Immigration Policies- Why Force It Upon Someone Else?

I propose an idea- how about everyone who is the “kind and compassionate” person that they want sanctuary cities, how about they personally host an undocumented immigrant. That way, it’ll be a choice regarding whether illegals stay or leave, and those who don’t want to don’t have to provide hospitality to one. They can help educate their children, feed them, house them, etc. until lawmakers find a pathway to citizenship. The undocumented person(s) that they are hosting would also be their liability.

This way, only they are affected by what they might do, and others don’t really have to worry about it. Think about it as hosting an exchange student, except these are whole family units.

(I bet we would be surprised by the number that decline, but they still want sanctuary cities).

1 Like

I wouldn’t. The left is awash in their blatant hypocrisy. They want to ban and confiscate guns too. And why not? Not like they need them when they march around with private security and hide inside their walled off compounds. It’s not like they give a shit about you. You’re on your own, peasant.

1 Like

I proposed something similar. Those who want illegals to remain be subject to a higher rate of tax and that their assets be put up as a guarantee in the event their higher taxes do not cover all the costs of illegals


Rich republicans or rich democrats? Are all democrats rich? What about republicans?

This makes zero sense

Oh you are serious? Wow

1 Like

Which “rich republicans” are promoting strict gun controls or sanctuary states and cities?


Most western nations require that prospective immigrants put up a bond, have sponsors that guarantee you will not be a burden on the taxpayers or both.

It’s always easier to spend other people’s money, the trouble is, sooner rather than later you’ll run out of other people’s money.

Yeah, so does your presence here. Run out of people to pester over on the other board? :roll_eyes:


NEW CARAVAN GROWS: A new U.S.-bound caravan that formed in Honduras quickly grew to approximately 2,000 peopleTuesday as it made its way toward Mexico … Mexicans who live along the border towns that will likely be most affected were not very happy and took to the Internet to lash out against another wave of migrants. “Mexico is just like your country," one resident, Belem Gonzales said. “There are many problems and needs, and you’re not going to be much better off than you were in Honduras. Please don’t trust these manipulative agitators who are encouraging you to risk everything for nothing.”

As word of the new caravan’s growth spread, back in Washington the opposing sides in the partial government shutdowncontinued to stand their ground, with no signs of compromise and no end in sight. President Trump said that a “drone flying around” will not stop the new migrant caravan, doubling down on his claims that “Only a Wall will work.” Meanwhile, congressional Democrats rejected Trump’s invitation to a lunch meeting at the White House to discuss border security.


He is pointing out the hypocrisy of those who favor sanctuary cities and gun control but live behind walls with armed security.

No one cares if you live in a fortified home or have armed security regardless of youir political affiliation unless you are being a hypocrite.

Plenty of Americans live in gated communities. Many Americans have security systems. Most cars have security systems and people lock them when not driving.

We all practice keeping our homes and personal property safe from criminals. Keeping out country safe from them shouldn’t have to be a huge jump in logic.


Sanctuary cities are bad for following the constitution? Interesting

Dems or Republicans can’t support gun control measures and still support guns? Interesting.

We already have sensible gun control measures in place. The banning of guns is unconstitutional. The banning of guns does not affect criminals in the least bit. The banning of guns endangers the innocent, whether they be gun owners or not.

Get out of my thread if you have nothing substantial to offer.


How do sanctuary cities follow the Constitution? The Constitution states that the country is allowed to keep its sovereignty. Illegal immigrants are breaking the law.


They do not.

Keep in mind PEOPLE living in the cities allow this to happen via their elected morons running their cesspools into the ground.

1 Like

No they aren’t. Being undocumented in this country is not a crime. If you want to make it one, that is a different discussion.

Due process in this country doesn’t require US citizenship.

Oh and here comes the spin…please tell us what it is then enlightened one.


It’s amazing how the MSM invented a lie such as “an illegal immigrant is not a criminal” and then pushed said lie until it was accepted as at least one of the arguments being put forth…if not the truth. People that actually believe this are either completely brainwashed or paid shills.


Entering a country illegally means you become a criminal. Violent or not. The usual punishment for entering a country illegally is to be removed from that country.

I’m at a loss as to why people cant comprehend this.

You enter illegally as a doctor, engineer, or drug mule you are, by law, subjected to consequences - primarily detention then removal.


I believe they got their talking points/position from Arizona v. the United States if my memory is correct.

And that had to do more with are your required to carry documents wherever you go?