
Los Angeles Announces $10M Defense Fund for Immigrants - endswapper
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2016/12/19/los-angeles-announces-10-million-defense-fund-for-immigrants/
======
vondur
I'm not on board using taxpayer funds to provide legal support for people here
illegally. Hopefully someone will sue the city over this.

~~~
gaius
The lawyers get rich whoever wins

------
endswapper
Bully!

Law-abiding immigrants, documented or not, are people that play an important
role in our culture and economy, and should be valued as such.

This is a step in the right direction.

It would be even better if entire states, not just cities, followed this lead.
Then, perhaps, we would see meaningful debate, legal action and legislation.

~~~
67726e
We're throwing tax dollars against tax dollars to protect those who came here
and ignored the law? We have no duty and no reason to do so. This idea is
completely flawed.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
I'm going to _try_ to make this as not-so-blatantly partisan as possible,
_buuuut_...

This is _what happens_ when you dilute the democratic voice of millions of
people: they'll take the representation and the resources they _do_ have and
devote it to the policies they want, _despite_ other officials. If the Feds
don't want this sort of thing done, they should stop saying things which imply
that Californians don't matter and aren't wanted, or maybe they could even,
God help them, count Californian votes with equal weight to votes from Ohio or
Wyoming.

Because we all know that nowadays, any state that didn't go a certain way "in
a huge landslide" in the last election suddenly consists _entirely_ of
undocumented immigrants who all voted fraudulently /s.

Don't count people and they won't count you.

~~~
67726e
If you're going to play partisan, it's hardly surprising when you write off
whole swathes of America as deplorables and ignore blue collar workers needs.
Also, California isn't weighted the same as Wymoing, that's not how the
electoral college works.

If Los Angelenos wish to spend their tax dollars on this, by all means. It
just seems rather counter-productive, monetarily. I'm not Mr. They Took Our
Jobs, I have a lot of friends you might call DREAMERs, but allowing folks to
skirt the rules ins't the best idea.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
Look, if you're going to respond, please address what I personally have
actually said, _not_ what you stereotype people vaguely like me as _having_
said. I didn't vote for Clinton, for instance (third-party in a safe state).

>Also, California isn't weighted the same as Wymoing, that's not how the
electoral college works.

Now you're just saying, "The rule is the rule, and it doesn't have to embody
any deeper ethical principle." That's the response of a petty bureaucrat.

>I'm not Mr. They Took Our Jobs, I have a lot of friends you might call
DREAMERs, but allowing folks to skirt the rules ins't the best idea.

I agree that the law should be both logically consistent and consistently
enforced. Again, I don't view this new measure as good idea _in isolation_ ,
as something we would implement in a perfect world. It's being implemented
because not only has California's voice been weakened relative to states like
Wyoming or Ohio (if you saw the New York Times today, the voters who get the
most out of the Electoral College are _narrow_ winners in _battleground_
states, especially larger ones), but the winning party has basically spent a
lot of rhetoric telling the coastal states that _we are unwanted_. They are
yelling outright that not only do they not want us around culturally, but they
fully intend to _maintain or worsen_ our current second-class political status
(viz a viz ratios of population to Congressional Representatives and
Presidential electors).

Well, at that point, we have the right to start taking our ball and going
home. Yes California is now a large, active, _angry_ movement, and so is this
defense fund.

You can either give people equal representation for having the population and
GDP of a first-class _nation-state_ , or you can deal with their displeasure.

------
creaghpatr
Taxpayer funds versus other taxpayer funds. How productive.

~~~
api
Most really huge, old, bureaucratic organizations resemble the Microsoft org
chart from here:

[http://www.globalnerdy.com/wordpress/wp-
content/uploads/2011...](http://www.globalnerdy.com/wordpress/wp-
content/uploads/2011/07/org-charts-tech-companies.png)

------
throwaway546464
While this is no fault of the submitter, it should be noted that the title's
omission of the world 'illegal' is deliberately obfuscatory and obviously
politically motivated.

~~~
Neliquat
Based on their previous submissions, this seems wholly intentional.

