States and cities defy and disobey Trumps order!

[Willamena]

Who is our President? Apparently Trumps not sense our Politicians don't have to do what he says.

Hes saying Sanctuary cities have to put all undocumented immigrants in jail? WOW! Some president. The states and cities that are sanctuary cities are disobeying his orders. Only one is doing it,Miami that's it.

Sense all jails are over crowded just like Miami, wonder how many real prisoners they have to let out to hold them.This is getting nutty.

I thought there wasn't gonna be all this drama what happened? My democrat friends from my church told me in 4 a few months Trump and his supporters will be upset, there are things that are going down.

Being President doesn't mean that people have to do what you say.

Rather, that's being Dictator.

 

[esmith]

I understand that. So get legal immigrants with work visas. That way you know who is in your country, you can keep track of them, and if they do break the law in a serious way you can revoke their visa and deport them

There are two reasons it is not done this way. First is that although immigrants on a work visa would not have to be paid a minimum wage they would still have to get some protection from outright exploitation. This would make it slightly more expensive for employers, cheaper than hiring American citizens but more expensive than illegals. And the second reason is that you would have to invest immigration services (start putting money into immigration courts, public defenders, etc). So it would cost, but it would help with the immigration problem, and it would just be the right ethical thing to do.

Everything you say makes sense except for one minor point..... Keeping track of them.
Couple of other points
1. Are you going to allow the families of those on a work visa enter the country also?
2. If yes to #1 are you as a taxpayer willing to support the education of the children
3. Do they, worker and family(if allowed in) have access to subsidized medical programs (say medicaid) or if a new health care act has subsidies would they qualify
4. Will a guest worker be allowed to collect Social Security benefits, or Medicare benefits? If no will they have to pay FICA taxes?
5. How long are you going to allow them to remain in the country if they are unemployed
6. If they are unemployed do they qualify for unemployment benefits?
Just a few issues with the guest worker program. I'm sure there are many more.

 

[esmith]

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." - Thomas Jefferson

That applies to citizens of the country, no?

 

[omega2xx]

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." - Thomas Jefferson

What is unjust about putting law breakers in jail? If the law have been followed Kate would still be alive . What is un about puttin illegals in jail? Wha is just aboaut puttin illegals ahead of those ahead of those who follow the law?

Who died and made you the final authority to declare what is un just? The great majority disagree with you.

 

[fantome profane]

Everything you say makes sense except for one minor point..... Keeping track of them.
Couple of other points
1. Are you going to allow the families of those on a work visa enter the country also?
2. If yes to #1 are you as a taxpayer willing to support the education of the children
3. Do they, worker and family(if allowed in) have access to subsidized medical programs (say medicaid) or if a new health care act has subsidies would they qualify
4. Will a guest worker be allowed to collect Social Security benefits, or Medicare benefits? If no will they have to pay FICA taxes?
5. How long are you going to allow them to remain in the country if they are unemployed
6. If they are unemployed do they qualify for unemployment benefits?
Just a few issues with the guest worker program. I'm sure there are many more.

If they are working here legally then they are paying taxes. So yes their children can go to public school, yes they and their children should get some kind of healthcare. No, they should not be eligible for welfare or other social security benefits other than health care related. And I don't know exactly how long they should be allowed to stay if unemployed, but I would say not long. But there could be some kind of appeal to the courts before deportation if there are legitimate reasons for staying (i.e. promise of upcoming employment).

I am not saying it is simple or easy. But there are things you can do other than either ignoring the problem or just deporting everybody. Neither of those will work

 

[Monk Of Reason]

That applies to citizens of the country, no?

It applies to everyone. I just so happen to be a citzien. The people who are actively disobeying Trump are also citizens. I'm not even going to get into if it is right or wrong to be a sanctuary city. But many other things have already happened. The fact that he has ordered the EPA to remove climate change from their website and the fact that federally funded scientists, such as those at NASA, are now unable to share their findings with the public without it giong first through a proven anti-science administration of non-scientist politicians?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

What is unjust about putting law breakers in jail? If the law have been followed Kate would still be alive . What is un about puttin illegals in jail? Wha is just aboaut puttin illegals ahead of those ahead of those who follow the law?

Who died and made you the final authority to declare what is un just? The great majority disagree with you.

I am not any kind of authority. The people are the authority. Not the government. Not Trump. You just asked how honest people can support breaking the law and I answered.

 

[McBell]

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." - Thomas Jefferson

Good point.
Now all you need do is show that it is unjust....

 

[McBell]

I am not any kind of authority. The people are the authority. Not the government. Not Trump. You just asked how honest people can support breaking the law and I answered.

Disagreement with a law is not justification for breaking the law.
There are procedures for changing laws.
Breaking them is not part of said procedure.

Don't get me wrong.
Sometimes the law has to be broken in order to get enough attention on it for change to occur.
However, those breaking the law in order to get said attention are still bound by the laws concerning the breaking of the law.

 

[esmith]

It applies to everyone. I just so happen to be a citzien. The people who are actively disobeying Trump are also citizens. I'm not even going to get into if it is right or wrong to be a sanctuary city. But many other things have already happened. The fact that he has ordered the EPA to remove climate change from their website and the fact that federally funded scientists, such as those at NASA, are now unable to share their findings with the public without it giong first through a proven anti-science administration of non-scientist politicians?

In both cases you state, the new administrator has not been approved by Congress (thanks to the obstructionist). Therefor that person has not been able to set the policies that he wants to. Do you not see that this is a problem? Now these persons can use their own private account but should not be able to use the gov account until the new administrator is in place.
Let's put it this way. You own a company and hired a new CEO/manager; this company has a internet account associated with the company. It is the company account, not a personal account. Would you want your employees to start issuing statements on the company account without oversight of the new CEO/manager?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Who would prosecute employers who hire illegals, thereby subverting immigration policy?
If it's the feds, then it would make sense to also prosecute cities offering sanctuary.
But if its local gov hauling employers into criminal court, do they expect illegals to live off taxpayer charity?

It's within the authority to decide to prioritize how it's going to enforce - or not enforce - laws.

The "sanctuary city" approach isn't that different from common approaches on, say, prostitution or drug crime. Not prosecuting one person for their illegal activity can make it easier to achieve societal goals.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

If Trump is willing to stop the flow of federal funding to these cities then they should reciprocate: no more taxes payable to the federal government.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's within the authority to decide to prioritize how it's going to enforce - or not enforce - laws.

The "sanctuary city" approach isn't that different from common approaches on, say, prostitution or drug crime. Not prosecuting one person for their illegal activity can make it easier to achieve societal goals.

True dat.
But with a new sheriff in town, we might a change in priorities.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

True dat.
But with a new sheriff in town, we might a change in priorities.

Sure. And those goals that were being helped by non-enforcement before will suffer.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Good point.
Now all you need do is show that it is unjust....

The discourse between the scientists and park rangers vs his presidential mandates are my primary concern. That is objectively immoral and unjust.

Disagreement with a law is not justification for breaking the law.
There are procedures for changing laws.
Breaking them is not part of said procedure.

Don't get me wrong.
Sometimes the law has to be broken in order to get enough attention on it for change to occur.
However, those breaking the law in order to get said attention are still bound by the laws concerning the breaking of the law.

Its about degrees. If something is uncomfrotable we protest. If something is unlivable we revolt. I may disagree with making a full and complete stop at a stop sign every single time despite there being no one else around but I will still do it. Because it is not an unjust law. But if I believe a law to be fully unjust, as in in some way shape or form COUNTER to morality and humanistic values, then we have an issue.

Seeing a law as unjust does not mean you simply disagree with it. You can disagree with just laws or benign laws.

In both cases you state, the new administrator has not been approved by Congress (thanks to the obstructionist). Therefor that person has not been able to set the policies that he wants to. Do you not see that this is a problem? Now these persons can use their own private account but should not be able to use the gov account until the new administrator is in place.
Let's put it this way. You own a company and hired a new CEO/manager; this company has a internet account associated with the company. It is the company account, not a personal account. Would you want your employees to start issuing statements on the company account without oversight of the new CEO/manager?

The president is not CEO of any division of science. Science is independent of who is the president. Any sort of gag order is disagreeable.

The fact we changed president does not mean that the information made public by scienstis is any different. They don't "own" the national parks in the same relationship that a CEO may have to his divisions.

 

[McBell]

The discourse between the scientists and park rangers vs his presidential mandates are my primary concern. That is objectively immoral and unjust.

Its about degrees. If something is uncomfrotable we protest. If something is unlivable we revolt. I may disagree with making a full and complete stop at a stop sign every single time despite there being no one else around but I will still do it. Because it is not an unjust law. But if I believe a law to be fully unjust, as in in some way shape or form COUNTER to morality and humanistic values, then we have an issue.

Seeing a law as unjust does not mean you simply disagree with it. You can disagree with just laws or benign laws.

You completely sidestepped the point.

You break the law you need to face the consequences.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

You completely sidestepped the point.

You break the law you need to face the consequences.

In some cases its that you go to war with said government.

 

[McBell]

In some cases its that you go to war with said government.

Perhaps.
But in doing so you make yourself a criminal.
Regardless of how much you disagree with the law you break.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Perhaps.
But in doing so you make yourself a criminal.
Regardless of how much you disagree with the law you break.

Sometimes that is okay. Its all degree's as I said earlier. If I were a teacher I would teach evolution in my classroom and accept the consequences. If I was a scientist I would post my findings. If I worked for the national parks services I would hope I would keep tweeting correct science facts. If an undocumented worker was in my city, hadn't committed a crime with the exception of simply being there I wouldn't lock them up.

 

[metis]

When the current administration stops funding sanctuary cities, and taxes have to be raised to support unlawful conduct, maybe enough will start to sing a different tune.

How can honest people support breaking the law?

Eliminating federal funds earmarked for other programs would be unconstitutional.

BTW, sanctuary areas can be found in your Bible.