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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes please, let's hear the policy rationale for transporting asylum seekers halfway across the country and dropping them off on a random street corner in San Francisco.

Well San Diego has sued for releasing them because these people are straining their resources. So maybe the love should be shared- particularly by those cities who have open arms.

[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.

What?. It isn't punitive when citizens voted for policies politicians and their donors advocated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes please, let's hear the policy rationale for transporting asylum seekers halfway across the country and dropping them off on a random street corner in San Francisco.

Well San Diego has sued for releasing them because these people are straining their resources. So maybe the love should be shared- particularly by those cities who have open arms.

Love Trumps Hate!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The words YOU use to describe these people are Interesting and pretty telling. I dont think any of those things are true. But I like and any sane person can acknowledge that dumping hundreds of kids who dont speak English (or Spanish in some cases), cant read or write in their native language and are probably coming with emotional trauma from whatever they endured being marched across several countries into our schools will not end well. So yes. I would prefer those kids go to schools where the adults would welcome them with open arms

Grew up in AZ and had many classmates who were ESL students. It really want an issue. I don’t understand people here who keep harping on this. Most kids watch TV. They will pick up English quickly. It takes about a year of full immersion at school. Having ESL kids at school is irrelevant for white English-speaking kids.

Disagree. This was a huge interuption on the classroom and it hurts the school. Your experience doesnt mean squat when this is something we are facing here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes please, let's hear the policy rationale for transporting asylum seekers halfway across the country and dropping them off on a random street corner in San Francisco.

We already transport them from the centers. Some are in California, some are in Texas/New Mexico. They are then moved all over the country. Why not put them in towns/cities where voters want them?

Why not put them in towns and cities where they know people and have family or connections that can support them? Just dumping them on a random street corner 3000 miles away solves what, exactly?

[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.

That would sound great if it were true. Border Patrol agents are on a different front line than they signed up for. They were dealing with political activist supervisors, not military chain of command. I'll stand by my criticism that retiring border patrol agents aren't being re-signed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes please, let's hear the policy rationale for transporting asylum seekers halfway across the country and dropping them off on a random street corner in San Francisco.

Well San Diego has sued for releasing them because these people are straining their resources. So maybe the love should be shared- particularly by those cities who have open arms.

Love Trumps Hate!

Apparently not when it comes to actually putting your money where your mouth is! San Diego is a sanctuary city but is now crying and suing because they have to deal with an influx of people who need tons of services. So again we see that being open hearted is fine when you're just running your mouth and calling other people names but when it comes to actually paying for those things you cry foul. LOL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes please, let's hear the policy rationale for transporting asylum seekers halfway across the country and dropping them off on a random street corner in San Francisco.

We already transport them from the centers. Some are in California, some are in Texas/New Mexico. They are then moved all over the country. Why not put them in towns/cities where voters want them?

Why not put them in towns and cities where they know people and have family or connections that can support them? Just dumping them on a random street corner 3000 miles away solves what, exactly?

Because the US taxpayer should not be transporting them anywhere. theyve travelled hundreds/thousands of miles to "escape." they can find their way to their cousin's house.

[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.

First, so you do think allowing illegal immigrants into sanctuary cities puts people in harm's way.
Second, if you want strong borders then why don't you want law enforcement working togethr to enforce the laws. Illegal immigrants need to go through the process. You are saying if they get in, then that's fine.
More high tech solutions and less low tech - Does less low tech allow for border barriers/fences/walls?
We have a race and religion neutral policy. Just not a terrorist nation neutral policy.
More judges - agreed. But you need an infrastructure, hiring and training process to ramp up. How long will this take and what to do in the interim?
The U.S. has been paying central american countries million$$ over the years and the problem is far worse and not better. Attempt to get more involved and the U.S is colonizing, stay out of it and the corrupt governments keep the money and the problem worsens.
The U.S. already has agricultural visas for those willing.
Dreamers = amnesty. It's been tried and doesn't work. It only encourages a greater influx of illegal immigrants.
Your point about coming out of the shadows is a good one but not good politically. The real solution for most illegal immigrants is to have a social works program at low wages allowing for green card status and eventual citizenship. It's a slower form of amnesty but libs scream about how this is unfair and a form of slavery. U.S history is filled with immigration waves where this policy was instituted. Would it work now?

If teachers, police and others don't realize illegal immigration breaks our system of public services, they aren't paying attention. It's all good until a legal green card holder or citizen needs public services and they can't get them due to the strain of more than 8 million illegal immigrants abusing the system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Ask Kate Steinle’s father

I'm asking you. Are YOU ok if Trump is trying to "stick it to the libs"?

If, as a lib, you mean those that not only support sanctuary cities/counties/towns but vote for people you do? Yes. You are simply being given what you vote for.

Not, that's not what I mean. I'm asking if you are OK if Trump tries to "stick it to the libs". Generally.

Are you OK if he tries to do that in some way? It's not really a tough question.

[Anonymous]

Yes, I agree with Trump sticking it to the libs. It shows thei hypocrisy of the sanctuary city and resist policies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Oh punish Democrats? How? You mean by acknowledging that taking on all these people and paying for their social services needs into your personal communities is a disaster that even the most uber liberal doesn't want to pay for?

Still waiting for an answer...

Do you think it is OK for the POTUS and his staff to "punish" Democrats?

Maybe I should phrase it in a different way: do you think it is OK for them to "stick it to the libs"?

And we maintain it's not punishment if it's something you vote for and support.

Not trying to gauge Trumps's ability to punish but the fact that he WANTS to punish. Which was clearly stated by the whistle blower: "the White House was considering a plan to punish Democrats"

Are you OK generally with a POTUS who wants to punish citizens who have opposing political views? Could any sort of "punishment" -- something he deems a "punishment". FEMA funding, tax cuts, etc.

Are you OK if Trump tries to "stick it to the libs"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I agree with Trump sticking it to the libs. It shows thei hypocrisy of the sanctuary city and resist policies.

OK - thank you for finally answering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The words YOU use to describe these people are Interesting and pretty telling. I dont think any of those things are true. But I like and any sane person can acknowledge that dumping hundreds of kids who dont speak English (or Spanish in some cases), cant read or write in their native language and are probably coming with emotional trauma from whatever they endured being marched across several countries into our schools will not end well. So yes. I would prefer those kids go to schools where the adults would welcome them with open arms

Grew up in AZ and had many classmates who were ESL students. It really want an issue. I don’t understand people here who keep harping on this. Most kids watch TV. They will pick up English quickly. It takes about a year of full immersion at school. Having ESL kids at school is irrelevant for white English-speaking kids.

Disagree. This was a huge interuption on the classroom and it hurts the school. Your experience doesnt mean squat when this is something we are facing here.

See articles about the Utica School District who was sued for their inability to provide a constitutionally guaranteed quality level of education. Sanctuary schools can handle this better than poor school districts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I agree with Trump sticking it to the libs. It shows thei hypocrisy of the sanctuary city and resist policies.

OK - thank you for finally answering.

Dp. He is putting their money where their mouth is. I honestly do not understand this backlash.