Pritzker urges Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to stop migrant dropoffs amid winter storm: ‘I plead with you for mercy’

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Republicans are sociopaths. They don't care. They don't care if people freeze, starve, or whatever. And, the cruelty isn't by accident, it's by design.

What’s stopping the people living in the sanctuary city of Chicago from housing these people? Why don’t the good democrats take them in to stop them from freezing to death?

What is Chicago supposed to do, pick up a stick along a roadside and wave it around Harry Potter style while yelling "Habitatum ex nihilo" expecting housing to magically appear out of nowhere?

That’s what Texas is expected to do.

It’s amazing that you don’t realize that.

No state or city can deal with the numbers of people flooding the border. Texas is showing people what has been happening there for years.

Wait until the hospitals, ERs, and schools of Chicago feel the full impact. It’s devastating. I lived in South Texas for 4 years and relocated for work recently. My family still lives there. It’s becoming worse by the day.

It is amazing that you don't realize that if it is wrong and a hardship to have no control over people "flooding" the state, it is EQUALLY IF NOT MORE wrong to intentionally do that to another state. It is as though people never learned that two wrongs don't make a right...

DP.

I will never vote for a Republican, but on this one issue, I say Bravo to Abbot!

The only way Democrats are going to be serious about illegal immigration is if blue states are burdened with the costs.

I am a bleeding heart liberal, but Democrats are hypocrites on this issue.

This "two wrongs don't make a right" argument is similar to Republicans' argument on abortion: 'the fetus' life is precious and most be saved, but you dare not ask us to help you take care of it.'

I'm the PP you quoted and do not understand the comparison you are making here. What TX is doing with dumping people:
Wrong #1: done to Texas: lax immigration enforcement lets people flood the city
Wrong #2: done to Chicago: Texas intentionally dumps people in their city without notice or time to prepare.

Wrong #2 does not become Right because of Wrong #1.

How does your analogy track that?

Biden is the President of the U.S. If law enforcement is dumping people in Texas, like you say it is, Biden's administration is dumping people in Texas. That is Biden's administration's policy. Why is that Wrong #1?

Sometimes, life is about making tough decisions, and everything is not always about being wrong or right. Sometimes both choices can be wrong or both choices can be right. However, leaders must weigh the pros and cons and make the best decision decision they can.

If the Biden administration has decided " dumping people" in Texas ( your words) is the best decision it could make, then it's fair for Texas to " dump" some of them in other states in order to share the burden.

It's fair for Texas to dump them in states that seem more willing to have them. Sanctuary cities could have quietly been sanctuaries, just as Obama quietly deported illegal immigrants. Their announcement of their sanctuary status was a position meant to declare that they are taking a stance to be less hostile to these groups. Okay. Message received by Texas: take, here are some of them.

If Chicago likes it can " dump" some of them in another state.

PP you are quoting, and to take each of your points:

"Biden is the President of the U.S. If law enforcement is dumping people in Texas, like you say it is, Biden's administration is dumping people in Texas. That is Biden's administration's policy. Why is that Wrong #1?"

It absolutely is. We agree. That is what I meant by "lax immigration enforcement. That is primarily the fault of the Biden administration.

Sometimes, life is about making tough decisions, and everything is not always about being wrong or right. Sometimes both choices can be wrong or both choices can be right. However, leaders must weigh the pros and cons and make the best decision decision they can.

Not sure what you are trying to say here. But dumping people with no notice or coordination is not the "best decision" Texas can make.

If the Biden administration has decided " dumping people" in Texas ( your words) is the best decision it could make, then it's fair for Texas to " dump" some of them in other states in order to share the burden.

No, it isn't "fair." This isn't a game of "us" v. "them" or a tit-for-tat. I absolutely agree that the burden should be shared and a federal solution is required. But what TX is doing is intentionally creating chaos and exacerbating a humanitarian crisis. At the bare minimum, Texas could be seeking and notifying other states and spreading it out.

It's fair for Texas to dump them in states that seem more willing to have them. Sanctuary cities could have quietly been sanctuaries, just as Obama quietly deported illegal immigrants. Their announcement of their sanctuary status was a position meant to declare that they are taking a stance to be less hostile to these groups. Okay. Message received by Texas: take, here are some of them.


OK, so this comes really close to saying the quiet part out loud. It isn't about solving a problem. It is about revenge. And misplaced revenge at that, because the US citizens impacted by this issue are NOT he ones implementing policy.

If Chicago likes it can " dump" some of them in another state.

First, Chicago isn't a state, it is a city. And that is part of the problem. These people cross at various places across the huge border and are not concentrated in one urban area. They are then collected and dumped in an urban area, which makes it much more difficult- intentionally.

Second, Chicago is facilitating moves out of state- in a coordinated way, like Texas should be doing.

"The state said last week that since August 2022, some 9,000 migrants have been resettled — either by being placed in permanent housing or with relatives — both inside the state of Illinois and in other states."
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/chicago-scrambles-house-migrants-winter-approaches-rcna125581

DP. JFC, you continue to repeat and rehash your ridiculous take on this situation. The POINT was to cause discomfort and outrage, so that leadership in these cities (Pritzker, Adams, etc.) would finally SPEAK UP and insist that Biden secure the border. Had Abbott not done this, or politely coordinated with the receiving cities, we would simply have business as usual, with the Biden admin saying, "See? It CAN work! This is great, everyone is cooperating and welcoming millions and millions of illegal immigrants! Keep up the good work!"

No. The point is to make this as uncomfortable for other states as it has been for Texas et al - but for decades now. Perhaps having some blue state mayors/governors speak out about this crisis will actually get results. Good for Abbott.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Speaking as a Democrat, the reaction of blue cities and Democrats to these dropoffs has swayed me to the Republican side on immigration. Why should Texas and other states on the frontlines deal alone with the burden of undocumented immigrants and the effects of failed national immigration policy? It’s perfectly fair to share the burden. Let Chicago, NYC, and other blue cities deal with it just as they expected El Paso, Laredo, and Brownsville to deal with it.

I’m just the opposite. I thought it was reasonable to “spread the pain” but the only reason to transport people to Chicago in this weather is to kill them. Abbott can transport people to other areas right now, not the northern Midwest.
And Chicago didn’t send this plea in June, when they started getting immigrants and the weather wasn’t deadly.

Then Chicago will simply have to find shelters for these people - you know, like Texas, NM, and Arizona have had to do for decades. Oh well. And no one is killing anyone - just stop with the hysterical hyperbole.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Republicans are sociopaths. They don't care. They don't care if people freeze, starve, or whatever. And, the cruelty isn't by accident, it's by design.

What’s stopping the people living in the sanctuary city of Chicago from housing these people? Why don’t the good democrats take them in to stop them from freezing to death?

What is Chicago supposed to do, pick up a stick along a roadside and wave it around Harry Potter style while yelling "Habitatum ex nihilo" expecting housing to magically appear out of nowhere?

That’s what Texas is expected to do.

It’s amazing that you don’t realize that.

No state or city can deal with the numbers of people flooding the border. Texas is showing people what has been happening there for years.

Wait until the hospitals, ERs, and schools of Chicago feel the full impact. It’s devastating. I lived in South Texas for 4 years and relocated for work recently. My family still lives there. It’s becoming worse by the day.

It is amazing that you don't realize that if it is wrong and a hardship to have no control over people "flooding" the state, it is EQUALLY IF NOT MORE wrong to intentionally do that to another state. It is as though people never learned that two wrongs don't make a right...

DP.

I will never vote for a Republican, but on this one issue, I say Bravo to Abbot!

The only way Democrats are going to be serious about illegal immigration is if blue states are burdened with the costs.

I am a bleeding heart liberal, but Democrats are hypocrites on this issue.

This "two wrongs don't make a right" argument is similar to Republicans' argument on abortion: 'the fetus' life is precious and most be saved, but you dare not ask us to help you take care of it.'

I'm the PP you quoted and do not understand the comparison you are making here. What TX is doing with dumping people:
Wrong #1: done to Texas: lax immigration enforcement lets people flood the city
Wrong #2: done to Chicago: Texas intentionally dumps people in their city without notice or time to prepare.

Wrong #2 does not become Right because of Wrong #1.

How does your analogy track that?

new poster here
By declaring themselves "sanctuary cities" these cities have already agreed to take in these people. There's no "wrong" about it.

For the 6,473rd time, that is not what "sanctuary city" means in Chicago or most other cities. All it means is that they will not enforce federal immigration laws or help CBP do their jobs for them. It DOES NOT mean "we will house and feed everyone" or any of the other such nonsense claims being made.

So who should house and feed them? Announcing you are a sanctuary city is virtue signaling. Put your money where your mouth is.

Because these immigrants are being classed as asylum seekers — many don’t qualify. As such.

My family with US-born children were denied re-entry until they could prove they could afford to live in the US without government assistance. This is the right answer for many (most) of these so-called asylum seekers.

I’m thinking of going to NYC just so I can get a free flight to Europe and save myself half the flight cost.

This! The "asylum" system is completely broken and needs to be 100% reformed. It's insane that we're letting millions of people in, most of whom should not meet the criteria for asylum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to the Washington Post in an article the first week of Jan. That since 2021:

U.S. Customs and Border Protection has released more than 2.3 million migrants into the United States at the southern border under the Biden administration, allowing in the vast majority of migrant families and some adult groups, according to a new report.

So Chicago is complaining about a measly 30,000? What about the other 2,270,000 people who are in other areas in the country are other cities and towns are dealing with?

This is a National crisis so everyone has to share the burden to accommodate these migrants. The people posting complaining about migrants getting sent to Chicago are failing to see the magnitude of the problem. Chicago should be getting even more migrants.

Great question!

Here is an answer- these people are spreading out among other cities and towns, and also coming in at varied times. That makes it easier to handle- though it is still not easy and still very much a problem that needs to be addressed.

And for anyone looking here is the article PP referenced: https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2024/01/06/biden-migrants-us-mexico-border/
I contains a good amount of context to that number.

The issue is they aren't coming in at varied, predictable times. Sometimes it is over 5,000 a day rushing into Texas. So Abbott loads 2.3% (100,000 out of 2.3 million) of them onto busses and 3 cites are complaining? It isn't at all "easier to handle". These are people who aren't vetted at all.

Liberals talk about how progressive and enlightened Canada is but in fact Canada is extremely strict when it comes to immigration. They have very strict screening protocols and are pretty heartless if you want a disabled family member to immigrate to Canada. Their rules say, "The Canada Immigration Act requires this country to reject applications for immigration from persons with any “disease, disorder, disability or other health impairment” which may cause them to be “a danger to public health or public safety” or which may reasonably be expected to place “excessive demands on health or social services."

When the United States rightly or wrongly approves certain migrants like Venezuelans to have protective status then that is a pull that means Venezuelans who originally had resettled in Chile, Colombia, etc. left those safe countries and have come to the United States along with additional Venezuelans. Texas controls none of these decisions. More than 7 million Venezuelans have fled Venezuela in recent years.

Well said. The Biden administration has created the "pull factor" by allowing in millions of illegal immigrants - signaling to millions more that they should come too. And why not? They know they'll be admitted, bused to the city of their choosing, fed, housed, educated, and given medical care. All for free.

What other country in the WORLD allows this to happen?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Republicans are sociopaths. They don't care. They don't care if people freeze, starve, or whatever. And, the cruelty isn't by accident, it's by design.

What’s stopping the people living in the sanctuary city of Chicago from housing these people? Why don’t the good democrats take them in to stop them from freezing to death?

What is Chicago supposed to do, pick up a stick along a roadside and wave it around Harry Potter style while yelling "Habitatum ex nihilo" expecting housing to magically appear out of nowhere?

That’s what Texas is expected to do.

It’s amazing that you don’t realize that.

No state or city can deal with the numbers of people flooding the border. Texas is showing people what has been happening there for years.

Wait until the hospitals, ERs, and schools of Chicago feel the full impact. It’s devastating. I lived in South Texas for 4 years and relocated for work recently. My family still lives there. It’s becoming worse by the day.

It is amazing that you don't realize that if it is wrong and a hardship to have no control over people "flooding" the state, it is EQUALLY IF NOT MORE wrong to intentionally do that to another state. It is as though people never learned that two wrongs don't make a right...

DP.

I will never vote for a Republican, but on this one issue, I say Bravo to Abbot!

The only way Democrats are going to be serious about illegal immigration is if blue states are burdened with the costs.

I am a bleeding heart liberal, but Democrats are hypocrites on this issue.

This "two wrongs don't make a right" argument is similar to Republicans' argument on abortion: 'the fetus' life is precious and most be saved, but you dare not ask us to help you take care of it.'

I'm the PP you quoted and do not understand the comparison you are making here. What TX is doing with dumping people:
Wrong #1: done to Texas: lax immigration enforcement lets people flood the city
Wrong #2: done to Chicago: Texas intentionally dumps people in their city without notice or time to prepare.

Wrong #2 does not become Right because of Wrong #1.

How does your analogy track that?

new poster here
By declaring themselves "sanctuary cities" these cities have already agreed to take in these people. There's no "wrong" about it.

For the 6,473rd time, that is not what "sanctuary city" means in Chicago or most other cities. All it means is that they will not enforce federal immigration laws or help CBP do their jobs for them. It DOES NOT mean "we will house and feed everyone" or any of the other such nonsense claims being made.

In other words, we Chicagoans don't think we should have to enforce immigration laws because large groups of immigrants don't affect us. We like to sound kind and welcoming to immigrants. Just don't let too many of them come here. It might overburden our schools and services, but it's fine for Texas and other states to be overburdened.

It is NOT fine for Texas to be overburdened. It is also NOT fine for Chicago to be overburdened, particularly intentionally and at great cost by another state.

Then time to enforce the immigration laws.

PP here and I absolutely agree we need to enforce immigration laws. Texas also needs to stop the dumping.

Nothing gets done while those border states patiently wait for unaffected states to care about the immigration crisis and quit minimzing the impact.

+ a million
This is the crux of the matter. The Biden administration (and Democrats in general) have turned a blind eye to the border crisis, gaslighting all the way and claiming there "is no crisis!" Abbott is clearly at the end of his rope and has no other options. What he is doing is frankly, exactly what should be done to get Democrats to wake the hell up to what is happening. Enough is enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gov. Abbott is simply following IL law:

Illinois is officially a ‘sanctuary state’ for immigrants
https://www.chicagotribune.com/hoy/ct-hoy-illinois-is-officially-a-sanctuary-state-for-immigrants-20170828-story.html

(Sometimes it is a good idea to think through the consequences of policies that make for good PR)

That is NOT what "sanctuary state" means. "Sanctuary city" / "sanctuary state" just means they don't enforce federal immigration law or do CBP's job for them. The article you linked to even says that.

That's already been pointed out at least a half dozen or more times in this thread, so what's your excuse here? Either you're a moron who can't read or understand anything, or you are willfully dishonest. Either way you're still wrong and being repeately wrong makes you an extra special kind of stupid. Congratulations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you, or do you not, mean it when you claim "Sanctuary City", or the many related bumper stickers and lawn signs? If you don't stand behind what you say, just top talking and finally stop screaming and shaming everyone else.

If I have a bumper sticker that says "save the orcas", would it be OK for you to dump an orca on my lawn?
If I have a lawn sign that says "make abortions illegal" would it be OK for you to dump five newborns on my lawn?
If I have a lawn sign that says "prison reform now!" would it be OK for you to force to to house incarcerated people?

One can think there is a problem that needs solving or a policy that needs changing without being personally responsible for all of the symptoms of that problem.

Declaring yourself a "Sanctuary" inherently identifies you as welcoming to migrants and opposite other "heartless" cities. It's a pointless declaration if you don't stand behind it. What makes it worse is the rhetoric assuming Texas and other border states should be fine with Orcas dumped on their lawns.

"Let's Find A Solution" might be a reasonable slogan, as some are now realizing. But no - you wanted the validation and shaming opportunities without the responsibility.

That's not what it means. It just means they don't enforce federal immigration laws or do CBP's job for them.

DP. And for the zillionth time, we know what "sanctuary city" means. But the fact that any city would announce that illegal immigrants are safe from law enforcement is a signal that they sympathize with and will help illegal immigrants. Get it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Republicans are sociopaths. They don't care. They don't care if people freeze, starve, or whatever. And, the cruelty isn't by accident, it's by design.

What’s stopping the people living in the sanctuary city of Chicago from housing these people? Why don’t the good democrats take them in to stop them from freezing to death?

What is Chicago supposed to do, pick up a stick along a roadside and wave it around Harry Potter style while yelling "Habitatum ex nihilo" expecting housing to magically appear out of nowhere?

That’s what Texas is expected to do.

It’s amazing that you don’t realize that.

No state or city can deal with the numbers of people flooding the border. Texas is showing people what has been happening there for years.

Wait until the hospitals, ERs, and schools of Chicago feel the full impact. It’s devastating. I lived in South Texas for 4 years and relocated for work recently. My family still lives there. It’s becoming worse by the day.

It is amazing that you don't realize that if it is wrong and a hardship to have no control over people "flooding" the state, it is EQUALLY IF NOT MORE wrong to intentionally do that to another state. It is as though people never learned that two wrongs don't make a right...

DP.

I will never vote for a Republican, but on this one issue, I say Bravo to Abbot!

The only way Democrats are going to be serious about illegal immigration is if blue states are burdened with the costs.

I am a bleeding heart liberal, but Democrats are hypocrites on this issue.

This "two wrongs don't make a right" argument is similar to Republicans' argument on abortion: 'the fetus' life is precious and most be saved, but you dare not ask us to help you take care of it.'

I'm the PP you quoted and do not understand the comparison you are making here. What TX is doing with dumping people:
Wrong #1: done to Texas: lax immigration enforcement lets people flood the city
Wrong #2: done to Chicago: Texas intentionally dumps people in their city without notice or time to prepare.

Wrong #2 does not become Right because of Wrong #1.

How does your analogy track that?

new poster here
By declaring themselves "sanctuary cities" these cities have already agreed to take in these people. There's no "wrong" about it.

For the 6,473rd time, that is not what "sanctuary city" means in Chicago or most other cities. All it means is that they will not enforce federal immigration laws or help CBP do their jobs for them. It DOES NOT mean "we will house and feed everyone" or any of the other such nonsense claims being made.

So who should house and feed them? Announcing you are a sanctuary city is virtue signaling. Put your money where your mouth is.

Same to folks with welcoming signs on their lawn like my sister. She has a spare room. Never seen her offer it up though.

It’s mob repellent. Whites living in safe neighborhoods with those signs in their yards are vaccinating themselves from the “brown virus” and hope to keep their money and safety along with good school district.

It's crazy how good it makes people like you feel to project your own asshattery onto others. But we see you...it's a mirror you're holding, not a microscope, when you spout off about "liberal hypocrisy."

NP. It is not asshattery, it is fact. I live in one of these neighborhoods; you know the kind, BLM signs everywhere, No Human Is Illegal, be Anti-Racist.
But boy howdy if these wokesters see a black or brown person walking through their neighborhood going door to door, they light up the listserv like a Christmas tree. I complete firedrill about it.

So, so true. It's really easy to spout platitudes about being "non-racist" and "welcoming" - until you actually have to prove it.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you, or do you not, mean it when you claim "Sanctuary City", or the many related bumper stickers and lawn signs? If you don't stand behind what you say, just top talking and finally stop screaming and shaming everyone else.

If I have a bumper sticker that says "save the orcas", would it be OK for you to dump an orca on my lawn?
If I have a lawn sign that says "make abortions illegal" would it be OK for you to dump five newborns on my lawn?
If I have a lawn sign that says "prison reform now!" would it be OK for you to force to to house incarcerated people?

One can think there is a problem that needs solving or a policy that needs changing without being personally responsible for all of the symptoms of that problem.

Declaring yourself a "Sanctuary" inherently identifies you as welcoming to migrants and opposite other "heartless" cities. It's a pointless declaration if you don't stand behind it. What makes it worse is the rhetoric assuming Texas and other border states should be fine with Orcas dumped on their lawns.

"Let's Find A Solution" might be a reasonable slogan, as some are now realizing. But no - you wanted the validation and shaming opportunities without the responsibility.

That's not what it means. It just means they don't enforce federal immigration laws or do CBP's job for them.

Pritsker, 2021



Pritzker, 2024

"There are plenty of other cities where, if he's gonna send people, they could be sent — but no, he's choosing only Democratic states, Democratic cities..."
i.e...... STOP SENDING THE MIGRANTS TO ILLINOIS!

When you make life easier for people who break our laws, and enter the US illegally, why are you surprised when they want to come to your state? And, why is anyone surprised when more and more keep coming?

+100
Not the brightest bunch here. Apparently, Pritzker and Adams are none too bright either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know how we stop this from happening here?

Democrats need to organize a protest at the Capitol. Thousands of Democrats need to show up holding signs like “Close the Border” and “Pass HR-2” and “End Birthright Citizenship.”

No republicans will dare go protest at the Capitol ever again, so Democrats are going to have to do it. No republican wants to risk getting thrown in prison for 20 years.

But a protest from Democrats will be tolerated. So someone organize it and get out there and do it!!!

Can you imagine?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gov. Abbott is simply following IL law:

Illinois is officially a ‘sanctuary state’ for immigrants
https://www.chicagotribune.com/hoy/ct-hoy-illinois-is-officially-a-sanctuary-state-for-immigrants-20170828-story.html

(Sometimes it is a good idea to think through the consequences of policies that make for good PR)

+1
Love the last sentence: “Illinois is now the gold standard for statewide protections against deportation.”
Why are Democrats so proud of not enforcing the law?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Using people as political pawns is sociopathic.

And completely unChristian. Abbott is such a religious hypocrite. Would love to see the pope ex-communicate him over this.

It would be a shame if the wheelchair bound Governor Abbot was left on the street in the Chicago winter to fend for himself.

Me thinks he hasn’t experienced any hardship in a while.

His disability has made him an emasculated, angry, and spiteful man. He’s just rollin on revenge and stickin it to the Dems. He can’t protect himself and he didn’t protect Uvalde.

Speaking of emasculated, angry, and spiteful ^^. You need help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gov. Abbott is simply following IL law:

Illinois is officially a ‘sanctuary state’ for immigrants
https://www.chicagotribune.com/hoy/ct-hoy-illinois-is-officially-a-sanctuary-state-for-immigrants-20170828-story.html

(Sometimes it is a good idea to think through the consequences of policies that make for good PR)

He is absolutely not "simply following IL law." There is no law that does (or could) require what is happening. That is just silliness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Republicans are sociopaths. They don't care. They don't care if people freeze, starve, or whatever. And, the cruelty isn't by accident, it's by design.

What’s stopping the people living in the sanctuary city of Chicago from housing these people? Why don’t the good democrats take them in to stop them from freezing to death?

What is Chicago supposed to do, pick up a stick along a roadside and wave it around Harry Potter style while yelling "Habitatum ex nihilo" expecting housing to magically appear out of nowhere?

That’s what Texas is expected to do.

It’s amazing that you don’t realize that.

No state or city can deal with the numbers of people flooding the border. Texas is showing people what has been happening there for years.

Wait until the hospitals, ERs, and schools of Chicago feel the full impact. It’s devastating. I lived in South Texas for 4 years and relocated for work recently. My family still lives there. It’s becoming worse by the day.

It is amazing that you don't realize that if it is wrong and a hardship to have no control over people "flooding" the state, it is EQUALLY IF NOT MORE wrong to intentionally do that to another state. It is as though people never learned that two wrongs don't make a right...

DP.

I will never vote for a Republican, but on this one issue, I say Bravo to Abbot!

The only way Democrats are going to be serious about illegal immigration is if blue states are burdened with the costs.

I am a bleeding heart liberal, but Democrats are hypocrites on this issue.

This "two wrongs don't make a right" argument is similar to Republicans' argument on abortion: 'the fetus' life is precious and most be saved, but you dare not ask us to help you take care of it.'

I'm the PP you quoted and do not understand the comparison you are making here. What TX is doing with dumping people:
Wrong #1: done to Texas: lax immigration enforcement lets people flood the city
Wrong #2: done to Chicago: Texas intentionally dumps people in their city without notice or time to prepare.

Wrong #2 does not become Right because of Wrong #1.

How does your analogy track that?

new poster here
By declaring themselves "sanctuary cities" these cities have already agreed to take in these people. There's no "wrong" about it.

For the 6,473rd time, that is not what "sanctuary city" means in Chicago or most other cities. All it means is that they will not enforce federal immigration laws or help CBP do their jobs for them. It DOES NOT mean "we will house and feed everyone" or any of the other such nonsense claims being made.

In other words, we Chicagoans don't think we should have to enforce immigration laws because large groups of immigrants don't affect us. We like to sound kind and welcoming to immigrants. Just don't let too many of them come here. It might overburden our schools and services, but it's fine for Texas and other states to be overburdened.

It is NOT fine for Texas to be overburdened. It is also NOT fine for Chicago to be overburdened, particularly intentionally and at great cost by another state.

Then time to enforce the immigration laws.

PP here and I absolutely agree we need to enforce immigration laws. Texas also needs to stop the dumping.

Nothing gets done while those border states patiently wait for unaffected states to care about the immigration crisis and quit minimzing the impact.

+ a million
This is the crux of the matter. The Biden administration (and Democrats in general) have turned a blind eye to the border crisis, gaslighting all the way and claiming there "is no crisis!" Abbott is clearly at the end of his rope and has no other options. What he is doing is frankly, exactly what should be done to get Democrats to wake the hell up to what is happening. Enough is enough.

Do you really honestly think that he has no other options?
Do you really honestly think that these flights are even making any appreciable difference to alleviate the strain put on Texas?

You don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you, or do you not, mean it when you claim "Sanctuary City", or the many related bumper stickers and lawn signs? If you don't stand behind what you say, just top talking and finally stop screaming and shaming everyone else.

If I have a bumper sticker that says "save the orcas", would it be OK for you to dump an orca on my lawn?
If I have a lawn sign that says "make abortions illegal" would it be OK for you to dump five newborns on my lawn?
If I have a lawn sign that says "prison reform now!" would it be OK for you to force to to house incarcerated people?

One can think there is a problem that needs solving or a policy that needs changing without being personally responsible for all of the symptoms of that problem.

Declaring yourself a "Sanctuary" inherently identifies you as welcoming to migrants and opposite other "heartless" cities. It's a pointless declaration if you don't stand behind it. What makes it worse is the rhetoric assuming Texas and other border states should be fine with Orcas dumped on their lawns.

"Let's Find A Solution" might be a reasonable slogan, as some are now realizing. But no - you wanted the validation and shaming opportunities without the responsibility.

That's not what it means. It just means they don't enforce federal immigration laws or do CBP's job for them.

DP. And for the zillionth time, we know what "sanctuary city" means. But the fact that any city would announce that illegal immigrants are safe from law enforcement is a signal that they sympathize with and will help illegal immigrants. Get it?

They do sympathize and are helping the illegal immigrants (note that all of the people TX is sending are asylum-seekers NOT violating law.)
They are not prepared to help mass quantities of them that come at one time without notice, sent intentionally to cause chaos.

Get it?