0 Votes
Tancredo Takes on San Fran
Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), the outspoken critic of illegal immigration, has brought San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom into his sights. He has accused Newsom of refusing to cooperate with federal officials in immigration raids. The claim is based on comments by Newsom in which he declared San Francisco to be "a sanctuary city" and insisted he would "not allow any of my department heads or anyone associated with this city to cooperate in any way shape or form with these raids." Tancredo is now calling on the Justice Department to examine the situation arguing the notion of a "sanctuary city" is illegal. Newsom, no stranger to controversy, is remembered as the mayor who openly flouted the law in 2004 by issuing some 4,000 marriage licenses to homosexual couples. The California Supreme Court subsequently voided all of the licenses.
Similarly tagged OmniNerd content:
- Silly Congress, by VnutZ 2 months ago
- Women Now Allowed Into Combat Roles, by VnutZ 4 months ago
- How would you reduce the deficit?, by Travis 5 months ago
- 512 Paths to the White House, by markmcb 7 months ago
Print Friendly
Write an Article
What part of "Illegal" Immigration Don't They Get? by PowerPointSamurai
I know a lot of people like to distort the immigration issue into a racial one, but a lot of people supporting illegal immigration need to wake up and remember the first part—"illegal". If you simply allow anyone to come in,
1) what does this do to the value of your rights as a citizen. Some states (like, California) refuse to check identification for proof of citizenship during elections because they consider it "voter intimidation". So, in other words, illegals can dilute your vote and corrupt politicians want to keep it that way. Note: you won’t be able to stop it because there will never be a fair vote to implement identification checks because they don’t check for identification in the first place.
2) how "fair" is this to people who don’t share an adjacent border with the US and are too poor to come here, say, by airplane. I’m sure a lot of people from, say, Sudan would love to come here, and Mexicans are wealthy beyond their dreams in comparison. Isn’t it implicitly racist and show unfair favoritism to one group of people just because they happen to live next door and can easily access this country?
3) why punish people who went through the hoops of doing it the legal way,
4) if it’s illegal, what other illegal things are they doing (e.g. terrorism, drug smuggling, etc.),
5) If it’s illegal, who is protecting these people when they are victimized by employers or thugs in their own ranks? Do you really suppose these people go to the police when they get robbed, beat-up or exploited?
6) If they are illegal, are they likely to get paid fair wages for their work? Regulated immigration helps keep unskilled wages high, whereas unregulated immigration means that employers can chose the lowest common denominator and go for the cheapest labor. Forget about minimum wage—they’re illegal, remember?
7) Sloppy enforcement of any law leads to contempt for all laws. Either enforce it or repeal it.
Nobody should have any beef with immigrants that come here legally. However, the empty headed support for illegal immigration blows my mind. Yes, we should be compassionate for unfortunate people trying to make a better life for themselves, but reform the immigration policy. How compassionate is it to open the floodgates for just one group while oceans effectively bar everyone else? Better yet, go on the offensive and make some of these other places more liveable and free—that would be far more compassionate than treating people like fugitives—and if you harbor them, then YES, you are also treating them like a fugitive. Not everyone can or wants to live here—they just want to survive or make a better life for their families.
By the way, couldn’t the mayor be arrested for obstruction of justice and harboring fugitives?