The sanctuary movement is not simply about skirting immigration laws. Rather, the main issue is one of trust; ie, of allowing undocumented individuals to feel like they can cooperate with the police. If an undocumented immigrant believes the police will turn him/her over to ICE, s/he will be unwilling to engage with the police over anything, thus making community policing much more difficult.
This is why the Major City Chiefs Association has expressed reservations about Trump’s actions in this regard. From a presser they just released (jointly with the US Conference of Mayors):
“Cities that aim to build trusting and supportive relations with immigrant communities should not be punished because this is essential to reducing crime and helping victims, both stated goals of the new Administration in Washington. We must be able to continue to protect the safety of all of our residents while ensuring that local law enforcement is focused on community policing."
“We’re the melting pot of the world out here in California, there are a lot of immigrant communities that we serve, so we need to make sure that they feel comfortable” calling the cops for help, he [Capt. Jeff Scroggin, a spokesman for the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department] says. “The most important thing we strive to do is to build enough trust so that residents provide information that makes this community safer. It’s a team effort.”
Most US police departments agree. Moreover, they suggest that many police departments already cooperate with the federal government. Even in sanctuary cities, police often notify federal authorities when they have an undocumented person in custody who has committed serious crimes.
The concern is that the executive order will remove police departments’ ability to focus on what they think is most important."
I voted 3rd party. And no–I do not think these people are reprehensible. Unless they espouse or believe said reprehensible things themselves. I think they’re going to be made to be fools by the end of the 4 years (or much, much sooner) but that doesn’t make them bad.
I don’t recognize any difference–the motives are the same between parties (to scapegoat and offer easy solutions that won’t really work), and ostensibly a man that holds power as a Senator or a woman that held power as FLOTUS, Senator, and SoS have substantial power of their own. I would not necessarily call that ‘punching up’. It’s not like it’s a work-a-day journalist going after some pol or CEO for some terrible act. It’s not as if it’s a “normal” person trying the same thing.
In any case I do not recognize any ethical difference between punching up and punching down if you’re doing the same shady shit. They are equivalent in what they are doing and offering in our example. I don’t buy into the underlying premises it requires (that your “rights” and moral standing colloquially known depend on how victimized the group to which you belong is…and in any case that would certainly disqualify Senators and SoS)
When I said speaks volumes, I was referring to your original point that the 5 year old didn’t get executed because he has “astounding balls.”
At first it seemed terrifying that a 5 year old can deserve death (if not for his “astounding balls”), then when you clarified he was a drug mule it turned into a 5 year old victim of the drug trade that can deserve death.
While quite true, it’s worth noting that cartels serve very ‘war-like’ functions at least in border areas. Gang warfare and violence. I would also raise my personal cost/benefit numbers if one of the wall’s functions is stopping or at least reducing narcotics trafficking.
You admittedly filled in blanks with a relatively simple scenario. I feel like I interpretted my story just fine, you were the one that had problems with it, hence filling in blanks that didn’t need to be filled.
Agreed. It’s all a metric of what measures move this up and down your respective line (ie, drugs, immigration, etc). Although I don’t put quite as much stock in slowing the drug trade, as I believe it leads to a supply and demand problem leading junkies to commit more crimes to afford said drugs.
Obv not enough to make slowing narc not matter, but all factors should be considered.
Again. Story existed solely to demonstrate the concept that everyone has a limit. I wasn’t explaining the point clearly enough so I made it extreme to make it easier to understand the differences.
