To whom would you give sanctuary.

I'm fine with that. For me personally I don't mind sanctuary cities as long as it's universally agreed that the rest of the nation will send all of those folks to those cities and those cities chosen to become sanctuary are obligated to accept them all.

And since these sanctuary cities are going against federal law then I am also fine if the federal government decides to revoke all federal aid to the places that start doing things it doesn't agree with.

If folks want to place that game then so be it, just don't cry when your city turns to garbage and blame the federal government for not helping you out.

 

I'm a huge proponent of States rights. I'm one of the people who believes that the States should be handling the vast majority of everything at their level and the federal government should sit there in Washington and mind it's own business for the most part.

US Constitutional stuff should apply to all states, we are all obviously all part of America, but most of these social issues can be handled at the state level. And obvious laws like "can't murder people" and whatnot should apply to everyone.

If Oregon wants to be a sanctuary state then by all means, but they must be obligated to take every single illegal immigrant that comes across our borders. No if, ands, or but's about it. No holding facilities in New Mexico or Arizona or anything, the second they get here they are put on a bus and driven to Oregon and dropped off at city hall in Eugene and from there the federal government will hear their case.

No getting to turn anybody away because your city is "full", no requesting federal aid to help, none of it. It is what you chose, sleep in the bed you made.

Just like a lot of folks are all up in arms about the abortion thing Alabama and Georgia are trying to pull. Whatever, it's their state, if you want an abortion then go to California and do it then come back. There are no walls surrounding any states here you can go to any of them it's not like there is a port of entry next to the "Welcome to California" sign on I-10.

I don't even have to personally agree with the laws states pass for me to support them. I lived in New York for work when they passed that Safe Act law banning AR-15s. Whatever, it's their state, I left my rifles in my home state and went there for work for a few years and when I left I swung back by home and grabbed my rifles and moved on. There were plenty of anti Safe Act rallies going on when I was there, I attended none of them even though I disagreed with the law. It's not my state, nor is it my place to be there temporarily and rally against something they passed as law up there. I wouldn't like some New Yorker temporarily living in my home state to be attending some ban AR-15s rally. I'd say mind your own business and get the hell out if you don't like how we roll down here. So I extend the same courtesy to them when I am in their home state.

It's the mind your own business thing that I am a huge proponent of. And it's both sides of the aisle wanting to either support and/or ban stuff on the FEDERAL LEVEL that I can't stand. Quit trying to make this huge vastly diverse nation adhere to your will, mind your own business.

 

I agree, I know this is a slippery slope and I understand why not everyone gets on board with this. I mean we are One Nation after all, if we start just letting everybody do whatever we want then we no longer really qualify as one nation. There has to be SOME federal oversight of everybody or else we really do end up just becoming 50 independent little nations who happen to all share the same continent, IE Europe.

I just personally believe that the United States is way too diverse for as much Federal oversight as we have. For better or for worse we are diverse as hell. If I grabbed 4 US citizens from 4 different regions of the US then they'd all basically be foreigners to one another outside of all speaking the same language. Folks in rural Montana have very little in common with folks in New York City. It becomes very difficult for the federal government to pass laws applying to everybody in situations like that.

Just look at our Presidents. The nation elects Presidents and just look at the approval ratings of them. Going all the way back to Roosevelt in WWII the average final approval rating of our Presidents is between 40-60%, with some peaking VERY HIGH (90) after a national tragedy as in GW's after 9/11. But for the most part it's smack in the middle, maybe a little more or a little less than half the nation will disapprove of the President that we elect.

We're too diverse, no matter what it is around half of us ain't gonna like it. That's why I say let us be diverse, but acknowledge the fact that we ARE diverse, and what California thinks is "right" is probably not going to be what Mississippi thinks is "right". So instead of the federal government stepping in and making the call which will inevitably piss off one of them, just let them do what they think is "right" in their respective states.

I also agree with you about the county thing within states as well. As somebody who lived in Upstate NY for a few years and I say that Upstate NY and NYC are no where near the same "state". But NYC gets to run the whole state and the Upstate folks tend to really not like the fact that the city down there in the corner gets to dictate policy for folks living up by the Adirondacks. Which is kinda how it tends to work in most cases. You remove the big city's of pretty much any state and the entire states "ideology" tends to shift dramatically.

 

Yeah the problem is the whole mind your own business thing. Both sides of the aisle are pretty terrible at minding your own business and feel some moral obligation that they justify to themselves as to why they can't just mind their own business.

You'll see the same people condemning national gun laws but supporting a national abortion ban. And the same people condemning a national abortion restriction law but supporting a national AR-15 ban or something. With all of them justifying to themselves that they are morally obligated to interfere because "reasons".

And I just sit back here and say how about all of you just mind your own business? Why the hell is somebody in Troy Alabama complaining about what California is doing? And why is somebody in San Francisco complaining about what Alabama is doing? How about all of you just shut the hell up and mind your own business? You don't live there why do you care?

"Oh because fetuses are babies or guns kill people and it's our duty as human beings to speak up in the face of evil"

Yeah whatever lol.

 

I both agree and disagree.

I disagree because while it's not necessarily the citizens of these places that want them to be sanctuary, it's the local government, but cutting off aid (which would hurt the citizens) would put pressure on them to out their local elected officials who got them in to that mess.

But I agree because I don't really support punishing the people for the decisions their local governments make. That sort of thing leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

But I am a pretty big proponent of folks eating their own words. For example any citizen who voted in support of allowing their community to become an illegal sanctuary zone would be obligated by law to accept at least one of them into their homes.

Basically if you vote yes then you are required by law to have an illegal alien sleeping on your couch by tomorrow lol. Naw don't say you support them being "here" as in house them in the local section 8 or something. You support them being "here" then they're coming "here". Here as in your spare bedroom. Don't be a hypocrite.

 

Yeah I know, that's why New York and California are allowed to tell people they can barely own super soakers and even after 6 years our judicial system still hasn't stepped in to override that for being in violation of Constitutional Law.

Mainly because while you and I may be able to read the 2nd Amendment in plain English and understand it, apparently a whole lot of actual law makers are either illiterate or have no problem just ignoring it. And the federal government lets them get away with that sort of thing.

So if the feds are going to let certain states just openly violate the US Constitution then I don't want the federal government making any sort of blanket laws that apply on the federal level. The obviously can't be trusted to adhere to the Constitution seeing how New York is only a couple hundred miles north of Washington and is sitting up there giving them and the Constitution the middle finger and DC just seems perfectly fine with that.

If Washington is deciding that it will pick and choose which parts of the Constitution it wants to enforce then I don't want them anywhere near me making laws about things. We have a literal rule book for them to follow written in plain English and they still can't figure it out.

 

Really? On this very forum alone I've read countless posts of folks in support of making abortion illegal.

Well not just flat out illegal as in under no circumstances whatsoever the mother will die before we'd abort the baby type thing. But illegal in the sense that after like 6 weeks it's illegal unless there is some health emergency.

Perhaps I should have said abortion restrictions.

And there is no Constitutional Amendment necessary, it's pretty clear as is. But for some reason New York is allowed to sit over there and make AR-15s illegal and I'm honestly trying to figure out how the hell they can do that. I'm no lawyer nor am I well versed in law, but how are they able to do that? Am I missing something or am I misinterpreting the Constitution?

 

Well honestly that is what makes me nervous. I mean it's not like the Federal Government isn't aware of what NY is doing and the last time I checked there isn't even so much as a threat to cut federal aid being proposed in regards to NY and their blatant violation of US Constitutional Law. The Federal government either agrees that they have the right to do what they are doing or doesn't care enough about their blatant violation of our nations Constitutional Law to do anything about it. Both of which are equally concerning to me.

That is why I am personally not in favor of Washington passing laws on the federal level that effect all states. If they are unable or unwilling to enforce Constitutional Law on a national level then I don't trust their judgement to even pass laws on the federal level regardless of what it is. Let the states decide because obviously Washington doesn't have the will to even enforce our nations Constitution if they let states like New York and California just openly defy it and they do absolutely nothing about it.

What sort of trust am I supposed to have in a federal government that allows such a thing? It's our Constitution for petes sake every single person we've elected up there swore an oath to protect and defend it and they openly allow states to just give it the middle finger. If that's how they are going to treat it then I don't want them making any decisions that effect me whatsoever.