[raw_anon_1111]

Well, your original statement was “Let's not enforce any immigration law, and subsidize those here illegally” and then brought up sanctuary cities.

It’s not the city or states job to enforce federal immigration laws. This was confirmed by the Supreme Court

https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/07/supreme-court-denies-flor...

In other words your argument is prima facie irrelevant. The city or state is not responsible for “enforcing immigration laws”

Just on the off chance you don’t know this…

[youarentrightjr]

> It’s not the city or states job to enforce federal immigration laws.

This has never been claimed nor intimated in this entire thread.

I can tell you're having a difficult time understanding what I'm saying. Let me rephrase it for you:

- If the policy of the Democratic Party is that immigration laws should be enforced

- Why does the party tolerate Democratic sanctuary cities?

- Why does the Democratic party source presidential candidates who have in practice (not simply in word) opposed the immigration law enforcement policy?

[raw_anon_1111]

> Let's not enforce any immigration law, and subsidize those here illegally

And then sanctuary cities was mentioned.

Whether they supported or opposed anything on the state level is completely irrelevant - it’s not there job

Once you brought up sanctuary cities - you are making a completely irrelevant argument.