<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Comments by Phoebe Bennink</title>
    <description>Most recent public comments by Phoebe Bennink</description>
    <link>https://nowcomment.com/users/28243</link>
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="https://nowcomment.com/users/28243/comments"/>
    <item>
      <title>The second article has a bias toward federal power and against sanctuary cities. </title>
      <link>https://nowcomment.com/documents/70144?scroll_to=666748</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://nowcomment.com/documents/70144?scroll_to=666748</guid>
      <description>The author uses words like &quot;innocent victims&quot; with words like &quot;illegal immigrants&quot; to make it seem like immigrants are the only people who commit such crimes. This use of rhetoric evokes logos: &quot;if immigrants cause crimes, why should local government protect them?&quot; However, the bias is quite authoritarian and goes against the ideas behind the tenth amendment and general federalism. </description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2017 13:09:02 -0500</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The first article has a bias toward keeping sanctuary cities alive and funded. </title>
      <link>https://nowcomment.com/documents/70144?scroll_to=666727</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://nowcomment.com/documents/70144?scroll_to=666727</guid>
      <description>The author agrees that the government should do everything in its power to keep the country safe, but getting rid of sanctuary cities is not the way to do this. It is unconstitutional according to the author to get rid of sanctuary cities. The author's bias is justified considering he himself is undocumented.</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:53:42 -0500</pubDate>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
