youarentrightjr

> corporate America has been decent to me. But I’m in my 50s and working on my exit plan and have been in the country I plan to retire to now for six weeks.

Crazy take to think the morally correct move is to capitalize on the virtuous parts of America, then leave when it's at its most vulnerable.

Here's to hoping the rest of your generation is willing to fight to bring back the country that allowed you to prosper.

> 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.

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.

Oh, thanks Ben. It's not like I said that in the parent comment:

> Sanctuary cities aren't contrasted with non-sanctuary cities where a sanctuary city's police officers don't arrest people for immigration offenses.

> The contrast is because the city impedes federal investigations into immigration matters.

You sanctuary city defenders are real sharp.

Hope you find some time this year to figure out "Your Strategy", god knows you need one.

> So you worked at AWS as an SA and never tried to sale its own internal consulting services?

Not sure I understand the value proposition here, but then again Amazon is known for having redundant teams every now and again.

> Do you think someone on the Alexa team in the retail division (“CDO”) knew anything about what was going on within AWS?

Hmm, no?

As a solutions architect at Amazon I was very much a "rank and file" employee, and privy to large deals, so I'm not sure what you're on about. I haven't heard of Professional Services, presumably you guys had different responsibilities.

> The average rank and file employee at any BigTech company knows only a minuscule more than the general public.

Huh? We're not talking about the custodial staff.

> Amazon for instance has over 1 million customers. You know nothing about most of your coworkers or whether other teams are delivering featured

This is a hilarious example; especially at Amazon, "rank and file" employees are privy to $100M+ AWS deals, they have to implement them after all.

Flagging my comments doesn't make you right by the way.

> The Supreme Court has just as often struck down gun laws where a city couldn’t do anything about it.

You're exposing your ignorance by showing you don't know what "sanctuary city" means.

Sanctuary cities aren't contrasted with non-sanctuary cities where a sanctuary city's police officers don't arrest people for immigration offenses.

The contrast is because the city impedes federal investigations into immigration matters.

It's patently false to say that cities "can't do anything" about gun violations. There are plenty of examples of cities not impeding, or even assisting, the ATF in these scenarios.

> 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?

On the off chance you're sincere but not well educated on this topic:

> What are you talking about?

Kamala Harris was DA for SF during the early 2010s, where she explicitly backed the city's sanctuary policies.

As CA AG she opposed the "Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act", which was aimed at deterring sanctuary cities through withholding of federal funding.

In the 2024 presidential election she was the Democratic candidate.

This is all on her Wikipedia page.

Can you answer my question?

> Oh, so these Democrat sanctuary cities are in open rebellion against the party?

> Well, the city government is no more responsible for enforcing immigration laws than it is enforcing IRS fraud.

Oh, so these Democrat sanctuary cities are in open rebellion against the party?

Wouldn't it be crazy if the Democratic Party sourced their presidential candidates from sanctuary cities, especially candidates with law enforcement careers in said cities?

> This isn't an accurate description of the Democrat party's platform and repeating it uncritically is contributing to the problem.

I welcome your critical interpretation of the existence of sanctuary cities and CFAP/California DREAM Act/related programs.

Sounds like a racketeering operation (not saying it doesn't work).