Social Question

Dutchess_III's avatar

Why are people getting so upset over "sanctuary cities"?

Asked by Dutchess_III (39117points) September 19th, 2018

As this new debate heats up I started doing some reading up.

Sanctuary cities have been around for thousands of years. Glasgow, Scotland, is a noted sanctuary city. It is a result of compassion and concern by some for our fellow human beings who may be threatened or persecuted because of the color of their skin, or citizenship status, outside of the city.
It has its roots in different religious philosophies, including, of course, Christianity. Christianity is well known for its message of peace, love and acceptance. It used to be that if a citizen in need took shelter in a Catholic church no human authority could touch them.
The movement for sanctuary cities in the US started in the early 80s. It’s not a new thing.

Why are some people so against it?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

22 Answers

Zaku's avatar

Because some people are xenophobic, authority-oriented, control-oriented, etc., and/or just caught up on the “conservative” side of the current binary political disagreement.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Succinctly said.

raum's avatar

One side: You’re breaking the law. We trust that the government will figure it out.

Other side: The government is not infallible. We trust our internal moral compass more than a governing body.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Sanctuary cities are seen as a spur and incentive to illegal immigration. I suspect that it must be difficult for a lot of people to accept an America no longer defined as white. And to be forced to live through the transition—I suppose we should be grateful and pleasantly surprised that the reaction is as peaceful as it is.

Dutchess_III's avatar

So far @stanleybmanly. This just came to everyone’s attention. They haven’t had time to get outraged.

seawulf575's avatar

I feel that there are a number of reasons that sanctuary cities offend me. First is that, as @stanleybmanly stated, it is a spur and incentive to illegal immigration. That has nothing to do with skin color for me, it has to do with integrity of our national borders. We have some of the most lax immigration laws in the world and there are many people that feel we should have no borders at all. I feel if we have no borders, then we have no country. Every other country in the world has the same view. Don’t believe me? Try going across the border illegally into Canada or Mexico and see if they set you up with the support that many in this country want to give to illegal immigrants when they violate our borders. And don’t get me going with Russia or China or Iran.
I get offended that because I want to enforce our laws, there are those narrow-minded folks that want to brand me as a racist.
I find that many of the same people that support sanctuary cities are hypocritical. In the same-sex marriage decision by the SCOTUS, these people were arguing that it was the law of the land and that states couldn’t overrule it. But immigration laws are also the law of the land yet these people feel that states, and worse yet cities, should be able to overrule it at will. Which is it? Is federal law the law of the land or not? Or is it only the law of the land if you like the law?
So basically, I view sanctuary cities as violating the law and abetting law breakers.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I have never, not once, heard anyone say we should have no borders at all. Never. That wouldn’t even make sense.
That is just another one of those whimsical, nonsensical rumors being passed around designed to whip conservatives into a frenzy.

I forget…are you a Christian, @seawulf575?

Dutchess_III's avatar

If they here illegally….or even legally, and they commit a crime, they are deported. If they don’t commit a crime, why can’t they stay? They can’t get government benefits. Many of them work, contribute and pay taxes, but never qualify for social security at retirement. Immigrants pay almost 12 billion in taxes every year.

“Bleeding heart liberal” is what they used to call Jesus, you know.

You hypocritical Christians disgust me. Jesus is not who you try to model your behavior on. More like, in your beliefs, Lucifer. Hatred. Intolerance. Bigotry.

seawulf575's avatar

Then Jesus said to them, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” And they were amazed at him. Mark 12:17 NIV.

In other words, you are to obey the laws of man. God doesn’t dictate how man rules himself.

But your answer shows what a hater you are. You act like it is only Christians that want to enforce their borders. Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Malaysia….all Islamic and they enforce their borders. Israel….Jewish and they enforce their borders. China…atheist and they enforce their borders. All your answer shows is that you are a Christian hater.

Here’s a clue…when they enter this country illegally, they have committed a crime. Hence…illegal entry.

As for your $12B number, that is a bit misleading as it includes sales and excise tax, and property tax as well as income tax. Only about $1B of that $12B is actually income tax. Not surprising that you really don’t go into that part of it. But if you want to look at things that way, then illegals are getting public assistance as well in the form of public education, free healthcare (show up at the ER and get what you need), police, fire, EMS, etc. They receive about 3x as much as they pay into these things. But let’s not get into details, it only hurts your arguments.

Dutchess_III's avatar

“Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” It’s called taxes, dude.
What difference does it make ig that 12 billions is comprised of state, local or federal taxes? Of course, you would see it as “misleading” because you assumed it was referring to just one type of tax.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 Defending the borders and enforcing immigration is the domain of the Federal government. Sanctuary cities simply take the position that their citizens’ legal status is of no concern to the city.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III Are you really going to try getting into a theological debate with me? You hate Christianity but are now a scholar? What a dolt.
You tried presenting your $12B the same way the liberal websites presented it…almost word for word. “They aren’t eligible for welfare or social security but they pay billions in taxes.” An effort to make it look like they don’t get support but pay into the system. Two different pots of money. And I noticed that you entirely avoided the comments about how much public assistance they get. Must be nice to go through life only acknowledging the parts of life you like. Who makes the rest of life right for you?

Dutchess_III's avatar

OK. You’re so smart. What DOES “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” mean? When I was a practicing, born again Christian, that’s how I interpreted it, to be taxes. The money I pay in taxes are the ONLY thing I have that also belongs to the government. But you probably have some sort of divine insight to his word that no one else has. So explain it to us.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 I didn’t say that sanctuary cities were an incentive to illegal immgration. It is the claim of those opposed to such policies. And “Christian haters” here are hard pressed to match your virulent and incessant “migrant hatred”. You will find no one here claiming that we would be better off with uenforced borders. No one advocates elimination of the border patrol. But to pretend that people fleeing poverty or death for the richest nation on earth can be deterred simply through tagging them as criminals is ludicrous. All of us recognize the dilemma around these people who have much more in common with refugees than immigrants. The basic problem is that no measure you care to propose is likely to stem the tide unless the penalties are as harsh as the conditions driving them here. Perhaps we should execute those we catch. That would certainly eliminate repeat offenders. Would you volunteer for firing squad duty? As I’ve stated before, our government may have the responsibilty for control of our borders, but when you get down to individuals, I cannot be counted on to dog or rat out anyone behaving EXACTLY as I would were I in their shoes. Sanctuary cities are about empathy for the human condition, and even as an atheist I have a tough time visualizing Jesus snitching out desperate people in the name of sovereignty.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III if you actually read the bible and what Jesus taught, he very much separated the secular world from the spiritual one. Things that go to God are the spiritual things. Things that go to Caesar are the secular things. Taxes are a piece of it, but laws are also part of it. He never suggested that people not follow the law. In fact, throughout the bible it is shown that God expects man to follow their leaders. He will punish the leaders if they sin. If you go to 1Peter 2:13–17, it states:
13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority,
14 or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.
15 For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men.
16 [Act] as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but [use it] as bondslaves of God.
17 Honor all men; love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.

When you honor the king (or Caesar) you do it by paying taxes, yes, but also by following his laws. You do it by being obedient. If you are working and paying taxes, yet planning an insurrection, you are not being obedient…you are not giving to Caesar that which is Caesars.

When you get down to it, Jesus’ teachings were all about how to be spiritually right with God. He tried pointing out the difference between what was secular and what was spiritual.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly You are really trying to avoid the issue. There are federal laws about how to enter this country. People that enter this country contrary to those laws enter the country illegally. They have committed a crime. The left in this country want to downplay that big time. They want to pretend that protecting those that break our laws is okay. That is abetting a crime. Sanctuary cities do not want to follow the federal laws, even though many of those same ones supporting this view also try saying that federal law is inviolate and supersedes state law when it comes to something like same-sex marriage. And this view point is unique to the liberals in our country. Obeying some laws and ignoring others and claiming it is okay both ways is insanity.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@seawulf575 Run for President ! NOT

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf I’m not trying to avoid the issue. If sanctuary cities were engaged in smuggling people over the border, I might agree with you. But for a city to declare the legal residency status of its occupants beyond its jurisdiction is perfectly correct. Sanctuary cities do follow Federal laws. But cities cannot be forced to hunt down illegals. And those electing not to do so are perfectly within their right.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly cities cannot be forced to hunt down illegals. This is true. However, when they arrest illegals and knowingly don’t turn them over, they are abetting the criminals and are violating federal law.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Such hypocrisy.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 Sanctuary cities don’t base arrests on immigration status. What donyou mean by knowingly?

Answer this question




to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther