It’s funny to read how the anti immigrants here can’t fathom that there are cities that would take these humans and just treat them like humans , unlike what this administration is doing treating them like dogs !
Who here is anti-immigrant? Immigrants are wonderful and add so much to society...especially the ones that do it legally. I think everyone here is pro-legal immigration. Enough with the labels Jose.
Agreed. I m all for legal immigration, just not illegal immigration. If you want to come here we will welcome you with open arms, just do it legally.
Havent read this thread but giving the illegals to sanctuary cities is a genius idea. Border towns are shitholes, spread the gift to all the places that have been begging for them.
Why wouldn’t they want to all be sent to sanctuary cities? They seem more accommodating...then we can build a wall around the sanctuary cities, lol
Does that mean that all the sanctuary cities can retain all the tax revenue generated in their cities? I know that here in Louisville, KY we'd love to keep our money for our local citizens rather than sending it out to the rest of the state that drains all our tax dollars all the while bitching about what happens here.
Yes, as long as it means you use no state or federal tax dollars in your city
Deal. Louisville alone generates about 70% of all revenue for the ENTIRE state so I'd say the rest of the state is screwed. You're ok with that, right?
I’m more than fine with that, but then again, I really don’t give a shit about KY, lol. KY does produce some good bourbon and fried chicken, though...and lube...or is that a different “KY”?
Maybe we should apply this to every sanctuary city and their corresponding state. My comment may be about KY but you can apply similar logic to all the other sanctuary cities throughout the US and the corresponding revenue that would be generated. I'm more than happy to host migrants here and I'll give up the citizens of the rest of my state and they can be taken care of by others just like them. But then again, its generally the 'libtard' cities that are taking care of the rest of 'real' America.
Wow, such a libertarian you are. Trying to wrap my head around this. You are saying that you are cool with everyone fending for themselves except for those that are in your state and other states illegally? Does that about sum it up? And everyone seems cool with sanctuary cities carrying the burden, so what are you even complaining about? I’m thinking a majority of your cities taxes would be gobbled up with free housing and other costs related to the major influx of a homeless population, though...
Havent read this thread but giving the illegals to sanctuary cities is a genius idea. Border towns are shitholes, spread the gift to all the places that have been begging for them.
Why wouldn’t they want to all be sent to sanctuary cities? They seem more accommodating...then we can build a wall around the sanctuary cities, lol
Does that mean that all the sanctuary cities can retain all the tax revenue generated in their cities? I know that here in Louisville, KY we'd love to keep our money for our local citizens rather than sending it out to the rest of the state that drains all our tax dollars all the while bitching about what happens here.
Yes, as long as it means you use no state or federal tax dollars in your city
Deal. Louisville alone generates about 70% of all revenue for the ENTIRE state so I'd say the rest of the state is screwed. You're ok with that, right?
I’m more than fine with that, but then again, I really don’t give a shit about KY, lol. KY does produce some good bourbon and fried chicken, though...and lube...or is that a different “KY”?
Maybe we should apply this to every sanctuary city and their corresponding state. My comment may be about KY but you can apply similar logic to all the other sanctuary cities throughout the US and the corresponding revenue that would be generated. I'm more than happy to host migrants here and I'll give up the citizens of the rest of my state and they can be taken care of by others just like them. But then again, its generally the 'libtard' cities that are taking care of the rest of 'real' America.
Washington (AFP) - President Donald Trump touted an unlikely new ally Monday in his battle with Democrats over illegal immigration -- the pop star and usually fierce critic Cher.
"I finally agree with @cher!" Trump tweeted after the singer posted her concerns that Los Angeles is in no position to look after poor migrants when it already fails to take care of the homeless.
"I Understand Helping struggling Immigrants, but MY CITY (Los Angeles) ISNT TAKING CARE OF ITS OWN," Cher tweeted on Sunday. "If My State Can't Take Care of Its Own(Many Are VETS)How Can it Take Care Of More.
Havent read this thread but giving the illegals to sanctuary cities is a genius idea. Border towns are shitholes, spread the gift to all the places that have been begging for them.
Why wouldn’t they want to all be sent to sanctuary cities? They seem more accommodating...then we can build a wall around the sanctuary cities, lol
Does that mean that all the sanctuary cities can retain all the tax revenue generated in their cities? I know that here in Louisville, KY we'd love to keep our money for our local citizens rather than sending it out to the rest of the state that drains all our tax dollars all the while bitching about what happens here.
Yes, as long as it means you use no state or federal tax dollars in your city
Deal. Louisville alone generates about 70% of all revenue for the ENTIRE state so I'd say the rest of the state is screwed. You're ok with that, right?
I’m more than fine with that, but then again, I really don’t give a shit about KY, lol. KY does produce some good bourbon and fried chicken, though...and lube...or is that a different “KY”?
Maybe we should apply this to every sanctuary city and their corresponding state. My comment may be about KY but you can apply similar logic to all the other sanctuary cities throughout the US and the corresponding revenue that would be generated. I'm more than happy to host migrants here and I'll give up the citizens of the rest of my state and they can be taken care of by others just like them. But then again, its generally the 'libtard' cities that are taking care of the rest of 'real' America.
What is "real" America?
Here is a pic of San Francisco (sanctuary city) “taking care” of the homeless:
Havent read this thread but giving the illegals to sanctuary cities is a genius idea. Border towns are shitholes, spread the gift to all the places that have been begging for them.
Why wouldn’t they want to all be sent to sanctuary cities? They seem more accommodating...then we can build a wall around the sanctuary cities, lol
Does that mean that all the sanctuary cities can retain all the tax revenue generated in their cities? I know that here in Louisville, KY we'd love to keep our money for our local citizens rather than sending it out to the rest of the state that drains all our tax dollars all the while bitching about what happens here.
Yes, as long as it means you use no state or federal tax dollars in your city
Deal. Louisville alone generates about 70% of all revenue for the ENTIRE state so I'd say the rest of the state is screwed. You're ok with that, right?
I’m more than fine with that, but then again, I really don’t give a shit about KY, lol. KY does produce some good bourbon and fried chicken, though...and lube...or is that a different “KY”?
Maybe we should apply this to every sanctuary city and their corresponding state. My comment may be about KY but you can apply similar logic to all the other sanctuary cities throughout the US and the corresponding revenue that would be generated. I'm more than happy to host migrants here and I'll give up the citizens of the rest of my state and they can be taken care of by others just like them. But then again, its generally the 'libtard' cities that are taking care of the rest of 'real' America.
What is "real" America?
Here is a pic of San Francisco (sanctuary city) “taking care” of the homeless:
Jeesh...that's just terrible. The same shit happening here, Canada spends hundreds of millions processing refugees from the US instead of turning them back, and we have a growing homelessness problem and opioid crisis that needs correcting.
Havent read this thread but giving the illegals to sanctuary cities is a genius idea. Border towns are shitholes, spread the gift to all the places that have been begging for them.
Why wouldn’t they want to all be sent to sanctuary cities? They seem more accommodating...then we can build a wall around the sanctuary cities, lol
Does that mean that all the sanctuary cities can retain all the tax revenue generated in their cities? I know that here in Louisville, KY we'd love to keep our money for our local citizens rather than sending it out to the rest of the state that drains all our tax dollars all the while bitching about what happens here.
Yes, as long as it means you use no state or federal tax dollars in your city
Deal. Louisville alone generates about 70% of all revenue for the ENTIRE state so I'd say the rest of the state is screwed. You're ok with that, right?
I’m more than fine with that, but then again, I really don’t give a shit about KY, lol. KY does produce some good bourbon and fried chicken, though...and lube...or is that a different “KY”?
Maybe we should apply this to every sanctuary city and their corresponding state. My comment may be about KY but you can apply similar logic to all the other sanctuary cities throughout the US and the corresponding revenue that would be generated. I'm more than happy to host migrants here and I'll give up the citizens of the rest of my state and they can be taken care of by others just like them. But then again, its generally the 'libtard' cities that are taking care of the rest of 'real' America.
What is "real" America?
Here is a pic of San Francisco (sanctuary city) “taking care” of the homeless:
Jeesh...that's just terrible. The same shit happening here, Canada spends hundreds of millions processing refugees from the US instead of turning them back, and we have a growing homelessness problem and opioid crisis that needs correcting.
You know what will help with that homeless population and opioid epidemic? Just invite a couple thousand more homeless in by telling them they are coming to a sanctuary.
Havent read this thread but giving the illegals to sanctuary cities is a genius idea. Border towns are shitholes, spread the gift to all the places that have been begging for them.
Why wouldn’t they want to all be sent to sanctuary cities? They seem more accommodating...then we can build a wall around the sanctuary cities, lol
Does that mean that all the sanctuary cities can retain all the tax revenue generated in their cities? I know that here in Louisville, KY we'd love to keep our money for our local citizens rather than sending it out to the rest of the state that drains all our tax dollars all the while bitching about what happens here.
Yes, as long as it means you use no state or federal tax dollars in your city
Deal. Louisville alone generates about 70% of all revenue for the ENTIRE state so I'd say the rest of the state is screwed. You're ok with that, right?
I’m more than fine with that, but then again, I really don’t give a shit about KY, lol. KY does produce some good bourbon and fried chicken, though...and lube...or is that a different “KY”?
Maybe we should apply this to every sanctuary city and their corresponding state. My comment may be about KY but you can apply similar logic to all the other sanctuary cities throughout the US and the corresponding revenue that would be generated. I'm more than happy to host migrants here and I'll give up the citizens of the rest of my state and they can be taken care of by others just like them. But then again, its generally the 'libtard' cities that are taking care of the rest of 'real' America.
Wow, such a libertarian you are. Trying to wrap my head around this. You are saying that you are cool with everyone fending for themselves except for those that are in your state and other states illegally? Does that about sum it up? And everyone seems cool with sanctuary cities carrying the burden, so what are you even complaining about? I’m thinking a majority of your cities taxes would be gobbled up with free housing and other costs related to the major influx of a homeless population, though...
In reality? No, I would never advocate for not taking care of anyone but I get beyond frustrated with people stating that they won't take care of others then waving their flag of morality around as if they are somehow better than these immigrants, legal or otherwise. I've long wondered where people's compassion and humanity have disappeared. I live in a solidly red state that continually vilifies those of us living in cities and advocating for those less fortunate, whether that is immigrants or the people of Appalachia or LGBTQ. It often feels as if people are continually blaming others rather than seeking a real solution. When I read your comment it seemed cavalier and one-sided. What I really want is not the same as the immense frustration that I feel about what has been happening in this country for a very long time now. It would be nice to see some level of compromise from everyone. I am a liberal surrounded by conservatives so I've had numerous conversations with real-life conservatives and at the end of the day not one conversation has ended in any sort of compromise from conservatives because they seem to believe they hold the high ground on almost every issue. These conversations have ranged from the most studied historians to ones who know very little about American history. I'm frustrated hearing that and then seeing those ideas perpetuated here. Doesn't mean any of these people, including you, aren't good people but it seems that over the course of the last 30 years that compromise seems to be viewed as weakness.
Are we getting something out of this all-encompassing trip?
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
Havent read this thread but giving the illegals to sanctuary cities is a genius idea. Border towns are shitholes, spread the gift to all the places that have been begging for them.
Why wouldn’t they want to all be sent to sanctuary cities? They seem more accommodating...then we can build a wall around the sanctuary cities, lol
Does that mean that all the sanctuary cities can retain all the tax revenue generated in their cities? I know that here in Louisville, KY we'd love to keep our money for our local citizens rather than sending it out to the rest of the state that drains all our tax dollars all the while bitching about what happens here.
Yes, as long as it means you use no state or federal tax dollars in your city
Deal. Louisville alone generates about 70% of all revenue for the ENTIRE state so I'd say the rest of the state is screwed. You're ok with that, right?
I’m more than fine with that, but then again, I really don’t give a shit about KY, lol. KY does produce some good bourbon and fried chicken, though...and lube...or is that a different “KY”?
Maybe we should apply this to every sanctuary city and their corresponding state. My comment may be about KY but you can apply similar logic to all the other sanctuary cities throughout the US and the corresponding revenue that would be generated. I'm more than happy to host migrants here and I'll give up the citizens of the rest of my state and they can be taken care of by others just like them. But then again, its generally the 'libtard' cities that are taking care of the rest of 'real' America.
Havent read this thread but giving the illegals to sanctuary cities is a genius idea. Border towns are shitholes, spread the gift to all the places that have been begging for them.
Why wouldn’t they want to all be sent to sanctuary cities? They seem more accommodating...then we can build a wall around the sanctuary cities, lol
Does that mean that all the sanctuary cities can retain all the tax revenue generated in their cities? I know that here in Louisville, KY we'd love to keep our money for our local citizens rather than sending it out to the rest of the state that drains all our tax dollars all the while bitching about what happens here.
Yes, as long as it means you use no state or federal tax dollars in your city
Deal. Louisville alone generates about 70% of all revenue for the ENTIRE state so I'd say the rest of the state is screwed. You're ok with that, right?
I’m more than fine with that, but then again, I really don’t give a shit about KY, lol. KY does produce some good bourbon and fried chicken, though...and lube...or is that a different “KY”?
Maybe we should apply this to every sanctuary city and their corresponding state. My comment may be about KY but you can apply similar logic to all the other sanctuary cities throughout the US and the corresponding revenue that would be generated. I'm more than happy to host migrants here and I'll give up the citizens of the rest of my state and they can be taken care of by others just like them. But then again, its generally the 'libtard' cities that are taking care of the rest of 'real' America.
What is "real" America?
From Sarah Palin a few years ago, about how much she liked small town, "real" America. She backtracked after many were upset because it seemed that she was saying that small towns were part of real America while larger cities weren't "real" parts of America. I get what she was saying but it does seem like cities bear the brunt of blame so it sticks with you. (messed up quoting feature, oops)
Are we getting something out of this all-encompassing trip?
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
Havent read this thread but giving the illegals to sanctuary cities is a genius idea. Border towns are shitholes, spread the gift to all the places that have been begging for them.
Why wouldn’t they want to all be sent to sanctuary cities? They seem more accommodating...then we can build a wall around the sanctuary cities, lol
Does that mean that all the sanctuary cities can retain all the tax revenue generated in their cities? I know that here in Louisville, KY we'd love to keep our money for our local citizens rather than sending it out to the rest of the state that drains all our tax dollars all the while bitching about what happens here.
Yes, as long as it means you use no state or federal tax dollars in your city
Deal. Louisville alone generates about 70% of all revenue for the ENTIRE state so I'd say the rest of the state is screwed. You're ok with that, right?
I’m more than fine with that, but then again, I really don’t give a shit about KY, lol. KY does produce some good bourbon and fried chicken, though...and lube...or is that a different “KY”?
Maybe we should apply this to every sanctuary city and their corresponding state. My comment may be about KY but you can apply similar logic to all the other sanctuary cities throughout the US and the corresponding revenue that would be generated. I'm more than happy to host migrants here and I'll give up the citizens of the rest of my state and they can be taken care of by others just like them. But then again, its generally the 'libtard' cities that are taking care of the rest of 'real' America.
What is "real" America?
Here is a pic of San Francisco (sanctuary city) “taking care” of the homeless:
Jeesh...that's just terrible. The same shit happening here, Canada spends hundreds of millions processing refugees from the US instead of turning them back, and we have a growing homelessness problem and opioid crisis that needs correcting.
You know what will help with that homeless population and opioid epidemic? Just invite a couple thousand more homeless in by telling them they are coming to a sanctuary.
Well, at least the immigrants are typically hard working. I'd invite them to Seattle, and we'll set them up in exchange for helping clean up our shithole homeless encampments. I'd rather have hard working illegals in my city, than vagrant, derelict drug addicts creating health and crime issues. I'd prefer 12,000 illegals in exchange for the 12,000 homeless currently polluting my city. Deal? We'll send our homeless to D.C. and various Trump properties in exchange for illegals. I'd take that deal any day.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Havent read this thread but giving the illegals to sanctuary cities is a genius idea. Border towns are shitholes, spread the gift to all the places that have been begging for them.
Why wouldn’t they want to all be sent to sanctuary cities? They seem more accommodating...then we can build a wall around the sanctuary cities, lol
Does that mean that all the sanctuary cities can retain all the tax revenue generated in their cities? I know that here in Louisville, KY we'd love to keep our money for our local citizens rather than sending it out to the rest of the state that drains all our tax dollars all the while bitching about what happens here.
Yes, as long as it means you use no state or federal tax dollars in your city
Deal. Louisville alone generates about 70% of all revenue for the ENTIRE state so I'd say the rest of the state is screwed. You're ok with that, right?
I’m more than fine with that, but then again, I really don’t give a shit about KY, lol. KY does produce some good bourbon and fried chicken, though...and lube...or is that a different “KY”?
Maybe we should apply this to every sanctuary city and their corresponding state. My comment may be about KY but you can apply similar logic to all the other sanctuary cities throughout the US and the corresponding revenue that would be generated. I'm more than happy to host migrants here and I'll give up the citizens of the rest of my state and they can be taken care of by others just like them. But then again, its generally the 'libtard' cities that are taking care of the rest of 'real' America.
What is "real" America?
Here is a pic of San Francisco (sanctuary city) “taking care” of the homeless:
Jeesh...that's just terrible. The same shit happening here, Canada spends hundreds of millions processing refugees from the US instead of turning them back, and we have a growing homelessness problem and opioid crisis that needs correcting.
You know what will help with that homeless population and opioid epidemic? Just invite a couple thousand more homeless in by telling them they are coming to a sanctuary.
Well, at least the immigrants are typically hard working. I'd invite them to Seattle, and we'll set them up in exchange for helping clean up our shithole homeless encampments. I'd rather have hard working illegals in my city, than vagrant, derelict drug addicts creating health and crime issues. I'd prefer 12,000 illegals in exchange for the 12,000 homeless currently polluting my city. Deal? We'll send our homeless to D.C. and various Trump properties in exchange for illegals. I'd take that deal any day.
Sounds like a plan to me! Just gotta work out the “set them up” portion of it...What is the cost of living in Seattle these days? And isn’t that lack of ability for city government to “set them up” partially responsible for the crazy large homeless population in Seattle anyways? Or are they all just lazy drug addicts? Seattle must have a ton of entry level job opportunities that pay living wages for people that are not acclimated to the US culture.
Havent read this thread but giving the illegals to sanctuary cities is a genius idea. Border towns are shitholes, spread the gift to all the places that have been begging for them.
Why wouldn’t they want to all be sent to sanctuary cities? They seem more accommodating...then we can build a wall around the sanctuary cities, lol
Does that mean that all the sanctuary cities can retain all the tax revenue generated in their cities? I know that here in Louisville, KY we'd love to keep our money for our local citizens rather than sending it out to the rest of the state that drains all our tax dollars all the while bitching about what happens here.
Yes, as long as it means you use no state or federal tax dollars in your city
Deal. Louisville alone generates about 70% of all revenue for the ENTIRE state so I'd say the rest of the state is screwed. You're ok with that, right?
I’m more than fine with that, but then again, I really don’t give a shit about KY, lol. KY does produce some good bourbon and fried chicken, though...and lube...or is that a different “KY”?
Maybe we should apply this to every sanctuary city and their corresponding state. My comment may be about KY but you can apply similar logic to all the other sanctuary cities throughout the US and the corresponding revenue that would be generated. I'm more than happy to host migrants here and I'll give up the citizens of the rest of my state and they can be taken care of by others just like them. But then again, its generally the 'libtard' cities that are taking care of the rest of 'real' America.
What is "real" America?
Here is a pic of San Francisco (sanctuary city) “taking care” of the homeless:
Jeesh...that's just terrible. The same shit happening here, Canada spends hundreds of millions processing refugees from the US instead of turning them back, and we have a growing homelessness problem and opioid crisis that needs correcting.
You know what will help with that homeless population and opioid epidemic? Just invite a couple thousand more homeless in by telling them they are coming to a sanctuary.
Well, at least the immigrants are typically hard working. I'd invite them to Seattle, and we'll set them up in exchange for helping clean up our shithole homeless encampments. I'd rather have hard working illegals in my city, than vagrant, derelict drug addicts creating health and crime issues. I'd prefer 12,000 illegals in exchange for the 12,000 homeless currently polluting my city. Deal? We'll send our homeless to D.C. and various Trump properties in exchange for illegals. I'd take that deal any day.
Sounds like a plan to me! Just gotta work out the “set them up” portion of it...What is the cost of living in Seattle these days? And isn’t that lack of ability for city government to “set them up” partially responsible for the crazy large homeless population in Seattle anyways? Or are they all just lazy drug addicts? Seattle must have a ton of entry level job opportunities that pay living wages for people that are not acclimated to the US culture.
Oh, sure. But if we're moving out the homeless, we would already have shelters. And they wouldn't have expenses if we're housing them while they are being processed, after which time they'd be free to go wherever they'd like (or be deported if they hearing went that direction). We have lots of opportunity for agricultural work here in this state, and have farms experiencing difficulties getting crops harvested and to market due to lack of available labor.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Havent read this thread but giving the illegals to sanctuary cities is a genius idea. Border towns are shitholes, spread the gift to all the places that have been begging for them.
Why wouldn’t they want to all be sent to sanctuary cities? They seem more accommodating...then we can build a wall around the sanctuary cities, lol
Does that mean that all the sanctuary cities can retain all the tax revenue generated in their cities? I know that here in Louisville, KY we'd love to keep our money for our local citizens rather than sending it out to the rest of the state that drains all our tax dollars all the while bitching about what happens here.
Yes, as long as it means you use no state or federal tax dollars in your city
Deal. Louisville alone generates about 70% of all revenue for the ENTIRE state so I'd say the rest of the state is screwed. You're ok with that, right?
I’m more than fine with that, but then again, I really don’t give a shit about KY, lol. KY does produce some good bourbon and fried chicken, though...and lube...or is that a different “KY”?
Maybe we should apply this to every sanctuary city and their corresponding state. My comment may be about KY but you can apply similar logic to all the other sanctuary cities throughout the US and the corresponding revenue that would be generated. I'm more than happy to host migrants here and I'll give up the citizens of the rest of my state and they can be taken care of by others just like them. But then again, its generally the 'libtard' cities that are taking care of the rest of 'real' America.
Wow, such a libertarian you are. Trying to wrap my head around this. You are saying that you are cool with everyone fending for themselves except for those that are in your state and other states illegally? Does that about sum it up? And everyone seems cool with sanctuary cities carrying the burden, so what are you even complaining about? I’m thinking a majority of your cities taxes would be gobbled up with free housing and other costs related to the major influx of a homeless population, though...
In reality? No, I would never advocate for not taking care of anyone but I get beyond frustrated with people stating that they won't take care of others then waving their flag of morality around as if they are somehow better than these immigrants, legal or otherwise. I've long wondered where people's compassion and humanity have disappeared. I live in a solidly red state that continually vilifies those of us living in cities and advocating for those less fortunate, whether that is immigrants or the people of Appalachia or LGBTQ. It often feels as if people are continually blaming others rather than seeking a real solution. When I read your comment it seemed cavalier and one-sided. What I really want is not the same as the immense frustration that I feel about what has been happening in this country for a very long time now. It would be nice to see some level of compromise from everyone. I am a liberal surrounded by conservatives so I've had numerous conversations with real-life conservatives and at the end of the day not one conversation has ended in any sort of compromise from conservatives because they seem to believe they hold the high ground on almost every issue. These conversations have ranged from the most studied historians to ones who know very little about American history. I'm frustrated hearing that and then seeing those ideas perpetuated here. Doesn't mean any of these people, including you, aren't good people but it seems that over the course of the last 30 years that compromise seems to be viewed as weakness.
How is allowing illegal immigrants to reside only in sanctuary cities not a compromise? No compromise=“build the wall” and let no one illegally immigrate.
It’s funny to read how the anti immigrants here can’t fathom that there are cities that would take these humans and just treat them like humans , unlike what this administration is doing treating them like dogs !
Who here is anti-immigrant? Immigrants are wonderful and add so much to society...especially the ones that do it legally. I think everyone here is pro-legal immigration. Enough with the labels Jose.
It’s funny to read how the anti immigrants here can’t fathom that there are cities that would take these humans and just treat them like humans , unlike what this administration is doing treating them like dogs !
Who here is anti-immigrant? Immigrants are wonderful and add so much to society...especially the ones that do it legally. I think everyone here is pro-legal immigration. Enough with the labels Jose.
Why do you take exception I didn’t name anyone ?
My point exactly, there is no one to name. Your statement was fallacious. And point out where I took exception, I merely asked who the hell you were talking about, because I have seen no “anti-immigrants here” as you specifically stated.
Havent read this thread but giving the illegals to sanctuary cities is a genius idea. Border towns are shitholes, spread the gift to all the places that have been begging for them.
Why wouldn’t they want to all be sent to sanctuary cities? They seem more accommodating...then we can build a wall around the sanctuary cities, lol
Does that mean that all the sanctuary cities can retain all the tax revenue generated in their cities? I know that here in Louisville, KY we'd love to keep our money for our local citizens rather than sending it out to the rest of the state that drains all our tax dollars all the while bitching about what happens here.
Yes, as long as it means you use no state or federal tax dollars in your city
Deal. Louisville alone generates about 70% of all revenue for the ENTIRE state so I'd say the rest of the state is screwed. You're ok with that, right?
I’m more than fine with that, but then again, I really don’t give a shit about KY, lol. KY does produce some good bourbon and fried chicken, though...and lube...or is that a different “KY”?
Maybe we should apply this to every sanctuary city and their corresponding state. My comment may be about KY but you can apply similar logic to all the other sanctuary cities throughout the US and the corresponding revenue that would be generated. I'm more than happy to host migrants here and I'll give up the citizens of the rest of my state and they can be taken care of by others just like them. But then again, its generally the 'libtard' cities that are taking care of the rest of 'real' America.
What is "real" America?
Here is a pic of San Francisco (sanctuary city) “taking care” of the homeless:
Jeesh...that's just terrible. The same shit happening here, Canada spends hundreds of millions processing refugees from the US instead of turning them back, and we have a growing homelessness problem and opioid crisis that needs correcting.
You know what will help with that homeless population and opioid epidemic? Just invite a couple thousand more homeless in by telling them they are coming to a sanctuary.
Well, at least the immigrants are typically hard working. I'd invite them to Seattle, and we'll set them up in exchange for helping clean up our shithole homeless encampments. I'd rather have hard working illegals in my city, than vagrant, derelict drug addicts creating health and crime issues. I'd prefer 12,000 illegals in exchange for the 12,000 homeless currently polluting my city. Deal? We'll send our homeless to D.C. and various Trump properties in exchange for illegals. I'd take that deal any day.
I sense you are more frustrated about the Seattle situation. I became friends with a nurse who worked with the homeless. She said that most of the homeless will NEVER function like most people. They are unemployable, they either have drug problems, mental health problems, come from extreme abuse, PTSD or some other ailment that makes it hard for them to be employable. But most importantly, very few recover once that needle with drugs enters the veins...1 dose and your life changes forever...and many of these people resort to drugs to bury their pain.
Havent read this thread but giving the illegals to sanctuary cities is a genius idea. Border towns are shitholes, spread the gift to all the places that have been begging for them.
Why wouldn’t they want to all be sent to sanctuary cities? They seem more accommodating...then we can build a wall around the sanctuary cities, lol
Does that mean that all the sanctuary cities can retain all the tax revenue generated in their cities? I know that here in Louisville, KY we'd love to keep our money for our local citizens rather than sending it out to the rest of the state that drains all our tax dollars all the while bitching about what happens here.
Yes, as long as it means you use no state or federal tax dollars in your city
Deal. Louisville alone generates about 70% of all revenue for the ENTIRE state so I'd say the rest of the state is screwed. You're ok with that, right?
I’m more than fine with that, but then again, I really don’t give a shit about KY, lol. KY does produce some good bourbon and fried chicken, though...and lube...or is that a different “KY”?
Maybe we should apply this to every sanctuary city and their corresponding state. My comment may be about KY but you can apply similar logic to all the other sanctuary cities throughout the US and the corresponding revenue that would be generated. I'm more than happy to host migrants here and I'll give up the citizens of the rest of my state and they can be taken care of by others just like them. But then again, its generally the 'libtard' cities that are taking care of the rest of 'real' America.
Wow, such a libertarian you are. Trying to wrap my head around this. You are saying that you are cool with everyone fending for themselves except for those that are in your state and other states illegally? Does that about sum it up? And everyone seems cool with sanctuary cities carrying the burden, so what are you even complaining about? I’m thinking a majority of your cities taxes would be gobbled up with free housing and other costs related to the major influx of a homeless population, though...
In reality? No, I would never advocate for not taking care of anyone but I get beyond frustrated with people stating that they won't take care of others then waving their flag of morality around as if they are somehow better than these immigrants, legal or otherwise. I've long wondered where people's compassion and humanity have disappeared. I live in a solidly red state that continually vilifies those of us living in cities and advocating for those less fortunate, whether that is immigrants or the people of Appalachia or LGBTQ. It often feels as if people are continually blaming others rather than seeking a real solution. When I read your comment it seemed cavalier and one-sided. What I really want is not the same as the immense frustration that I feel about what has been happening in this country for a very long time now. It would be nice to see some level of compromise from everyone. I am a liberal surrounded by conservatives so I've had numerous conversations with real-life conservatives and at the end of the day not one conversation has ended in any sort of compromise from conservatives because they seem to believe they hold the high ground on almost every issue. These conversations have ranged from the most studied historians to ones who know very little about American history. I'm frustrated hearing that and then seeing those ideas perpetuated here. Doesn't mean any of these people, including you, aren't good people but it seems that over the course of the last 30 years that compromise seems to be viewed as weakness.
How is allowing illegal immigrants to reside only in sanctuary cities not a compromise? No compromise=“build the wall” and let no one illegally immigrate.
Explain the logistics of this compromise. Will they be processed through facilities at the border? Moved at whose expense, the sanctuary cities? But, as stated previously, these cities are also responsible for sending many of their tax dollars to the state level and not allowed to keep their dollars at home which could benefit immigrants, the homeless, AND other citizens. The reality is that many of these people are asking for asylum and I think we agree that not all would qualify to enter the US but many of them would. And what about the responsibility of the US in Latin America? The US has never had a problem intervening in Latin America when it suited its purposes and has never shied away from supporting questionable leaders as long as they were supportive of the US. Real compromise then starts to look at changing our immigration laws to better fit our needs. But I dare say we'd disagree there as well then we're back to a circular conversation. No one wants to address the realities of compromise. Immigrants need to be vetted at the borders THEN moved to sanctuary cities. But that means more money for border detention facilities and more border agents not more money for some silly wall that will never keep anyone out. At the end of the day, many conservatives that I've had conversations with seem more worried about keeping out immigrants even though it has been well documented that they often make far greater positive contributions than they do negative ones. Why are so many afraid of allowing immigrants into the US? Despite Trump's nonsense arguments about being full we really aren't. What about the part of the Constitution that proclaims the common good? When did we forget that part?
Are we getting something out of this all-encompassing trip?
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
Havent read this thread but giving the illegals to sanctuary cities is a genius idea. Border towns are shitholes, spread the gift to all the places that have been begging for them.
Why wouldn’t they want to all be sent to sanctuary cities? They seem more accommodating...then we can build a wall around the sanctuary cities, lol
Does that mean that all the sanctuary cities can retain all the tax revenue generated in their cities? I know that here in Louisville, KY we'd love to keep our money for our local citizens rather than sending it out to the rest of the state that drains all our tax dollars all the while bitching about what happens here.
Yes, as long as it means you use no state or federal tax dollars in your city
Deal. Louisville alone generates about 70% of all revenue for the ENTIRE state so I'd say the rest of the state is screwed. You're ok with that, right?
I’m more than fine with that, but then again, I really don’t give a shit about KY, lol. KY does produce some good bourbon and fried chicken, though...and lube...or is that a different “KY”?
Maybe we should apply this to every sanctuary city and their corresponding state. My comment may be about KY but you can apply similar logic to all the other sanctuary cities throughout the US and the corresponding revenue that would be generated. I'm more than happy to host migrants here and I'll give up the citizens of the rest of my state and they can be taken care of by others just like them. But then again, its generally the 'libtard' cities that are taking care of the rest of 'real' America.
Wow, such a libertarian you are. Trying to wrap my head around this. You are saying that you are cool with everyone fending for themselves except for those that are in your state and other states illegally? Does that about sum it up? And everyone seems cool with sanctuary cities carrying the burden, so what are you even complaining about? I’m thinking a majority of your cities taxes would be gobbled up with free housing and other costs related to the major influx of a homeless population, though...
In reality? No, I would never advocate for not taking care of anyone but I get beyond frustrated with people stating that they won't take care of others then waving their flag of morality around as if they are somehow better than these immigrants, legal or otherwise. I've long wondered where people's compassion and humanity have disappeared. I live in a solidly red state that continually vilifies those of us living in cities and advocating for those less fortunate, whether that is immigrants or the people of Appalachia or LGBTQ. It often feels as if people are continually blaming others rather than seeking a real solution. When I read your comment it seemed cavalier and one-sided. What I really want is not the same as the immense frustration that I feel about what has been happening in this country for a very long time now. It would be nice to see some level of compromise from everyone. I am a liberal surrounded by conservatives so I've had numerous conversations with real-life conservatives and at the end of the day not one conversation has ended in any sort of compromise from conservatives because they seem to believe they hold the high ground on almost every issue. These conversations have ranged from the most studied historians to ones who know very little about American history. I'm frustrated hearing that and then seeing those ideas perpetuated here. Doesn't mean any of these people, including you, aren't good people but it seems that over the course of the last 30 years that compromise seems to be viewed as weakness.
How is allowing illegal immigrants to reside only in sanctuary cities not a compromise? No compromise=“build the wall” and let no one illegally immigrate.
Explain the logistics of this compromise. Will they be processed through facilities at the border? Moved at whose expense, the sanctuary cities? But, as stated previously, these cities are also responsible for sending many of their tax dollars to the state level and not allowed to keep their dollars at home which could benefit immigrants, the homeless, AND other citizens. The reality is that many of these people are asking for asylum and I think we agree that not all would qualify to enter the US but many of them would. And what about the responsibility of the US in Latin America? The US has never had a problem intervening in Latin America when it suited its purposes and has never shied away from supporting questionable leaders as long as they were supportive of the US. Real compromise then starts to look at changing our immigration laws to better fit our needs. But I dare say we'd disagree there as well then we're back to a circular conversation. No one wants to address the realities of compromise. Immigrants need to be vetted at the borders THEN moved to sanctuary cities. But that means more money for border detention facilities and more border agents not more money for some silly wall that will never keep anyone out. At the end of the day, many conservatives that I've had conversations with seem more worried about keeping out immigrants even though it has been well documented that they often make far greater positive contributions than they do negative ones. Why are so many afraid of allowing immigrants into the US? Despite Trump's nonsense arguments about being full we really aren't. What about the part of the Constitution that proclaims the common good? When did we forget that part?
There it is again. No one that I’ve seen “fears allowing immigrants into the US”. Any conservative I have ever talked to is okay with legal immigration where they are vetted and given an ID. If they were processed appropriately at the border, there would be no “need” for sanctuary cities as they would just be normal legal citizens at that point. The concern with sanctuary cities is that they invite and encourage illegal immigration. And you are right to ask “at the expense of who?”. Of course the methods for vetting these thousand of asylum seekers needing to be vetted, but how are you going to do that with open borders (which is essentially what it is now).
I don't get the argument about sanctuary cities noythaving to share taxes with state and federal government. If there is a complaint about sharing tax dollars that the illegals would bring in, then first the sanctuary cities need to stop accepting state and federal tax. But then don't expect free schools. Schools get about $10,000 per student from taxes. You think an illegal student brings in more than that $10,000 in taxes? I imagine sanctuary cities would still benefit greatly for sharing their tax revenue in exchange for school funding. Many of these schools, particulary in areas like South-Central LA, are made up of mostly illegal residents, there wouldn't even be a school if it wasn't state and federally funded, but just locally funded instead. A district with 100 illegal students gets a million $ from government. Many districts have far more than that, and literally receive tens of millions in state and federal funding. Its estimated that 65,000 undocumented students graduate high school every year. That doesn't account for the other 12 grades or those who dropped out, but 65,000 who graduate (26,000 in California alone) (https://irle.ucla.edu/old/publications/documents/Undocumented-Students.pdf). Its a massive strain on education to fund this. Also the main reason I don't understand why so many don't recognize the financial cost everyone, including immigrants, is. Without state and federal funding (taxes), where is that $10,000 per student to fund education going to come from? Does an undocumented family living in a sanctuary city with 3 school-aged kids really bring in $30,000/year in taxes?
I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to be educated, I'm just saying lets at least recognize the cost and the fact that our system is already underfunded.
Havent read this thread but giving the illegals to sanctuary cities is a genius idea. Border towns are shitholes, spread the gift to all the places that have been begging for them.
Why wouldn’t they want to all be sent to sanctuary cities? They seem more accommodating...then we can build a wall around the sanctuary cities, lol
Does that mean that all the sanctuary cities can retain all the tax revenue generated in their cities? I know that here in Louisville, KY we'd love to keep our money for our local citizens rather than sending it out to the rest of the state that drains all our tax dollars all the while bitching about what happens here.
Yes, as long as it means you use no state or federal tax dollars in your city
Deal. Louisville alone generates about 70% of all revenue for the ENTIRE state so I'd say the rest of the state is screwed. You're ok with that, right?
I’m more than fine with that, but then again, I really don’t give a shit about KY, lol. KY does produce some good bourbon and fried chicken, though...and lube...or is that a different “KY”?
Maybe we should apply this to every sanctuary city and their corresponding state. My comment may be about KY but you can apply similar logic to all the other sanctuary cities throughout the US and the corresponding revenue that would be generated. I'm more than happy to host migrants here and I'll give up the citizens of the rest of my state and they can be taken care of by others just like them. But then again, its generally the 'libtard' cities that are taking care of the rest of 'real' America.
Wow, such a libertarian you are. Trying to wrap my head around this. You are saying that you are cool with everyone fending for themselves except for those that are in your state and other states illegally? Does that about sum it up? And everyone seems cool with sanctuary cities carrying the burden, so what are you even complaining about? I’m thinking a majority of your cities taxes would be gobbled up with free housing and other costs related to the major influx of a homeless population, though...
In reality? No, I would never advocate for not taking care of anyone but I get beyond frustrated with people stating that they won't take care of others then waving their flag of morality around as if they are somehow better than these immigrants, legal or otherwise. I've long wondered where people's compassion and humanity have disappeared. I live in a solidly red state that continually vilifies those of us living in cities and advocating for those less fortunate, whether that is immigrants or the people of Appalachia or LGBTQ. It often feels as if people are continually blaming others rather than seeking a real solution. When I read your comment it seemed cavalier and one-sided. What I really want is not the same as the immense frustration that I feel about what has been happening in this country for a very long time now. It would be nice to see some level of compromise from everyone. I am a liberal surrounded by conservatives so I've had numerous conversations with real-life conservatives and at the end of the day not one conversation has ended in any sort of compromise from conservatives because they seem to believe they hold the high ground on almost every issue. These conversations have ranged from the most studied historians to ones who know very little about American history. I'm frustrated hearing that and then seeing those ideas perpetuated here. Doesn't mean any of these people, including you, aren't good people but it seems that over the course of the last 30 years that compromise seems to be viewed as weakness.
How is allowing illegal immigrants to reside only in sanctuary cities not a compromise? No compromise=“build the wall” and let no one illegally immigrate.
Explain the logistics of this compromise. Will they be processed through facilities at the border? Moved at whose expense, the sanctuary cities? But, as stated previously, these cities are also responsible for sending many of their tax dollars to the state level and not allowed to keep their dollars at home which could benefit immigrants, the homeless, AND other citizens. The reality is that many of these people are asking for asylum and I think we agree that not all would qualify to enter the US but many of them would. And what about the responsibility of the US in Latin America? The US has never had a problem intervening in Latin America when it suited its purposes and has never shied away from supporting questionable leaders as long as they were supportive of the US. Real compromise then starts to look at changing our immigration laws to better fit our needs. But I dare say we'd disagree there as well then we're back to a circular conversation. No one wants to address the realities of compromise. Immigrants need to be vetted at the borders THEN moved to sanctuary cities. But that means more money for border detention facilities and more border agents not more money for some silly wall that will never keep anyone out. At the end of the day, many conservatives that I've had conversations with seem more worried about keeping out immigrants even though it has been well documented that they often make far greater positive contributions than they do negative ones. Why are so many afraid of allowing immigrants into the US? Despite Trump's nonsense arguments about being full we really aren't. What about the part of the Constitution that proclaims the common good? When did we forget that part?
There it is again. No one that I’ve seen “fears allowing immigrants into the US”. Any conservative I have ever talked to is okay with legal immigration where they are vetted and given an ID. If they were processed appropriately at the border, there would be no “need” for sanctuary cities as they would just be normal legal citizens at that point. The concern with sanctuary cities is that they invite and encourage illegal immigration. And you are right to ask “at the expense of who?”. Of course the methods for vetting these thousand of asylum seekers needing to be vetted, but how are you going to do that with open borders (which is essentially what it is now).
And how will that get done with the current administration all they want is a wall , you talk as if this administration has its hands tied you want better process tell the Baffoon to hire more judges and build more processing centers ..
Havent read this thread but giving the illegals to sanctuary cities is a genius idea. Border towns are shitholes, spread the gift to all the places that have been begging for them.
Why wouldn’t they want to all be sent to sanctuary cities? They seem more accommodating...then we can build a wall around the sanctuary cities, lol
Does that mean that all the sanctuary cities can retain all the tax revenue generated in their cities? I know that here in Louisville, KY we'd love to keep our money for our local citizens rather than sending it out to the rest of the state that drains all our tax dollars all the while bitching about what happens here.
Yes, as long as it means you use no state or federal tax dollars in your city
Deal. Louisville alone generates about 70% of all revenue for the ENTIRE state so I'd say the rest of the state is screwed. You're ok with that, right?
I’m more than fine with that, but then again, I really don’t give a shit about KY, lol. KY does produce some good bourbon and fried chicken, though...and lube...or is that a different “KY”?
Maybe we should apply this to every sanctuary city and their corresponding state. My comment may be about KY but you can apply similar logic to all the other sanctuary cities throughout the US and the corresponding revenue that would be generated. I'm more than happy to host migrants here and I'll give up the citizens of the rest of my state and they can be taken care of by others just like them. But then again, its generally the 'libtard' cities that are taking care of the rest of 'real' America.
Wow, such a libertarian you are. Trying to wrap my head around this. You are saying that you are cool with everyone fending for themselves except for those that are in your state and other states illegally? Does that about sum it up? And everyone seems cool with sanctuary cities carrying the burden, so what are you even complaining about? I’m thinking a majority of your cities taxes would be gobbled up with free housing and other costs related to the major influx of a homeless population, though...
In reality? No, I would never advocate for not taking care of anyone but I get beyond frustrated with people stating that they won't take care of others then waving their flag of morality around as if they are somehow better than these immigrants, legal or otherwise. I've long wondered where people's compassion and humanity have disappeared. I live in a solidly red state that continually vilifies those of us living in cities and advocating for those less fortunate, whether that is immigrants or the people of Appalachia or LGBTQ. It often feels as if people are continually blaming others rather than seeking a real solution. When I read your comment it seemed cavalier and one-sided. What I really want is not the same as the immense frustration that I feel about what has been happening in this country for a very long time now. It would be nice to see some level of compromise from everyone. I am a liberal surrounded by conservatives so I've had numerous conversations with real-life conservatives and at the end of the day not one conversation has ended in any sort of compromise from conservatives because they seem to believe they hold the high ground on almost every issue. These conversations have ranged from the most studied historians to ones who know very little about American history. I'm frustrated hearing that and then seeing those ideas perpetuated here. Doesn't mean any of these people, including you, aren't good people but it seems that over the course of the last 30 years that compromise seems to be viewed as weakness.
How is allowing illegal immigrants to reside only in sanctuary cities not a compromise? No compromise=“build the wall” and let no one illegally immigrate.
Explain the logistics of this compromise. Will they be processed through facilities at the border? Moved at whose expense, the sanctuary cities? But, as stated previously, these cities are also responsible for sending many of their tax dollars to the state level and not allowed to keep their dollars at home which could benefit immigrants, the homeless, AND other citizens. The reality is that many of these people are asking for asylum and I think we agree that not all would qualify to enter the US but many of them would. And what about the responsibility of the US in Latin America? The US has never had a problem intervening in Latin America when it suited its purposes and has never shied away from supporting questionable leaders as long as they were supportive of the US. Real compromise then starts to look at changing our immigration laws to better fit our needs. But I dare say we'd disagree there as well then we're back to a circular conversation. No one wants to address the realities of compromise. Immigrants need to be vetted at the borders THEN moved to sanctuary cities. But that means more money for border detention facilities and more border agents not more money for some silly wall that will never keep anyone out. At the end of the day, many conservatives that I've had conversations with seem more worried about keeping out immigrants even though it has been well documented that they often make far greater positive contributions than they do negative ones. Why are so many afraid of allowing immigrants into the US? Despite Trump's nonsense arguments about being full we really aren't. What about the part of the Constitution that proclaims the common good? When did we forget that part?
There it is again. No one that I’ve seen “fears allowing immigrants into the US”. Any conservative I have ever talked to is okay with legal immigration where they are vetted and given an ID. If they were processed appropriately at the border, there would be no “need” for sanctuary cities as they would just be normal legal citizens at that point. The concern with sanctuary cities is that they invite and encourage illegal immigration. And you are right to ask “at the expense of who?”. Of course the methods for vetting these thousand of asylum seekers needing to be vetted, but how are you going to do that with open borders (which is essentially what it is now).
And how will that get done with the current administration all they want is a wall , you talk as if this administration has its hands tied you want better process tell the Baffoon to hire more judges and build more processing centers ..
77 countries have some sort of wall. Hardly a new concept. So when are you going to hold economic migrants accountable for putting their family and themselves at risk...at some point, these migrants have to understand that if they are not willing to come through the front door and enter illegally that they are taking a risk...and with risk comes consequences.
Havent read this thread but giving the illegals to sanctuary cities is a genius idea. Border towns are shitholes, spread the gift to all the places that have been begging for them.
Why wouldn’t they want to all be sent to sanctuary cities? They seem more accommodating...then we can build a wall around the sanctuary cities, lol
Does that mean that all the sanctuary cities can retain all the tax revenue generated in their cities? I know that here in Louisville, KY we'd love to keep our money for our local citizens rather than sending it out to the rest of the state that drains all our tax dollars all the while bitching about what happens here.
Yes, as long as it means you use no state or federal tax dollars in your city
Deal. Louisville alone generates about 70% of all revenue for the ENTIRE state so I'd say the rest of the state is screwed. You're ok with that, right?
I’m more than fine with that, but then again, I really don’t give a shit about KY, lol. KY does produce some good bourbon and fried chicken, though...and lube...or is that a different “KY”?
Maybe we should apply this to every sanctuary city and their corresponding state. My comment may be about KY but you can apply similar logic to all the other sanctuary cities throughout the US and the corresponding revenue that would be generated. I'm more than happy to host migrants here and I'll give up the citizens of the rest of my state and they can be taken care of by others just like them. But then again, its generally the 'libtard' cities that are taking care of the rest of 'real' America.
Wow, such a libertarian you are. Trying to wrap my head around this. You are saying that you are cool with everyone fending for themselves except for those that are in your state and other states illegally? Does that about sum it up? And everyone seems cool with sanctuary cities carrying the burden, so what are you even complaining about? I’m thinking a majority of your cities taxes would be gobbled up with free housing and other costs related to the major influx of a homeless population, though...
In reality? No, I would never advocate for not taking care of anyone but I get beyond frustrated with people stating that they won't take care of others then waving their flag of morality around as if they are somehow better than these immigrants, legal or otherwise. I've long wondered where people's compassion and humanity have disappeared. I live in a solidly red state that continually vilifies those of us living in cities and advocating for those less fortunate, whether that is immigrants or the people of Appalachia or LGBTQ. It often feels as if people are continually blaming others rather than seeking a real solution. When I read your comment it seemed cavalier and one-sided. What I really want is not the same as the immense frustration that I feel about what has been happening in this country for a very long time now. It would be nice to see some level of compromise from everyone. I am a liberal surrounded by conservatives so I've had numerous conversations with real-life conservatives and at the end of the day not one conversation has ended in any sort of compromise from conservatives because they seem to believe they hold the high ground on almost every issue. These conversations have ranged from the most studied historians to ones who know very little about American history. I'm frustrated hearing that and then seeing those ideas perpetuated here. Doesn't mean any of these people, including you, aren't good people but it seems that over the course of the last 30 years that compromise seems to be viewed as weakness.
How is allowing illegal immigrants to reside only in sanctuary cities not a compromise? No compromise=“build the wall” and let no one illegally immigrate.
Explain the logistics of this compromise. Will they be processed through facilities at the border? Moved at whose expense, the sanctuary cities? But, as stated previously, these cities are also responsible for sending many of their tax dollars to the state level and not allowed to keep their dollars at home which could benefit immigrants, the homeless, AND other citizens. The reality is that many of these people are asking for asylum and I think we agree that not all would qualify to enter the US but many of them would. And what about the responsibility of the US in Latin America? The US has never had a problem intervening in Latin America when it suited its purposes and has never shied away from supporting questionable leaders as long as they were supportive of the US. Real compromise then starts to look at changing our immigration laws to better fit our needs. But I dare say we'd disagree there as well then we're back to a circular conversation. No one wants to address the realities of compromise. Immigrants need to be vetted at the borders THEN moved to sanctuary cities. But that means more money for border detention facilities and more border agents not more money for some silly wall that will never keep anyone out. At the end of the day, many conservatives that I've had conversations with seem more worried about keeping out immigrants even though it has been well documented that they often make far greater positive contributions than they do negative ones. Why are so many afraid of allowing immigrants into the US? Despite Trump's nonsense arguments about being full we really aren't. What about the part of the Constitution that proclaims the common good? When did we forget that part?
There it is again. No one that I’ve seen “fears allowing immigrants into the US”. Any conservative I have ever talked to is okay with legal immigration where they are vetted and given an ID. If they were processed appropriately at the border, there would be no “need” for sanctuary cities as they would just be normal legal citizens at that point. The concern with sanctuary cities is that they invite and encourage illegal immigration. And you are right to ask “at the expense of who?”. Of course the methods for vetting these thousand of asylum seekers needing to be vetted, but how are you going to do that with open borders (which is essentially what it is now).
And how will that get done with the current administration all they want is a wall , you talk as if this administration has its hands tied you want better process tell the Baffoon to hire more judges and build more processing centers ..
It hasn’t been done with the last however many administrations, so I’m not holding my breath. And I really do not know the “Baffoon” on a speaking basis...so...
Havent read this thread but giving the illegals to sanctuary cities is a genius idea. Border towns are shitholes, spread the gift to all the places that have been begging for them.
Why wouldn’t they want to all be sent to sanctuary cities? They seem more accommodating...then we can build a wall around the sanctuary cities, lol
Does that mean that all the sanctuary cities can retain all the tax revenue generated in their cities? I know that here in Louisville, KY we'd love to keep our money for our local citizens rather than sending it out to the rest of the state that drains all our tax dollars all the while bitching about what happens here.
Yes, as long as it means you use no state or federal tax dollars in your city
Deal. Louisville alone generates about 70% of all revenue for the ENTIRE state so I'd say the rest of the state is screwed. You're ok with that, right?
I’m more than fine with that, but then again, I really don’t give a shit about KY, lol. KY does produce some good bourbon and fried chicken, though...and lube...or is that a different “KY”?
Maybe we should apply this to every sanctuary city and their corresponding state. My comment may be about KY but you can apply similar logic to all the other sanctuary cities throughout the US and the corresponding revenue that would be generated. I'm more than happy to host migrants here and I'll give up the citizens of the rest of my state and they can be taken care of by others just like them. But then again, its generally the 'libtard' cities that are taking care of the rest of 'real' America.
Wow, such a libertarian you are. Trying to wrap my head around this. You are saying that you are cool with everyone fending for themselves except for those that are in your state and other states illegally? Does that about sum it up? And everyone seems cool with sanctuary cities carrying the burden, so what are you even complaining about? I’m thinking a majority of your cities taxes would be gobbled up with free housing and other costs related to the major influx of a homeless population, though...
In reality? No, I would never advocate for not taking care of anyone but I get beyond frustrated with people stating that they won't take care of others then waving their flag of morality around as if they are somehow better than these immigrants, legal or otherwise. I've long wondered where people's compassion and humanity have disappeared. I live in a solidly red state that continually vilifies those of us living in cities and advocating for those less fortunate, whether that is immigrants or the people of Appalachia or LGBTQ. It often feels as if people are continually blaming others rather than seeking a real solution. When I read your comment it seemed cavalier and one-sided. What I really want is not the same as the immense frustration that I feel about what has been happening in this country for a very long time now. It would be nice to see some level of compromise from everyone. I am a liberal surrounded by conservatives so I've had numerous conversations with real-life conservatives and at the end of the day not one conversation has ended in any sort of compromise from conservatives because they seem to believe they hold the high ground on almost every issue. These conversations have ranged from the most studied historians to ones who know very little about American history. I'm frustrated hearing that and then seeing those ideas perpetuated here. Doesn't mean any of these people, including you, aren't good people but it seems that over the course of the last 30 years that compromise seems to be viewed as weakness.
How is allowing illegal immigrants to reside only in sanctuary cities not a compromise? No compromise=“build the wall” and let no one illegally immigrate.
Explain the logistics of this compromise. Will they be processed through facilities at the border? Moved at whose expense, the sanctuary cities? But, as stated previously, these cities are also responsible for sending many of their tax dollars to the state level and not allowed to keep their dollars at home which could benefit immigrants, the homeless, AND other citizens. The reality is that many of these people are asking for asylum and I think we agree that not all would qualify to enter the US but many of them would. And what about the responsibility of the US in Latin America? The US has never had a problem intervening in Latin America when it suited its purposes and has never shied away from supporting questionable leaders as long as they were supportive of the US. Real compromise then starts to look at changing our immigration laws to better fit our needs. But I dare say we'd disagree there as well then we're back to a circular conversation. No one wants to address the realities of compromise. Immigrants need to be vetted at the borders THEN moved to sanctuary cities. But that means more money for border detention facilities and more border agents not more money for some silly wall that will never keep anyone out. At the end of the day, many conservatives that I've had conversations with seem more worried about keeping out immigrants even though it has been well documented that they often make far greater positive contributions than they do negative ones. Why are so many afraid of allowing immigrants into the US? Despite Trump's nonsense arguments about being full we really aren't. What about the part of the Constitution that proclaims the common good? When did we forget that part?
There it is again. No one that I’ve seen “fears allowing immigrants into the US”. Any conservative I have ever talked to is okay with legal immigration where they are vetted and given an ID. If they were processed appropriately at the border, there would be no “need” for sanctuary cities as they would just be normal legal citizens at that point. The concern with sanctuary cities is that they invite and encourage illegal immigration. And you are right to ask “at the expense of who?”. Of course the methods for vetting these thousand of asylum seekers needing to be vetted, but how are you going to do that with open borders (which is essentially what it is now).
And how will that get done with the current administration all they want is a wall , you talk as if this administration has its hands tied you want better process tell the Baffoon to hire more judges and build more processing centers ..
It hasn’t been done with the last however many administrations, so I’m not holding my breath. And I really do not know the “Baffoon” on a speaking basis...so...
Havent read this thread but giving the illegals to sanctuary cities is a genius idea. Border towns are shitholes, spread the gift to all the places that have been begging for them.
Why wouldn’t they want to all be sent to sanctuary cities? They seem more accommodating...then we can build a wall around the sanctuary cities, lol
Does that mean that all the sanctuary cities can retain all the tax revenue generated in their cities? I know that here in Louisville, KY we'd love to keep our money for our local citizens rather than sending it out to the rest of the state that drains all our tax dollars all the while bitching about what happens here.
Yes, as long as it means you use no state or federal tax dollars in your city
Deal. Louisville alone generates about 70% of all revenue for the ENTIRE state so I'd say the rest of the state is screwed. You're ok with that, right?
I’m more than fine with that, but then again, I really don’t give a shit about KY, lol. KY does produce some good bourbon and fried chicken, though...and lube...or is that a different “KY”?
Maybe we should apply this to every sanctuary city and their corresponding state. My comment may be about KY but you can apply similar logic to all the other sanctuary cities throughout the US and the corresponding revenue that would be generated. I'm more than happy to host migrants here and I'll give up the citizens of the rest of my state and they can be taken care of by others just like them. But then again, its generally the 'libtard' cities that are taking care of the rest of 'real' America.
Wow, such a libertarian you are. Trying to wrap my head around this. You are saying that you are cool with everyone fending for themselves except for those that are in your state and other states illegally? Does that about sum it up? And everyone seems cool with sanctuary cities carrying the burden, so what are you even complaining about? I’m thinking a majority of your cities taxes would be gobbled up with free housing and other costs related to the major influx of a homeless population, though...
In reality? No, I would never advocate for not taking care of anyone but I get beyond frustrated with people stating that they won't take care of others then waving their flag of morality around as if they are somehow better than these immigrants, legal or otherwise. I've long wondered where people's compassion and humanity have disappeared. I live in a solidly red state that continually vilifies those of us living in cities and advocating for those less fortunate, whether that is immigrants or the people of Appalachia or LGBTQ. It often feels as if people are continually blaming others rather than seeking a real solution. When I read your comment it seemed cavalier and one-sided. What I really want is not the same as the immense frustration that I feel about what has been happening in this country for a very long time now. It would be nice to see some level of compromise from everyone. I am a liberal surrounded by conservatives so I've had numerous conversations with real-life conservatives and at the end of the day not one conversation has ended in any sort of compromise from conservatives because they seem to believe they hold the high ground on almost every issue. These conversations have ranged from the most studied historians to ones who know very little about American history. I'm frustrated hearing that and then seeing those ideas perpetuated here. Doesn't mean any of these people, including you, aren't good people but it seems that over the course of the last 30 years that compromise seems to be viewed as weakness.
How is allowing illegal immigrants to reside only in sanctuary cities not a compromise? No compromise=“build the wall” and let no one illegally immigrate.
Explain the logistics of this compromise. Will they be processed through facilities at the border? Moved at whose expense, the sanctuary cities? But, as stated previously, these cities are also responsible for sending many of their tax dollars to the state level and not allowed to keep their dollars at home which could benefit immigrants, the homeless, AND other citizens. The reality is that many of these people are asking for asylum and I think we agree that not all would qualify to enter the US but many of them would. And what about the responsibility of the US in Latin America? The US has never had a problem intervening in Latin America when it suited its purposes and has never shied away from supporting questionable leaders as long as they were supportive of the US. Real compromise then starts to look at changing our immigration laws to better fit our needs. But I dare say we'd disagree there as well then we're back to a circular conversation. No one wants to address the realities of compromise. Immigrants need to be vetted at the borders THEN moved to sanctuary cities. But that means more money for border detention facilities and more border agents not more money for some silly wall that will never keep anyone out. At the end of the day, many conservatives that I've had conversations with seem more worried about keeping out immigrants even though it has been well documented that they often make far greater positive contributions than they do negative ones. Why are so many afraid of allowing immigrants into the US? Despite Trump's nonsense arguments about being full we really aren't. What about the part of the Constitution that proclaims the common good? When did we forget that part?
There it is again. No one that I’ve seen “fears allowing immigrants into the US”. Any conservative I have ever talked to is okay with legal immigration where they are vetted and given an ID. If they were processed appropriately at the border, there would be no “need” for sanctuary cities as they would just be normal legal citizens at that point. The concern with sanctuary cities is that they invite and encourage illegal immigration. And you are right to ask “at the expense of who?”. Of course the methods for vetting these thousand of asylum seekers needing to be vetted, but how are you going to do that with open borders (which is essentially what it is now).
And how will that get done with the current administration all they want is a wall , you talk as if this administration has its hands tied you want better process tell the Baffoon to hire more judges and build more processing centers ..
It hasn’t been done with the last however many administrations, so I’m not holding my breath. And I really do not know the “Baffoon” on a speaking basis...so...
Havent read this thread but giving the illegals to sanctuary cities is a genius idea. Border towns are shitholes, spread the gift to all the places that have been begging for them.
Why wouldn’t they want to all be sent to sanctuary cities? They seem more accommodating...then we can build a wall around the sanctuary cities, lol
Does that mean that all the sanctuary cities can retain all the tax revenue generated in their cities? I know that here in Louisville, KY we'd love to keep our money for our local citizens rather than sending it out to the rest of the state that drains all our tax dollars all the while bitching about what happens here.
Yes, as long as it means you use no state or federal tax dollars in your city
Deal. Louisville alone generates about 70% of all revenue for the ENTIRE state so I'd say the rest of the state is screwed. You're ok with that, right?
I’m more than fine with that, but then again, I really don’t give a shit about KY, lol. KY does produce some good bourbon and fried chicken, though...and lube...or is that a different “KY”?
Maybe we should apply this to every sanctuary city and their corresponding state. My comment may be about KY but you can apply similar logic to all the other sanctuary cities throughout the US and the corresponding revenue that would be generated. I'm more than happy to host migrants here and I'll give up the citizens of the rest of my state and they can be taken care of by others just like them. But then again, its generally the 'libtard' cities that are taking care of the rest of 'real' America.
Wow, such a libertarian you are. Trying to wrap my head around this. You are saying that you are cool with everyone fending for themselves except for those that are in your state and other states illegally? Does that about sum it up? And everyone seems cool with sanctuary cities carrying the burden, so what are you even complaining about? I’m thinking a majority of your cities taxes would be gobbled up with free housing and other costs related to the major influx of a homeless population, though...
In reality? No, I would never advocate for not taking care of anyone but I get beyond frustrated with people stating that they won't take care of others then waving their flag of morality around as if they are somehow better than these immigrants, legal or otherwise. I've long wondered where people's compassion and humanity have disappeared. I live in a solidly red state that continually vilifies those of us living in cities and advocating for those less fortunate, whether that is immigrants or the people of Appalachia or LGBTQ. It often feels as if people are continually blaming others rather than seeking a real solution. When I read your comment it seemed cavalier and one-sided. What I really want is not the same as the immense frustration that I feel about what has been happening in this country for a very long time now. It would be nice to see some level of compromise from everyone. I am a liberal surrounded by conservatives so I've had numerous conversations with real-life conservatives and at the end of the day not one conversation has ended in any sort of compromise from conservatives because they seem to believe they hold the high ground on almost every issue. These conversations have ranged from the most studied historians to ones who know very little about American history. I'm frustrated hearing that and then seeing those ideas perpetuated here. Doesn't mean any of these people, including you, aren't good people but it seems that over the course of the last 30 years that compromise seems to be viewed as weakness.
How is allowing illegal immigrants to reside only in sanctuary cities not a compromise? No compromise=“build the wall” and let no one illegally immigrate.
Explain the logistics of this compromise. Will they be processed through facilities at the border? Moved at whose expense, the sanctuary cities? But, as stated previously, these cities are also responsible for sending many of their tax dollars to the state level and not allowed to keep their dollars at home which could benefit immigrants, the homeless, AND other citizens. The reality is that many of these people are asking for asylum and I think we agree that not all would qualify to enter the US but many of them would. And what about the responsibility of the US in Latin America? The US has never had a problem intervening in Latin America when it suited its purposes and has never shied away from supporting questionable leaders as long as they were supportive of the US. Real compromise then starts to look at changing our immigration laws to better fit our needs. But I dare say we'd disagree there as well then we're back to a circular conversation. No one wants to address the realities of compromise. Immigrants need to be vetted at the borders THEN moved to sanctuary cities. But that means more money for border detention facilities and more border agents not more money for some silly wall that will never keep anyone out. At the end of the day, many conservatives that I've had conversations with seem more worried about keeping out immigrants even though it has been well documented that they often make far greater positive contributions than they do negative ones. Why are so many afraid of allowing immigrants into the US? Despite Trump's nonsense arguments about being full we really aren't. What about the part of the Constitution that proclaims the common good? When did we forget that part?
There it is again. No one that I’ve seen “fears allowing immigrants into the US”. Any conservative I have ever talked to is okay with legal immigration where they are vetted and given an ID. If they were processed appropriately at the border, there would be no “need” for sanctuary cities as they would just be normal legal citizens at that point. The concern with sanctuary cities is that they invite and encourage illegal immigration. And you are right to ask “at the expense of who?”. Of course the methods for vetting these thousand of asylum seekers needing to be vetted, but how are you going to do that with open borders (which is essentially what it is now).
And how will that get done with the current administration all they want is a wall , you talk as if this administration has its hands tied you want better process tell the Baffoon to hire more judges and build more processing centers ..
77 countries have some sort of wall. Hardly a new concept. So when are you going to hold economic migrants accountable for putting their family and themselves at risk...at some point, these migrants have to understand that if they are not willing to come through the front door and enter illegally that they are taking a risk...and with risk comes consequences.
Havent read this thread but giving the illegals to sanctuary cities is a genius idea. Border towns are shitholes, spread the gift to all the places that have been begging for them.
Why wouldn’t they want to all be sent to sanctuary cities? They seem more accommodating...then we can build a wall around the sanctuary cities, lol
Does that mean that all the sanctuary cities can retain all the tax revenue generated in their cities? I know that here in Louisville, KY we'd love to keep our money for our local citizens rather than sending it out to the rest of the state that drains all our tax dollars all the while bitching about what happens here.
Yes, as long as it means you use no state or federal tax dollars in your city
Deal. Louisville alone generates about 70% of all revenue for the ENTIRE state so I'd say the rest of the state is screwed. You're ok with that, right?
I’m more than fine with that, but then again, I really don’t give a shit about KY, lol. KY does produce some good bourbon and fried chicken, though...and lube...or is that a different “KY”?
Maybe we should apply this to every sanctuary city and their corresponding state. My comment may be about KY but you can apply similar logic to all the other sanctuary cities throughout the US and the corresponding revenue that would be generated. I'm more than happy to host migrants here and I'll give up the citizens of the rest of my state and they can be taken care of by others just like them. But then again, its generally the 'libtard' cities that are taking care of the rest of 'real' America.
Wow, such a libertarian you are. Trying to wrap my head around this. You are saying that you are cool with everyone fending for themselves except for those that are in your state and other states illegally? Does that about sum it up? And everyone seems cool with sanctuary cities carrying the burden, so what are you even complaining about? I’m thinking a majority of your cities taxes would be gobbled up with free housing and other costs related to the major influx of a homeless population, though...
In reality? No, I would never advocate for not taking care of anyone but I get beyond frustrated with people stating that they won't take care of others then waving their flag of morality around as if they are somehow better than these immigrants, legal or otherwise. I've long wondered where people's compassion and humanity have disappeared. I live in a solidly red state that continually vilifies those of us living in cities and advocating for those less fortunate, whether that is immigrants or the people of Appalachia or LGBTQ. It often feels as if people are continually blaming others rather than seeking a real solution. When I read your comment it seemed cavalier and one-sided. What I really want is not the same as the immense frustration that I feel about what has been happening in this country for a very long time now. It would be nice to see some level of compromise from everyone. I am a liberal surrounded by conservatives so I've had numerous conversations with real-life conservatives and at the end of the day not one conversation has ended in any sort of compromise from conservatives because they seem to believe they hold the high ground on almost every issue. These conversations have ranged from the most studied historians to ones who know very little about American history. I'm frustrated hearing that and then seeing those ideas perpetuated here. Doesn't mean any of these people, including you, aren't good people but it seems that over the course of the last 30 years that compromise seems to be viewed as weakness.
How is allowing illegal immigrants to reside only in sanctuary cities not a compromise? No compromise=“build the wall” and let no one illegally immigrate.
Explain the logistics of this compromise. Will they be processed through facilities at the border? Moved at whose expense, the sanctuary cities? But, as stated previously, these cities are also responsible for sending many of their tax dollars to the state level and not allowed to keep their dollars at home which could benefit immigrants, the homeless, AND other citizens. The reality is that many of these people are asking for asylum and I think we agree that not all would qualify to enter the US but many of them would. And what about the responsibility of the US in Latin America? The US has never had a problem intervening in Latin America when it suited its purposes and has never shied away from supporting questionable leaders as long as they were supportive of the US. Real compromise then starts to look at changing our immigration laws to better fit our needs. But I dare say we'd disagree there as well then we're back to a circular conversation. No one wants to address the realities of compromise. Immigrants need to be vetted at the borders THEN moved to sanctuary cities. But that means more money for border detention facilities and more border agents not more money for some silly wall that will never keep anyone out. At the end of the day, many conservatives that I've had conversations with seem more worried about keeping out immigrants even though it has been well documented that they often make far greater positive contributions than they do negative ones. Why are so many afraid of allowing immigrants into the US? Despite Trump's nonsense arguments about being full we really aren't. What about the part of the Constitution that proclaims the common good? When did we forget that part?
There it is again. No one that I’ve seen “fears allowing immigrants into the US”. Any conservative I have ever talked to is okay with legal immigration where they are vetted and given an ID. If they were processed appropriately at the border, there would be no “need” for sanctuary cities as they would just be normal legal citizens at that point. The concern with sanctuary cities is that they invite and encourage illegal immigration. And you are right to ask “at the expense of who?”. Of course the methods for vetting these thousand of asylum seekers needing to be vetted, but how are you going to do that with open borders (which is essentially what it is now).
And how will that get done with the current administration all they want is a wall , you talk as if this administration has its hands tied you want better process tell the Baffoon to hire more judges and build more processing centers ..
77 countries have some sort of wall. Hardly a new concept. So when are you going to hold economic migrants accountable for putting their family and themselves at risk...at some point, these migrants have to understand that if they are not willing to come through the front door and enter illegally that they are taking a risk...and with risk comes consequences.
lol they wanna come through the front door but it’s been shut by the Racist henchman Miller..
They are willing to risk everything because they have nothing at home except corruption and death , it’s easy to sit here on our computers stating everything is fine as long as you come here through the front door that’s been shut in their faces ! These are desperate people who have nothing left to loose except their lives .. Not one of you know what it feels like to be that desperate where you have to leave the place you love ! So don’t talk like you know what these folks feel ..
They are willing to risk everything because they have nothing at home except corruption and death , it’s easy to sit here on our computers stating everything is fine as long as you come here through the front door that’s been shut in their faces ! These are desperate people who have nothing left to loose except their lives .. Not one of you know what it feels like to be that desperate where you have to leave the place you love ! So don’t talk like you know what these folks feel ..
no one is claiming they know what these people are going through, jose. but you can't just let anyone come in as they please. that would cause utter chaos. unfortunately there isn't a perfect solution. and at best this current admin is fucking it up every step of the way.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
They are willing to risk everything because they have nothing at home except corruption and death , it’s easy to sit here on our computers stating everything is fine as long as you come here through the front door that’s been shut in their faces ! These are desperate people who have nothing left to loose except their lives .. Not one of you know what it feels like to be that desperate where you have to leave the place you love ! So don’t talk like you know what these folks feel ..
no one is claiming they know what these people are going through, jose. but you can't just let anyone come in as they please. that would cause utter chaos. unfortunately there isn't a perfect solution. and at best this current admin is fucking it up every step of the way.
But I’m not saying to let them all in as they please ! The posters above said they should use the front door I just posted that the front door has been slammed shut am I wrong ?
Comments
immigration. If you want to come here we will welcome you with open arms, just do it legally.
I’m thinking a majority of your cities taxes would be gobbled up with free housing and other costs related to the major influx of a homeless population, though...
Washington (AFP) - President Donald Trump touted an unlikely new ally Monday in his battle with Democrats over illegal immigration -- the pop star and usually fierce critic Cher.
"I finally agree with @cher!" Trump tweeted after the singer posted her concerns that Los Angeles is in no position to look after poor migrants when it already fails to take care of the homeless.
"I Understand Helping struggling Immigrants, but MY CITY (Los Angeles) ISNT TAKING CARE OF ITS OWN," Cher tweeted on Sunday. "If My State Can't Take Care of Its Own(Many Are VETS)How Can it Take Care Of More.
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE
Seattle must have a ton of entry level job opportunities that pay living wages for people that are not acclimated to the US culture.
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE
If there is a complaint about sharing tax dollars that the illegals would bring in, then first the sanctuary cities need to stop accepting state and federal tax. But then don't expect free schools. Schools get about $10,000 per student from taxes. You think an illegal student brings in more than that $10,000 in taxes? I imagine sanctuary cities would still benefit greatly for sharing their tax revenue in exchange for school funding. Many of these schools, particulary in areas like South-Central LA, are made up of mostly illegal residents, there wouldn't even be a school if it wasn't state and federally funded, but just locally funded instead.
A district with 100 illegal students gets a million $ from government. Many districts have far more than that, and literally receive tens of millions in state and federal funding.
Its estimated that 65,000 undocumented students graduate high school every year. That doesn't account for the other 12 grades or those who dropped out, but 65,000 who graduate (26,000 in California alone) (https://irle.ucla.edu/old/publications/documents/Undocumented-Students.pdf). Its a massive strain on education to fund this. Also the main reason I don't understand why so many don't recognize the financial cost everyone, including immigrants, is.
Without state and federal funding (taxes), where is that $10,000 per student to fund education going to come from? Does an undocumented family living in a sanctuary city with 3 school-aged kids really bring in $30,000/year in taxes?
I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to be educated, I'm just saying lets at least recognize the cost and the fact that our system is already underfunded.
all they want is a wall , you talk as if this administration has its hands tied you
want better process tell the Baffoon to hire more judges and build more processing centers
..
Not one of you know what it feels like to be that desperate where you have to leave the place you love ! So don’t talk like you know what these folks feel ..
Hey look the front door just got slammed shut ! So take your front door argument somewhere else !
-EV 8/14/93