i promised a talk last night, and it will come up in the review. i'm kind of stuck in between days - tired but not tired...

this is just a little more subtlety to confuse you with.

1) i actually support sanctuary cities, and reject the idea of "illegal immigration". no one is illegal! so, there's almost no scenario where i would argue that you should be sent back, if you manage to get here. i'd sent you back if you have a criminal record or there's a warrant out for you. that's about it. but, understand that there's a big difference between not deporting people that get here on their own and actively picking people and bringing them here. that's only a contradiction if you want to make the issue about race, which is not what i want to make it about. so, i see no contradiction in supporting sanctuary cities and opposing active measures by the state to bring refugees in legally. but, note that it isn't very conservative of me to essentially be in favour of "illegal" refugees and opposed to "legal" refugee resettlement. it's really very anarchist of me...and that's the consistency you're struggling with.

2) i also think that the evidence in front of us suggests very strongly that canada cannot in good faith continue to argue that the united states is a "safe destination" for refugees, and would agree with calls to suspend the existing agreements until the existing president is no longer president any more, pending further review at that time. it's disingenuous to argue that these agreements should continue to stand.