Why Are We Protecting Illegal Immigrants In This Country?


#1

Hey, everyone has to go through the proper channels to get this great country. I side with The Prez on this one, quite frankly. Why should the folks who are against the sanctuary status be penalized (lost of fed funds)? I don’t recall us getting the opportunity to vote for or against this. (Unless we did, way back when).

RIP Kate Steinle


#2

Search me. Never understood why illegal immigrants can enjoy nearly the same privileges of a citizen.


#3

+1 me and my wife came here legally. we paid and wait. and BACKGROUND CHECK too


#4

I have no clue why sentiment changed. Bill Clinton spoke about making illegals leave the US. He got a huge applause from both parties in congress. Democrats used to be against gay marriage too. Now they have “evolved” views. Cleary someone calculated the best chance of winning was to “evolve” their views. I guess they did that math wrong.


#5

It is simple politics, whatever Rep showed to Obama, now Dem are showing to Trump !

Just tit - for - tat


#6

Ed Lee is full of crap. How about him proposing to forego his salary to fund sanctuary cities instead.


#7

San Francisco + Los Angeles taxes will go up? Or will that be California taxes go up?

I.e. Will my pocket book get affected again? :laughing:

My water bill is already going to be up 31.25% by 2018 because Fremont people used less water. :cry: :angry: WTF!!


#8

I am assuming The Donald would only penalize the actual cities themselves who are for this.

I think we should get this on the next ballet measure. Probably would still lose in a city like SF, but you never know.


#9

There will be less federal revenues for the cities such as San Francisco. So, question is how will cities fill up this shortfall. Will cities raise taxes or the state has to?


#10

Who decides a city should be sanctuary city or not? If it was decided by the politicians, citizens can put it on ballot and let the people to decide.

Fact is that most citizens do not understand what a sanctuary city means. Many of them may object to sanctuary policy if given a chance to vote.

The mayor wants sanctuary city status because he “thought” that voters wanted a sanctuary city. Why not take a vote to check whether that assumption was wrong?

Maybe 90% of the voters do not understand the sanctuary policy and 80% never heard about it


#11

San Francisco receives around $1 billion in funding from the federal government across all categories but Mayor Ed Lee today said the city is still working to determine exactly which funds will be affected by the order. He said Department of Homeland Security grant funds total somewhere around $10 million

Does not look very hopeful from what the mayors say below.

The mayors of several Bay Area cities responded to Trump’s plan to withhold funding to sanctuary cities:

“The Bay Area stands united against this White House’s morally bankrupt policies that would divide families, turn our nation’s back on refugees in need, and potentially thwart the efforts of nearly one million productive young people who are on a legal path to citizenship. Oaklanders rely on $130 million in federal funding for everything from early education programs like Head Start to getting officers out of their cars and onto our streets at a time when community policing is so desperately needed. We will not allow this president to play politics with our safety and security.” – Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf
"Nothing about the President’s Executive Order will change how San Jose cops police our city. The San Jose Police Department’s longstanding policies relating to immigration enforcement are critical to keeping our community safe. Our police officers must focus their scarce time responding to and investigating violent, predatory and other high-priority crimes – not the enforcement of federal tax laws, federal securities laws, or federal immigration laws. There’s a broad consensus among major city police chiefs that having local officers meddle in federal immigration enforcement undermines public safety, and diminishes community trust. We need to ensure that all residents feel comfortable calling 911, reporting crimes, coming forward as witnesses, and testifying in court to help us keep criminals off the street." – San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo
"The Bay Area is home to millions of people who have sought refuge and a chance at a better life. As mayors, we stand together in our responsibility to keep our cities safe and healthy and take care of all our residents and families, regardless of status. We will not give in to threats, or political grandstanding. Together, the Bay Area will stay true to our values of inclusiveness, compassion and equality, and united against any and all efforts to divide our residents, our cities, and our country." – San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee
"Our values of human rights, equity, and inclusion have come under attack by the Trump Administration. In just two days, Trump has pushed a divisive wall, stripped our citizens of civil liberties, and cut funding to cities that have the courage to stand up for all people – whether or not they are legal citizens. We will not be intimidated by threats to cut funding to cities that believe in the fundamental notion that no person is illegal. No amount of federal funding is worth betraying our values." – Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguín


#12

Well, I don’t know how much that would be in sales taxes and such but probably impossible to make up that way, so probably will see cuts in various services. Soooo, maybe if the liberals of SF were informed that way (that all these services are gone) perhaps they too would vote for no sanctuary city status. Hey, come on right, at the end of the day rightful citizens’ needs should come first before anyone else, especially someone who is not supposed to be here. I don’t understand how our leaders rationalized their position on this one. But then again, they honored a criminal by naming a day after him while someone like Kate Steinle was just an unfortunate stat…


#13

SF ask voters to decide whether a housing development project can be approved, but the mayor and 11 stupidvisors decide on sanctuary status. Other than Latinos, who else support sanctuary status?

If the next democratic presidential candidate adopt the same Mexico wall policy, same as Trump, how will Trump differentiate?

If both Democrats and Republicans are against illegal immigration, will Latinos vote for D or R? Will Latinos vote for Trump instead? If not, what’s the fear of democrats?

The change of democrat’s illegal immigration policy is totally based on number of Latino votes. It has nothing to do with anything else.

Politicians have become frightened little chicken in front of Latino voters. Trump stand up to illegal immigration and he actually wins, also wining a significant number of Latino votes.


#14

If put it on ballot, SF will get rid of sanctuary city status. Latino votes can be ignore in SF.

LA may want to keep due to its Latino majority. But economic reality may not allow it if Trump means stopping all federal funding to sanctuary city.


#15

Unfortunately, The Prez may have us by the short hairs this time…that is a lot of amount of moola that we may lose out on and “just” because of illegals??? Homeless, but citizens, ok…but illegals??? I am so pissed!!!


#16

I too miss the days when Republicans were for free trade.


#17

Yeah, see, that one doesn’t make much sense either…basic Econ 1 stuff


#18

Democrats put a small number of people above the majority. That’s not a wining formula. But everyone is so surprised that HRC lost.

Most people are against sanctuary city policy. Even HRC is against it, but she said yes to win, still lost.


#19

The data show that immigrants take more in benefits than they pay in taxes. Although immigrants do boost the size of the economy, the gains are heavily skewed toward the immigrants themselves and to wealthy investors — not to native-born workers who end up competing with the new arrivals.


#20

Turning to the fiscal impact, immigrants do not pay enough in taxes to cover their consumption of public services at the present time. The NAS report presents eight different scenarios based on different assumptions about the current fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) of immigrants and their dependent children. All of the scenarios show that immigrants are a fiscal drain. The drain is as large as $299 billion a year.2 In all the scenarios dealing with the current fiscal impact the deficit is as large or larger than the economic benefit reported above.

> Second-generation and third-generation Americans (native-born children and grandchildren of immigrants) are also in fiscal deficit, mainly because of the federal budget deficit shown in Table 8-2 p. 312. Of course, a fiscal drain for natives may be unavoidable. But adding more people through our immigration policies who run a deficit only adds to the problem.

> The deficit is mainly caused by the federal budget deficit — Washington is not collecting enough taxes to pay for government generally. At the state and local level, where budgets tend to be more in balance, immigrants are still a large net drain, while natives are a net fiscal benefit (Table 9-6, p. 404).

So, that means we are not collecting enough Federal taxes(whether for native born populations or immigrants).Wonder what happens when the new administration reduces income & corporate taxes :sunglasses: