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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Myth: Democrats want open borders.
Fact: Democrats want a comprehensive and humane immigration policy.

Myth: Democrats don’t want asylum seekers in their Sanctuary City.
Fact: Democrats welcome asylum seekers but disapprove of Trump and his Administration is treating these immigrants. Separating families and using them as pawns is gross.

Fact: comprehensive means not a $1 for a barrier/wall/fence even though dems proposed the same under Obama. RESIST at all costs.
Fact: Dems aren't welcoming illegal asylum seekers as now being reported on msn.com

Build the barrier/wall/fence! Build the barrier/wall/fence. Not quite as catchy as what cult45 has been screeching for the past 3 years. What changed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since Trump says these are rapists, violent gang members and even some terrorists, then he is admitting to willfully planning violent crime and terror attacks on Americans.

Smart guy.

Well democrats say they are all dreamers just looking for a better life, so no big deal

Wrong. Democrats understand the difference between legal and illegal immigrants and understand what an asylum seeker is. They aren't just all Mexicans, like Fox would have you believe.

"dreamers" are not legal immigrants

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Myth: Democrats want open borders.
Fact: Democrats want a comprehensive and humane immigration policy.

Myth: Democrats don’t want asylum seekers in their Sanctuary City.
Fact: Democrats welcome asylum seekers but disapprove of Trump and his Administration is treating these immigrants. Separating families and using them as pawns is gross.

Fact: comprehensive means not a $1 for a barrier/wall/fence even though dems proposed the same under Obama. RESIST at all costs.
Fact: Dems aren't welcoming illegal asylum seekers as now being reported on msn.com

The PP got some "facts" wrong. Democrats have actually agreed on the need for some physical barriers along the border but don't want to build a wall along the entire border.
Also asylum seekers are not "illegal". US law asks asylum seekers to present themselves at a border checkpoint if they want to be considered for asylum. In other words you cannot apply in a US embassy or consulate in another country.
One actual fact PP. No mainstream Democratic politician wants open borders. We all want to limit illegal immigration.

The differences lie in how we would like to treat people who (legally) apply for asylum as well as economic migrants who cross the border illegally.
Do you treat them humanely and take special care to treat young children with kindness?
Do you keep good records so that you are not separating (in many cases permanently) thousands of young children from their parents?
Do you increase the resources expended on our woefully understaffed border patrol (they are having a tough time recruiting quality applicants)?
Do you increase the number of immigration judges so that you can more quickly process asylum seekers. Right now the law states that once you apply you can be released into the community to work while you wait for your asylum hearing. The court dates are now at least two years after you apply which invites an increase in fraudulent asylum claims which is unfair to legitimate asylum seekers.
Do you work hard to help the three Northern Triangle countries to reduce the horrific levels of crime and violence that are pushing families to flee in incredible numbers

What is clear is that current policies are not working and border crossings have hit an incredible high of close to 80,000 a month- an eleven year high.
There are a lot of people on both sides of the aisle who want to work on this problem and who have offered decent policy proposals. Why not start there?

btw the idea behind sanctuary cities is that local governments want to know who lives in their communities. They don't want large groups of people living in the shadows because that can be a public safety and a public health risk. The idea that the federal government would unload hundreds of thousands of undocumented people without a highly detailed plan and the resources to implement that plan would make good governance impossible for these local governments. So yes you can treat all the residents in your community with dignity and respect regardless of their immigration status and still not want a sudden influx of people without a plan and resources from the federal government. Having Chaos deliberately unleashed by the federal government is completely beyond the pale

[Anonymous]

This why he’s getting re-elected.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/04/12/donald-trump-to-democrats-change-the-laws-or-were-putting-more-illegals-in-sanctuary-cities/

[Anonymous]

Breitbart? LOL!

[Anonymous]

If you read Breitbart you wouldn’t have been crying so hard on election night in 2016.

[Anonymous]

-just sayin’

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This why he’s getting re-elected.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/04/12/donald-trump-to-democrats-change-the-laws-or-were-putting-more-illegals-in-sanctuary-cities/

Isn’t this kind of sticking it to the conservatives that live in these areas too? Like the poster on here that bitterly complains about the sorry state of schools once they are infested with the illegals. Aren’t they the ones that are actually going to “suffer”? They didn’t vote in the soft hearted liberals that want to
offer sanctuary. Guess where their tax dollars are going to go. Collateral damage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh boy, nazis are running America. Remember when things were normal under Obama?

AGAIN:

Why don't you want migrants coming to sanctuary cities?

When will trumpservatives have critical thinking? If you see nothing wrong in what the news report is we have nothing to talk. You guys are walking robots of a cult.

That would be you. I actually know how to reason.

[Anonymous]

Theory: I think this probably started as a casual suggestion--almost a joke. When it got publicity, Trump saw an opportunity to expose the hyporcrisy of the Pelosi's of the world. Trump is now using it to his advantage and most of you do not realize it.

[Anonymous]

If I were an immigrant I’d rather go to a sanctuary city than sompleace I’m not welcome. But, you can be damn sure that Trump did not say this out of the goodness of his heart.

[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.

Exactly!!!
Also, right now they are being dumped in border towns, how is this fair?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you read Breitbart you wouldn’t have been crying so hard on election night in 2016.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Myth: Democrats want open borders.
Fact: Democrats want a comprehensive and humane immigration policy.

Myth: Democrats don’t want asylum seekers in their Sanctuary City.
Fact: Democrats welcome asylum seekers but disapprove of Trump and his Administration is treating these immigrants. Separating families and using them as pawns is gross.

Fact: comprehensive means not a $1 for a barrier/wall/fence even though dems proposed the same under Obama. RESIST at all costs.
Fact: Dems aren't welcoming illegal asylum seekers as now being reported on msn.com

The PP got some "facts" wrong. Democrats have actually agreed on the need for some physical barriers along the border but don't want to build a wall along the entire border.
Also asylum seekers are not "illegal". US law asks asylum seekers to present themselves at a border checkpoint if they want to be considered for asylum. In other words you cannot apply in a US embassy or consulate in another country.
One actual fact PP. No mainstream Democratic politician wants open borders. We all want to limit illegal immigration.

The differences lie in how we would like to treat people who (legally) apply for asylum as well as economic migrants who cross the border illegally.
Do you treat them humanely and take special care to treat young children with kindness?
Do you keep good records so that you are not separating (in many cases permanently) thousands of young children from their parents?
Do you increase the resources expended on our woefully understaffed border patrol (they are having a tough time recruiting quality applicants)?
Do you increase the number of immigration judges so that you can more quickly process asylum seekers. Right now the law states that once you apply you can be released into the community to work while you wait for your asylum hearing. The court dates are now at least two years after you apply which invites an increase in fraudulent asylum claims which is unfair to legitimate asylum seekers.
Do you work hard to help the three Northern Triangle countries to reduce the horrific levels of crime and violence that are pushing families to flee in incredible numbers

What is clear is that current policies are not working and border crossings have hit an incredible high of close to 80,000 a month- an eleven year high.
There are a lot of people on both sides of the aisle who want to work on this problem and who have offered decent policy proposals. Why not start there?

btw the idea behind sanctuary cities is that local governments want to know who lives in their communities. They don't want large groups of people living in the shadows because that can be a public safety and a public health risk. The idea that the federal government would unload hundreds of thousands of undocumented people without a highly detailed plan and the resources to implement that plan would make good governance impossible for these local governments. So yes you can treat all the residents in your community with dignity and respect regardless of their immigration status and still not want a sudden influx of people without a plan and resources from the federal government. Having Chaos deliberately unleashed by the federal government is completely beyond the pale

I dont believe you that people cant request asylum by presenting themselves at embassies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Myth: Democrats want open borders.
Fact: Democrats want a comprehensive and humane immigration policy.

Myth: Democrats don’t want asylum seekers in their Sanctuary City.
Fact: Democrats welcome asylum seekers but disapprove of Trump and his Administration is treating these immigrants. Separating families and using them as pawns is gross.

Fact: comprehensive means not a $1 for a barrier/wall/fence even though dems proposed the same under Obama. RESIST at all costs.
Fact: Dems aren't welcoming illegal asylum seekers as now being reported on msn.com

The PP got some "facts" wrong. Democrats have actually agreed on the need for some physical barriers along the border but don't want to build a wall along the entire border.
Also asylum seekers are not "illegal". US law asks asylum seekers to present themselves at a border checkpoint if they want to be considered for asylum. In other words you cannot apply in a US embassy or consulate in another country.
One actual fact PP. No mainstream Democratic politician wants open borders. We all want to limit illegal immigration.

The differences lie in how we would like to treat people who (legally) apply for asylum as well as economic migrants who cross the border illegally.
Do you treat them humanely and take special care to treat young children with kindness?
Do you keep good records so that you are not separating (in many cases permanently) thousands of young children from their parents?
Do you increase the resources expended on our woefully understaffed border patrol (they are having a tough time recruiting quality applicants)?
Do you increase the number of immigration judges so that you can more quickly process asylum seekers. Right now the law states that once you apply you can be released into the community to work while you wait for your asylum hearing. The court dates are now at least two years after you apply which invites an increase in fraudulent asylum claims which is unfair to legitimate asylum seekers.
Do you work hard to help the three Northern Triangle countries to reduce the horrific levels of crime and violence that are pushing families to flee in incredible numbers

What is clear is that current policies are not working and border crossings have hit an incredible high of close to 80,000 a month- an eleven year high.
There are a lot of people on both sides of the aisle who want to work on this problem and who have offered decent policy proposals. Why not start there?

btw the idea behind sanctuary cities is that local governments want to know who lives in their communities. They don't want large groups of people living in the shadows because that can be a public safety and a public health risk. The idea that the federal government would unload hundreds of thousands of undocumented people without a highly detailed plan and the resources to implement that plan would make good governance impossible for these local governments. So yes you can treat all the residents in your community with dignity and respect regardless of their immigration status and still not want a sudden influx of people without a plan and resources from the federal government. Having Chaos deliberately unleashed by the federal government is completely beyond the pale

I dont believe you that people cant request asylum by presenting themselves at embassies.

DP, you don't have to believe the PP, but then look up the law. The PP is correct. Google is your friend.