Please provide an example of a normal ('non-sanctuary') city with a higher crime rate than the usual-suspect run scofflaw 'sanctuary' cities.
#32 | Posted by easy_meat

Here is a clear example of a "normal" (non-sanctuary) city with a higher crime rate than some commonly cited "sanctuary" cities:

- Memphis, Tennessee is not designated as a sanctuary city and had the highest violent crime rate among large U.S. cities for 2024-2025, with 2,501.3 violent crimes per 100,000 residents and a total crime rate of 9,400.3 per 100,000.[1]

For comparison, several major "sanctuary" cities"such as San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, and New York City"have notably lower crime rates:
- San Francisco, CA (sanctuary city): 4,525.6 total crimes/100,000; 596.5 violent crimes/100,000
- Seattle, WA (sanctuary city): 5,782.7 total crimes/100,000; 775.1 violent crimes/100,000
- New York City, NY (sanctuary city): 3,039.3 total crimes/100,000; 671.0 violent crimes/100,000[2][3][1]

This demonstrates that non-sanctuary cities like Memphis can, and sometimes do, have higher crime rates than "sanctuary" cities traditionally criticized for being soft on crime.[1]

#35 | Posted by easy_meat

So you're just going to ignore the fact you got swatted down like a diseased mosquito?

That's a good little cultist.

#40 | Posted by easy_meat

Cry harder. You asked for an example, you were given three, you silly cultist!

#44 | Posted by easy_meat

Violent crime rates are influenced by many complex factors: poverty, local policing, drug epidemics, education, historic trends, and economic conditions. Political leadership (Democrat or Republican) and "sanctuary" status are only two of many variables, and crime statistics do not show a consistent, direct relationship with either. The largest U.S. cities (regardless of crime level) tend to be run by Democrats simply because Democrats generally dominate urban areas. There are Democrat-led cities with both high and low crime rates, and the same is true for Republican-led cities.

So blaming high crime solely on Democratic governance, or linking it directly to sanctuary status, is an oversimplification unsupported by the broader data, which you obviously ignore, cultist!

The comparison was meant to show that "sanctuary city" status alone doesn't make a city more or less dangerous. Memphis, a non-sanctuary city, has the highest violent crime rate in the nation, whereas big sanctuary cities like San Francisco, Seattle, and New York actually have much lower rates, even below the national average in some years. Crime rates are shaped by a wide variety of social and economic factors, not just immigration policies or political leadership, and the data simply doesn't support your cultist suggestion that sanctuary or Democrat-led cities are inherently more dangerous.

Swallow it.

It's a little more complicated than some cultists would like to acknowledge.

#62 | Posted by easy_meat

Already did! You're just showing off your willful ignorance, cultist!

Due process in the context of deportation refers to the legal rights and procedures the U.S. government must follow before removing (deporting) a person from the country. This principle is enshrined in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and applies to all "persons," not just citizens.

At its core, due process requires that before an individual is deprived of life, liberty, or property, including the right to remain in the U.S., they must be given:

- Notice of the proceedings and the reasons for possible deportation: The person must be informed of the government's intentions and the legal basis for deportation.
- A fair hearing before an impartial judge: Non-citizens generally have the right to appear before an immigration judge to contest their removal, present evidence, and challenge the government's case.
- The opportunity to examine and challenge evidence: Individuals can see the evidence against them and present their own evidence or witnesses.
- A chance to appeal decisions: Adverse decisions can often be appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and sometimes to federal courts.[1][2][5]

Important limitations and exceptions:
- People in immigration proceedings do not have a constitutional right to a government-provided attorney, which means many must represent themselves if they cannot afford legal counsel.
- There are expedited removal procedures where some people can be deported quickly without a full hearing, especially for those apprehended near the border or shortly after entering the country. In these cases, seeking asylum or demonstrating a "credible fear" can trigger fuller due process protections.[2]
- Due process has been subject to policy changes and legal challenges"certain executive actions and court decisions can affect the scope and strength of these protections.[4][5]

Due process is a fundamental safeguard to ensure fair treatment and prevent arbitrary or wrongful deportation. It remains a critical issue in immigration law, with ongoing debates and legal battles about its exact scope and implementation.[3][5][1][4]

To follow the process you are advocating it would take dozens of years to remove the people that Biden brought in over 4 years.
#69 | Posted by BellRinger

Perfect example proving you are not a serious person.

#82 | Posted by BellRinger

And ignoring #71. I can see why.