstep that is not a reasonable law. That is why your argument does not make sense. A proper law gives a solution to a problem.