Trump wanted to release immigration detainees onto the streets of “sanctuary cities"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn’t sound like Stephen Miller was looking out for their well-being.

““It was basically an idea that Miller wanted that nobody else wanted to carry out,” said one congressional investigator who has spoken to one of the whistleblowers. “What happened here is that Stephen Miller called people at ICE, said if they’re going to cut funding, you’ve got to make sure you’re releasing people in Pelosi’s district and other congressional districts.” The investigator spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect the whistleblower.”

“It was during that mid-February standoff that one whistleblower went to Congress alleging that the White House was considering a plan to punish Democrats if they did not relent on ICE funding for beds. A second official independently came forward after that.

According to both, there were at least two versions of the plan being considered. One was to move migrants who were already in ICE detention to the districts of Democratic opponents. The second option was to bus migrants apprehended at the border to sanctuary cities, such as New York, Chicago and San Francisco.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/white-house-proposed-releasing-immigrant-detainees-in-sanctuary-cities-targeting-political-foes/2019/04/11/72839bc8-5c68-11e9-9625-01d48d50ef75_story.html

These plans were not meant to help immigrants...they were meant to PUNISH US citizens.

You all keep using words like "punish." Its not a punishment if you want them to come. He knows you want them to come. The cities/state's own laws have declared that these people are a delight. Your assertion that this is a punishment is off when they've stated explicitly that these people are a joy.

Trump & Miller's intentions were to punish. You don't have a problem with that?

Their intentions were to give you want you wanted. How is that punishment if you've stated via your laws that illegal immigrants are a joy to have?

[Anonymous]

The problem is that until last year, the issue was being managed, but the Trump policy both at the border and with foreign aid are exacerbating the issue. He is doing this purposefully to get the "right" all fired up and make it a core issue in 2020. It ddn't need to be, but he wants it to be, and folks here and across the country who consume Fox news are eating up. It is a really sad commentary on whatever is left of critical thinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does it not matter to conservatives that their Dear Leader is a spiteful a**hole and vindictiveness drives all his policies?

Because they hate us more than anything in this world. They don't care about policy, they only care about hurting "the libs" and people that live in blue states.

Liberals say immigrants improve their community, add to the community wealth, etc. How then would sending immigrants to liberal communities hurt liberals?

I for one would have no problem with an orderly transport of immigrants to my city. I do however have a major problem with my President acting as if placing immigrants around the country is a way of punishing liberals and acting like he would be unleashing a torrent of criminals on our cities. That is an effed up mindframe. My ire has nothing to do with fearing the possibility of immigrants in my city, it has to do with fearing a President that takes actions HE BELIEVES are punitive towards his political opposition.

+2 - Interesting that the sanctuary cities seem to be more productive economically, in fact thriving, compared to the areas that are not. Hmmm... I wonder why that is????

[Anonymous]

The irony of course is that all these people are headed straight to the very same sanctuary city communities anyway to live 20 in a house in your neighborhoods. Good luck when they show up to your schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can ANYONE address what is wrong with the actual act of taking illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities, rather than reacting on their emotional reaction to it or Trump's motivation for it? Focus on actions and solutions instead of your feelings. Democrats, speak up about why it would be bad to do this as a matter of fact, without talking about emotion.

Good Lord. I read this entire thread and it's unreal.

Ask ICE since they thought it was a bad idea.

If they hadn't, you'd be all about it though, right? Give me a break. Those were not your reasons.

I'm all for it. I'm not all for the President taking actions that he believes are punitive towards cities that did not vote for him. Because that makes him a terrible President.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can ANYONE address what is wrong with the actual act of taking illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities, rather than reacting on their emotional reaction to it or Trump's motivation for it? Focus on actions and solutions instead of your feelings. Democrats, speak up about why it would be bad to do this as a matter of fact, without talking about emotion.

Good Lord. I read this entire thread and it's unreal.

Ask ICE since they thought it was a bad idea.

If they hadn't, you'd be all about it though, right? Give me a break. Those were not your reasons.

I'm all for it. I'm not all for the President taking actions that he believes are punitive towards cities that did not vote for him. Because that makes him a terrible President.

These places have outright said these people are a joy to have in their communities. Simply repeating that this is a punishment doesn't make it true.

I do agree that there could be an angle that says he is appeasing his base who dont want these people in their communities. But that isnt punishment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can ANYONE address what is wrong with the actual act of taking illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities, rather than reacting on their emotional reaction to it or Trump's motivation for it? Focus on actions and solutions instead of your feelings. Democrats, speak up about why it would be bad to do this as a matter of fact, without talking about emotion.

Good Lord. I read this entire thread and it's unreal.

Really? I don't think we need a discussion of why busing people across the country and dropping them off on a random street corner is a stupid policy idea. There's noone on any side of the political debate that can defend it on policy grounds. It is as pure an example as one can find of a solely political proposal. The only way to defend the proposal is "haha, snowflakes sucks. death to the libs!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The irony of course is that all these people are headed straight to the very same sanctuary city communities anyway to live 20 in a house in your neighborhoods. Good luck when they show up to your schools.

You really are POed your kids have to go to school with these nasty, dirty, ignorant, leechorous people aren't you? Scourge of the earth bringing you down.

[Anonymous]

Couple of points. First what is troubling is Miller designing a policy that he believes will result in putting other Americans in harms way. That is the mindset of a sociopath not a public servant. Also troubling if the recent firings at DHS (where civil servants pushed back against Miller) is related.

Second I don’t think it is fair or accurate to equate sanctuary cities with an open border policy. Just about every mainstream Democratic politician I know of and all the Democrats I know want strong borders and want to reduce illegal immigration. There is broad based support for more and better border security.

The key differences are that Democrats largely support :

More high tech solutions
More immigration judges to speed up processing (and deportations )
An immigration policy that is race and religion neutral
A more generous cap on the number of refugees admitted
A humane approach to dealing with the asylum seekers (who are here legally btw) and illegal immigrants So try to keep children with family members and keep good records so that we are able to reunite separated family members
Work on push factors by working with Central Americans countries to reduce crime and gang violence
Expect businesses to verify the immigration status of their workers
Institute a temporary work permit program for the agriculture sector
Don’t punish people who are here illegally through no fault of their own (the Dreamers)
Find a way to bring people who have been here for a long time out of the shadows. This is a tough sell because you don’t want to create an incentive for more people to come but you also don’t want a large group of productive people to become a permanent underclass

The last point I will make is that a sanctuary city is a policy approach designed to minimize risks to the broader community. If you have a large number of undocumented immigrants in your community you don’t want them to be afraid to come forward to report crimes or cooperate with law enforcement or public health officials because they are afraid of getting deported. ICE has the responsibility for enforcement of immigration laws. Our local police, public health workers, teachers and social workers won’t be able to do their job if they are forced to report to ICE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn’t sound like Stephen Miller was looking out for their well-being.

““It was basically an idea that Miller wanted that nobody else wanted to carry out,” said one congressional investigator who has spoken to one of the whistleblowers. “What happened here is that Stephen Miller called people at ICE, said if they’re going to cut funding, you’ve got to make sure you’re releasing people in Pelosi’s district and other congressional districts.” The investigator spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect the whistleblower.”

“It was during that mid-February standoff that one whistleblower went to Congress alleging that the White House was considering a plan to punish Democrats if they did not relent on ICE funding for beds. A second official independently came forward after that.

According to both, there were at least two versions of the plan being considered. One was to move migrants who were already in ICE detention to the districts of Democratic opponents. The second option was to bus migrants apprehended at the border to sanctuary cities, such as New York, Chicago and San Francisco.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/white-house-proposed-releasing-immigrant-detainees-in-sanctuary-cities-targeting-political-foes/2019/04/11/72839bc8-5c68-11e9-9625-01d48d50ef75_story.html

These plans were not meant to help immigrants...they were meant to PUNISH US citizens.

You all keep using words like "punish." Its not a punishment if you want them to come. He knows you want them to come. The cities/state's own laws have declared that these people are a delight. Your assertion that this is a punishment is off when they've stated explicitly that these people are a joy.

DP. Regardless of how the individual cities would feel about it, it is a big problem that Trump would take needed resources from ICE and endanger the health and safety of thousands of people just to “stick it to the libs.”

As for the sactuary cities themselves, being a sanctuary city just means you won’t expend your own resources or risk incurring your own liability to do ICE’s job for them. It doesn’t mean they have the resources and infrastructure in place to handle hundreds or thousands of people being deposited in their cities without any notice or ability to prepare for a safe arrival. If we want to create a different system of releasing detainees to spread the burden more evenly, then let’s put together an actual program for it that ensures we’re doing it safely and appropriately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn’t sound like Stephen Miller was looking out for their well-being.

““It was basically an idea that Miller wanted that nobody else wanted to carry out,” said one congressional investigator who has spoken to one of the whistleblowers. “What happened here is that Stephen Miller called people at ICE, said if they’re going to cut funding, you’ve got to make sure you’re releasing people in Pelosi’s district and other congressional districts.” The investigator spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect the whistleblower.”

“It was during that mid-February standoff that one whistleblower went to Congress alleging that the White House was considering a plan to punish Democrats if they did not relent on ICE funding for beds. A second official independently came forward after that.

According to both, there were at least two versions of the plan being considered. One was to move migrants who were already in ICE detention to the districts of Democratic opponents. The second option was to bus migrants apprehended at the border to sanctuary cities, such as New York, Chicago and San Francisco.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/white-house-proposed-releasing-immigrant-detainees-in-sanctuary-cities-targeting-political-foes/2019/04/11/72839bc8-5c68-11e9-9625-01d48d50ef75_story.html

These plans were not meant to help immigrants...they were meant to PUNISH US citizens.

You all keep using words like "punish." Its not a punishment if you want them to come. He knows you want them to come. The cities/state's own laws have declared that these people are a delight. Your assertion that this is a punishment is off when they've stated explicitly that these people are a joy.

Trump & Miller's intentions were to punish. You don't have a problem with that?

Their intentions were to give you want you wanted. How is that punishment if you've stated via your laws that illegal immigrants are a joy to have?

You're being intellectually dishonest. We know that Trump and Miller saw this plan as a negative thing - a punishment. The whistle blower said "the White House was considering a plan to punish Democrats".

Regardless of what the actual plan is, do you have a problem with the POTUS and his White House staff looking for ways to PUNISH US citizens?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Couple of points. First what is troubling is Miller designing a policy that he believes will result in putting other Americans in harms way. That is the mindset of a sociopath not a public servant. Also troubling if the recent firings at DHS (where civil servants pushed back against Miller) is related.

Second I don’t think it is fair or accurate to equate sanctuary cities with an open border policy. Just about every mainstream Democratic politician I know of and all the Democrats I know want strong borders and want to reduce illegal immigration. There is broad based support for more and better border security.

The key differences are that Democrats largely support :

More high tech solutions
More immigration judges to speed up processing (and deportations )
An immigration policy that is race and religion neutral
A more generous cap on the number of refugees admitted
A humane approach to dealing with the asylum seekers (who are here legally btw) and illegal immigrants So try to keep children with family members and keep good records so that we are able to reunite separated family members
Work on push factors by working with Central Americans countries to reduce crime and gang violence
Expect businesses to verify the immigration status of their workers
Institute a temporary work permit program for the agriculture sector
Don’t punish people who are here illegally through no fault of their own (the Dreamers)
Find a way to bring people who have been here for a long time out of the shadows. This is a tough sell because you don’t want to create an incentive for more people to come but you also don’t want a large group of productive people to become a permanent underclass

The last point I will make is that a sanctuary city is a policy approach designed to minimize risks to the broader community. If you have a large number of undocumented immigrants in your community you don’t want them to be afraid to come forward to report crimes or cooperate with law enforcement or public health officials because they are afraid of getting deported. ICE has the responsibility for enforcement of immigration laws. Our local police, public health workers, teachers and social workers won’t be able to do their job if they are forced to report to ICE.

Very well said. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that until last year, the issue was being managed, but the Trump policy both at the border and with foreign aid are exacerbating the issue. He is doing this purposefully to get the "right" all fired up and make it a core issue in 2020. It ddn't need to be, but he wants it to be, and folks here and across the country who consume Fox news are eating up. It is a really sad commentary on whatever is left of critical thinking.

exactly. he is intentionally escalating the issue here and abroad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that until last year, the issue was being managed, but the Trump policy both at the border and with foreign aid are exacerbating the issue. He is doing this purposefully to get the "right" all fired up and make it a core issue in 2020. It ddn't need to be, but he wants it to be, and folks here and across the country who consume Fox news are eating up. It is a really sad commentary on whatever is left of critical thinking.

exactly. he is intentionally escalating the issue here and abroad.

^^ and specifically for his own personal benefit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Couple of points. First what is troubling is Miller designing a policy that he believes will result in putting other Americans in harms way. That is the mindset of a sociopath not a public servant. Also troubling if the recent firings at DHS (where civil servants pushed back against Miller) is related.

Second I don’t think it is fair or accurate to equate sanctuary cities with an open border policy. Just about every mainstream Democratic politician I know of and all the Democrats I know want strong borders and want to reduce illegal immigration. There is broad based support for more and better border security.

The key differences are that Democrats largely support :

More high tech solutions
More immigration judges to speed up processing (and deportations )
An immigration policy that is race and religion neutral
A more generous cap on the number of refugees admitted
A humane approach to dealing with the asylum seekers (who are here legally btw) and illegal immigrants So try to keep children with family members and keep good records so that we are able to reunite separated family members
Work on push factors by working with Central Americans countries to reduce crime and gang violence
Expect businesses to verify the immigration status of their workers
Institute a temporary work permit program for the agriculture sector
Don’t punish people who are here illegally through no fault of their own (the Dreamers)
Find a way to bring people who have been here for a long time out of the shadows. This is a tough sell because you don’t want to create an incentive for more people to come but you also don’t want a large group of productive people to become a permanent underclass

The last point I will make is that a sanctuary city is a policy approach designed to minimize risks to the broader community. If you have a large number of undocumented immigrants in your community you don’t want them to be afraid to come forward to report crimes or cooperate with law enforcement or public health officials because they are afraid of getting deported. ICE has the responsibility for enforcement of immigration laws. Our local police, public health workers, teachers and social workers won’t be able to do their job if they are forced to report to ICE.

Finally! Can we please have more thoughtful responses like this versus posters who only seem to want to inflame hateful comments? I agree with what is said here. I would love to see an equally decent justification from our esteem thinkers who learn more Republican/conservative as to why this idea was a good one? Give me your defendable points that are based on good public policy arguments and not political grounds, please. Educate me, convince me.