Immigrants sent to sanction cities

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
(I think you mean "sanctuary." It's a totally different term, right?)

Why should local law enforcement be forced to be the enforcement arm of federal policy? Isn't that supposed to be the job of federal law enforcement?

What you are proposing is against state and local freedom. It's un-American.

So all the rhetoric about migrants being welcome is just rhetoric? The border states want actual border security. Politicians who opposed policies like stay in Mexico should have no problem housing the migrants they argued should be allowed in

Dp- rhetoric? All it means is that local law enforcement isn’t doing the fed’s job for them. It also allows illegal immigrants to report crimes without fear.

NP.... and you are exactly right. Nobody in "sanctuary cities" is saying those cities will pay for room and board and everything else. Not even the mayor of San Francisco says that. That narrative is a fiction, a gross embellishment that's purely made-up by the right wing. it's their rhetoric, not ours.

Sanctuary city means the city will not enforce immigration law. And they shouldn't, either - because it's not the city's job to do it. Immigration enforcement is strictly a matter of federal jurisdiction.

Hope that sets you straight, OP - because that is the fact, and anyone who's suggested otherwise to you is wrong.

It also means that they won't cooperate with immigration officials. Not enforcing is one thing, not cooperating is another. If they want to be welcoming, then they should be welcoming and stop complaining. If they don't want more migrants, their federal representatives and senators should stop opposing stronger border controls and they should start cooperating with federal officials.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
(I think you mean "sanctuary." It's a totally different term, right?)

Why should local law enforcement be forced to be the enforcement arm of federal policy? Isn't that supposed to be the job of federal law enforcement?

What you are proposing is against state and local freedom. It's un-American.

So all the rhetoric about migrants being welcome is just rhetoric? The border states want actual border security. Politicians who opposed policies like stay in Mexico should have no problem housing the migrants they argued should be allowed in

Dp- rhetoric? All it means is that local law enforcement isn’t doing the fed’s job for them. It also allows illegal immigrants to report crimes without fear.

NP.... and you are exactly right. Nobody in "sanctuary cities" is saying those cities will pay for room and board and everything else. Not even the mayor of San Francisco says that. That narrative is a fiction, a gross embellishment that's purely made-up by the right wing. it's their rhetoric, not ours.

Sanctuary city means the city will not enforce immigration law. And they shouldn't, either - because it's not the city's job to do it. Immigration enforcement is strictly a matter of federal jurisdiction.

Hope that sets you straight, OP - because that is the fact, and anyone who's suggested otherwise to you is wrong.

Since those cities will not enforce immigration law, busing them there is actually humane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Texas and Florida lie to the immigrants that there are people and programs arranged to help them and then dump the immigrants somewhere in an enlightened civilized place but with no resources, no assistance, and no notification or coordination with the local governments, agencies, non-profits, churches, etc. in the new place, because the Texas and Florida Governors want a video they can laugh at showing the immigrant children being left crying with their confused and frightened parents in the dark in front of a closed building.

Short version: Texas and Florida are run by fascists.

And even more strangely, Texas and Florida governors dump migrants in Washington DC where the city and its residents have absolutely nothing to do with federal immigration policy because they don't even have a vote or representation in Congress.

So what you are saying here is the people should have a say as to where these immigrants go, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
(I think you mean "sanctuary." It's a totally different term, right?)

Why should local law enforcement be forced to be the enforcement arm of federal policy? Isn't that supposed to be the job of federal law enforcement?

What you are proposing is against state and local freedom. It's un-American.

So all the rhetoric about migrants being welcome is just rhetoric? The border states want actual border security. Politicians who opposed policies like stay in Mexico should have no problem housing the migrants they argued should be allowed in

Dp- rhetoric? All it means is that local law enforcement isn’t doing the fed’s job for them. It also allows illegal immigrants to report crimes without fear.

NP.... and you are exactly right. Nobody in "sanctuary cities" is saying those cities will pay for room and board and everything else. Not even the mayor of San Francisco says that. That narrative is a fiction, a gross embellishment that's purely made-up by the right wing. it's their rhetoric, not ours.

Sanctuary city means the city will not enforce immigration law. And they shouldn't, either - because it's not the city's job to do it. Immigration enforcement is strictly a matter of federal jurisdiction.

Hope that sets you straight, OP - because that is the fact, and anyone who's suggested otherwise to you is wrong.

Op here and thanks for the details and that makes sense. But then, wouldn't illegal immigrants prefer to be in these cities so they aren't living in constant fear (like they are in TX and FL)?

I agree that the false pretenses is awful and should be banned. But for the sake of discussion, what if there weren't false pretenses? What if I am governor of a state and offer illegal immigrants an opportunity to go to another city (for free transportation) to a sanctuary city. Would there be anything wrong with that?

From my (very limited) understanding of all this, it seems like these cities don't want and can't take in all these illegal immigrants. I'm trying to figure out why immigrants would want to stay in the states that don't offer protections and why it's so much better to stay in TX/FL than it would be to go to more immigrant friendly states?

Almost all of the transported migrants have been people who have applied for asylum and have a hearing somewhere at some future date, so technically they are here legally, not illegally, but they need to find a place to live until their asylum hearing.

You and Texas and Florida are confusing asylum applicants with undocumented workers. Undocumented workers go where the employers who want to hire them are. Those employers are mostly in agriculture and agricultural industries, construction, hotels and other low-income hospitality and service industries. A lot of those employers are in Florida and Texas.

Watch the immigration hearing on C-SPAN to learn why there are indeed, not legal because those programs run today are not legal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Texas and Florida lie to the immigrants that there are people and programs arranged to help them and then dump the immigrants somewhere in an enlightened civilized place but with no resources, no assistance, and no notification or coordination with the local governments, agencies, non-profits, churches, etc. in the new place, because the Texas and Florida Governors want a video they can laugh at showing the immigrant children being left crying with their confused and frightened parents in the dark in front of a closed building.

Short version: Texas and Florida are run by fascists.

And even more strangely, Texas and Florida governors dump migrants in Washington DC where the city and its residents have absolutely nothing to do with federal immigration policy because they don't even have a vote or representation in Congress.

So what you are saying here is the people should have a say as to where these immigrants go, right?

Dp- Everyone does through their elected representative. Everyone except residents of Dc..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Texas and Florida lie to the immigrants that there are people and programs arranged to help them and then dump the immigrants somewhere in an enlightened civilized place but with no resources, no assistance, and no notification or coordination with the local governments, agencies, non-profits, churches, etc. in the new place, because the Texas and Florida Governors want a video they can laugh at showing the immigrant children being left crying with their confused and frightened parents in the dark in front of a closed building.

Short version: Texas and Florida are run by fascists.

And even more strangely, Texas and Florida governors dump migrants in Washington DC where the city and its residents have absolutely nothing to do with federal immigration policy because they don't even have a vote or representation in Congress.

So what you are saying here is the people should have a say as to where these immigrants go, right?

Dp- Everyone does through their elected representative. Everyone except residents of Dc..

So then it’s ok for TX and FL to send them elsewhere if the people don’t want them. Did your mayor and local elected officials say they are welcome?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Texas and Florida lie to the immigrants that there are people and programs arranged to help them and then dump the immigrants somewhere in an enlightened civilized place but with no resources, no assistance, and no notification or coordination with the local governments, agencies, non-profits, churches, etc. in the new place, because the Texas and Florida Governors want a video they can laugh at showing the immigrant children being left crying with their confused and frightened parents in the dark in front of a closed building.

Short version: Texas and Florida are run by fascists.

And even more strangely, Texas and Florida governors dump migrants in Washington DC where the city and its residents have absolutely nothing to do with federal immigration policy because they don't even have a vote or representation in Congress.

So what you are saying here is the people should have a say as to where these immigrants go, right?

Dp- Everyone does through their elected representative. Everyone except residents of Dc..

So then it’s ok for TX and FL to send them elsewhere if the people don’t want them. Did your mayor and local elected officials say they are welcome?

My mayor hasn’t said anything, but I live in Ohio. Apparently they do a better job teaching civics here, than from wherever you’re posting . 😉

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Texas and Florida lie to the immigrants that there are people and programs arranged to help them and then dump the immigrants somewhere in an enlightened civilized place but with no resources, no assistance, and no notification or coordination with the local governments, agencies, non-profits, churches, etc. in the new place, because the Texas and Florida Governors want a video they can laugh at showing the immigrant children being left crying with their confused and frightened parents in the dark in front of a closed building.

Short version: Texas and Florida are run by fascists.

And even more strangely, Texas and Florida governors dump migrants in Washington DC where the city and its residents have absolutely nothing to do with federal immigration policy because they don't even have a vote or representation in Congress.

So what you are saying here is the people should have a say as to where these immigrants go, right?

Dp- Everyone does through their elected representative. Everyone except residents of Dc..

Really now? https://mayor.dc.gov/release/mayor-bowser-issues-statement-reaffirming-dc-sanctuary-city
So then it’s ok for TX and FL to send them elsewhere if the people don’t want them. Did your mayor and local elected officials say they are welcome?

My mayor hasn’t said anything, but I live in Ohio. Apparently they do a better job teaching civics here, than from wherever you’re posting . 😉

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Texas and Florida lie to the immigrants that there are people and programs arranged to help them and then dump the immigrants somewhere in an enlightened civilized place but with no resources, no assistance, and no notification or coordination with the local governments, agencies, non-profits, churches, etc. in the new place, because the Texas and Florida Governors want a video they can laugh at showing the immigrant children being left crying with their confused and frightened parents in the dark in front of a closed building.

Short version: Texas and Florida are run by fascists.

And even more strangely, Texas and Florida governors dump migrants in Washington DC where the city and its residents have absolutely nothing to do with federal immigration policy because they don't even have a vote or representation in Congress.

So what you are saying here is the people should have a say as to where these immigrants go, right?

Dp- Everyone does through their elected representative. Everyone except residents of Dc..

So then it’s ok for TX and FL to send them elsewhere if the people don’t want them. Did your mayor and local elected officials say they are welcome?

My mayor hasn’t said anything, but I live in Ohio. Apparently they do a better job teaching civics here, than from wherever you’re posting . 😉

Really now?

https://mayor.dc.gov/release/mayor-bowser-issues-statement-reaffirming-dc-sanctuary-city

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Texas and Florida lie to the immigrants that there are people and programs arranged to help them and then dump the immigrants somewhere in an enlightened civilized place but with no resources, no assistance, and no notification or coordination with the local governments, agencies, non-profits, churches, etc. in the new place, because the Texas and Florida Governors want a video they can laugh at showing the immigrant children being left crying with their confused and frightened parents in the dark in front of a closed building.

Short version: Texas and Florida are run by fascists.

And even more strangely, Texas and Florida governors dump migrants in Washington DC where the city and its residents have absolutely nothing to do with federal immigration policy because they don't even have a vote or representation in Congress.

So what you are saying here is the people should have a say as to where these immigrants go, right?

Dp- Everyone does through their elected representative. Everyone except residents of Dc..

So then it’s ok for TX and FL to send them elsewhere if the people don’t want them. Did your mayor and local elected officials say they are welcome?

My mayor hasn’t said anything, but I live in Ohio. Apparently they do a better job teaching civics here, than from wherever you’re posting . 😉

People vote for the mayor, so they have a say

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Texas and Florida lie to the immigrants that there are people and programs arranged to help them and then dump the immigrants somewhere in an enlightened civilized place but with no resources, no assistance, and no notification or coordination with the local governments, agencies, non-profits, churches, etc. in the new place, because the Texas and Florida Governors want a video they can laugh at showing the immigrant children being left crying with their confused and frightened parents in the dark in front of a closed building.

Short version: Texas and Florida are run by fascists.

And even more strangely, Texas and Florida governors dump migrants in Washington DC where the city and its residents have absolutely nothing to do with federal immigration policy because they don't even have a vote or representation in Congress.

So what you are saying here is the people should have a say as to where these immigrants go, right?

Dp- Everyone does through their elected representative. Everyone except residents of Dc..

So then it’s ok for TX and FL to send them elsewhere if the people don’t want them. Did your mayor and local elected officials say they are welcome?

My mayor hasn’t said anything, but I live in Ohio. Apparently they do a better job teaching civics here, than from wherever you’re posting . 😉

People vote for the mayor, so they have a say

Wait are we talking about federal laws or not?
Pick a lane my dudes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
(I think you mean "sanctuary." It's a totally different term, right?)

Why should local law enforcement be forced to be the enforcement arm of federal policy? Isn't that supposed to be the job of federal law enforcement?

What you are proposing is against state and local freedom. It's un-American.

So all the rhetoric about migrants being welcome is just rhetoric? The border states want actual border security. Politicians who opposed policies like stay in Mexico should have no problem housing the migrants they argued should be allowed in

Dp- rhetoric? All it means is that local law enforcement isn’t doing the fed’s job for them. It also allows illegal immigrants to report crimes without fear.

NP.... and you are exactly right. Nobody in "sanctuary cities" is saying those cities will pay for room and board and everything else. Not even the mayor of San Francisco says that. That narrative is a fiction, a gross embellishment that's purely made-up by the right wing. it's their rhetoric, not ours.

Sanctuary city means the city will not enforce immigration law. And they shouldn't, either - because it's not the city's job to do it. Immigration enforcement is strictly a matter of federal jurisdiction.

Hope that sets you straight, OP - because that is the fact, and anyone who's suggested otherwise to you is wrong.

Op here and thanks for the details and that makes sense. But then, wouldn't illegal immigrants prefer to be in these cities so they aren't living in constant fear (like they are in TX and FL)?

I agree that the false pretenses is awful and should be banned. But for the sake of discussion, what if there weren't false pretenses? What if I am governor of a state and offer illegal immigrants an opportunity to go to another city (for free transportation) to a sanctuary city. Would there be anything wrong with that?

From my (very limited) understanding of all this, it seems like these cities don't want and can't take in all these illegal immigrants. I'm trying to figure out why immigrants would want to stay in the states that don't offer protections and why it's so much better to stay in TX/FL than it would be to go to more immigrant friendly states?

Almost all of the transported migrants have been people who have applied for asylum and have a hearing somewhere at some future date, so technically they are here legally, not illegally, but they need to find a place to live until their asylum hearing.

You and Texas and Florida are confusing asylum applicants with undocumented workers. Undocumented workers go where the employers who want to hire them are. Those employers are mostly in agriculture and agricultural industries, construction, hotels and other low-income hospitality and service industries. A lot of those employers are in Florida and Texas.

Watch the immigration hearing on C-SPAN to learn why there are indeed, not legal because those programs run today are not legal

Asylum applicants are legally here while their case is pending. It’s not a complicated concept to understand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
(I think you mean "sanctuary." It's a totally different term, right?)

Why should local law enforcement be forced to be the enforcement arm of federal policy? Isn't that supposed to be the job of federal law enforcement?

What you are proposing is against state and local freedom. It's un-American.

So all the rhetoric about migrants being welcome is just rhetoric? The border states want actual border security. Politicians who opposed policies like stay in Mexico should have no problem housing the migrants they argued should be allowed in

Dp- rhetoric? All it means is that local law enforcement isn’t doing the fed’s job for them. It also allows illegal immigrants to report crimes without fear.

NP.... and you are exactly right. Nobody in "sanctuary cities" is saying those cities will pay for room and board and everything else. Not even the mayor of San Francisco says that. That narrative is a fiction, a gross embellishment that's purely made-up by the right wing. it's their rhetoric, not ours.

Sanctuary city means the city will not enforce immigration law. And they shouldn't, either - because it's not the city's job to do it. Immigration enforcement is strictly a matter of federal jurisdiction.

Hope that sets you straight, OP - because that is the fact, and anyone who's suggested otherwise to you is wrong.

Op here and thanks for the details and that makes sense. But then, wouldn't illegal immigrants prefer to be in these cities so they aren't living in constant fear (like they are in TX and FL)?

I agree that the false pretenses is awful and should be banned. But for the sake of discussion, what if there weren't false pretenses? What if I am governor of a state and offer illegal immigrants an opportunity to go to another city (for free transportation) to a sanctuary city. Would there be anything wrong with that?

From my (very limited) understanding of all this, it seems like these cities don't want and can't take in all these illegal immigrants. I'm trying to figure out why immigrants would want to stay in the states that don't offer protections and why it's so much better to stay in TX/FL than it would be to go to more immigrant friendly states?

Most undocumented migrants to the US tend to go where they already have relatives and/or other personal contacts OR where they have heard there is work. Given that there are already very large Hispanic populations in TX and FL and CA, that is where most tend to go.

That is how it used to be but now most states have sizable Hispanic populations. Kansas City is now a third Hispanic. There are large Hispanic communities in Hanford and Bridgeport Connecticut, in Chicago, NYC, 43% of Providence, Rhode Island is Hispanic, several cities in Illinois and Colorado are over a third Hispanic.

If you have no contacts in the US it is way better to go to a Blue state because there is way more support. Hispanics are found throughout the US.

[Anonymous]

I don't know of very many people "upset" that immigrants are coming here. Mayors, etc... are upset they are showing up at random times, while being bussed in large groups.

Most can find jobs here pretty quickly, so tats really not a problem. Unlike Texas and Florida, there is plenty of work here they can do while waiting for their hearings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't know of very many people "upset" that immigrants are coming here. Mayors, etc... are upset they are showing up at random times, while being bussed in large groups.

Most can find jobs here pretty quickly, so tats really not a problem. Unlike Texas and Florida, there is plenty of work here they can do while waiting for their hearings.

NYC is dumb enough to guarantee shelter. They are running out of places to house migrants. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/18/nyregion/migrant-housing-shelters-nyc.html