[youarentrightjr]

So is your piling on, not adding anything substantive to the discussions , and raw_anon_1111's repeated strawmanning of my point (the claim was never that sanctuary cities were illegal, simply that their existence is a reflection of the Democratic Party's view towards immigration laws).

Yet here we are. You build the community you deserve through your words and actions.

I'm more than happy to have good faith discussion, and legitimately strive to take every point in the best light as possible. That's falling out of favor here, especially for political topics.

If you want to roll in the dirt don't think I'm just going to walk away.

[Schiendelman]

There's no dirt. You said those cities' police wouldn't enforce immigration laws. I merely pointed out to you misunderstand their job, so that point you made isn't relevant.

[youarentrightjr]

> You said those cities' police wouldn't enforce immigration laws.

Please quote where I said that.

The point I am making has nothing to do with whether sanctuary cities are "legal", whether the cops in them are or aren't required to enforce immigration laws, etc.

Speaking of what's appropriate for Hacker News, if I wanted discourse like "bazinga! The Supreme Court already ruled that sanctuary cities are allowed to exist. Checkmate xD" I would be on Reddit.

I (obviously wrongly) thought HN could handle higher level conversation that repeating the same "gotcha" 7 times in a thread.

> There's no dirt.

The dirt is your derisive, self righteous comment, which you had to make to get your little jab in, which added nothing past the repeated, redundant statements of raw_anon_1111. Hope you feel proud of your contribution to this site.