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

[Anonymous]

Why does it matter if Trump is perceived as spiteful?

The illegals are here and the cities have designated themselves as places that welcome them.

There’s nothing wrong with sanctuary cities accepting people except when Trump sends them?

Ok. Keep them in government facilities or send them back or whatever.

Obviously nothing Trump does is acceptable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is about using human beings to “retaliate” and as “political retribution” to send a message to Democrats. Using the lives of other as cannon fire to teach a lesson to dear leader’s political enemies. Not to fix a situation, but to be purely spiteful with people.

Aren't sanctuary cities where they are SUPPOSED to be? Mont. Co. is one, according to the link upthread. How is it retaliatory to send newcomers to areas DESIGNED to attract them?

Do you even know what a sanctuary city is? A sanctuary city can do nothing to protect an undocumented immigrant from ICE.

and?

It's better than a city in Washington County, no? I worked there, and I know the sentiment. These sanctuary cities have plenty of resources to assist people who need housing, jobs (CASA in Mo Co), education, and healthcare. lots of social services

Should they stay in detention centers? Is that what you're suggesting?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More people helps the economy. Will make these cities wealthier in the long run.

Why don't Liberals (in sanctuary cities) want migrants coming???

Conservatives are so petty.

how so?

Where else should they be sent? Arthur, Nebraska?

Again, the point of a SANCTUARY city is to keep people safe - a place of refuge. California, one hell of a large state, has 18 sanctuary cities. And it's located in a great geographic location.

How is it being petty to send them to places where there are welcoming people and resources?

Please share your REAL feelings? Are you located in a sanctuary city?

That is not the point of a SANCTUARY city. Stop lying.

They should be sent back to the origin where they were taken into custody.

What is the point of a sanctuary city then?

[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.

Please explain your point of view. I live in a Sanctuary City where older people were exempted from the property tax increase and where students are registered to vote in school. Our Governor has even put our former county executive on the Board of Regents. You better believe I think it is a good idea to send the undocumented here or to a state where the leaders are more than willing to break the backs of the middle class for the rich influencers. You better believe it because it is what they want. They are the employees they need. Only certain people can get away with hiring them though, of course.

This is the only way if they cross undocumented.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is about using human beings to “retaliate” and as “political retribution” to send a message to Democrats. Using the lives of other as cannon fire to teach a lesson to dear leader’s political enemies. Not to fix a situation, but to be purely spiteful with people.

Aren't sanctuary cities where they are SUPPOSED to be? Mont. Co. is one, according to the link upthread. How is it retaliatory to send newcomers to areas DESIGNED to attract them?

Because the administration’s motivation was to retaliate by doing so. They wanted to do it to teach a lesson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is about using human beings to “retaliate” and as “political retribution” to send a message to Democrats. Using the lives of other as cannon fire to teach a lesson to dear leader’s political enemies. Not to fix a situation, but to be purely spiteful with people.

Aren't sanctuary cities where they are SUPPOSED to be? Mont. Co. is one, according to the link upthread. How is it retaliatory to send newcomers to areas DESIGNED to attract them?

Because the administration’s motivation was to retaliate by doing so. They wanted to do it to teach a lesson.

Which lesson?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More people helps the economy. Will make these cities wealthier in the long run.

Why don't Liberals (in sanctuary cities) want migrants coming???

Conservatives are so petty.

how so?

Where else should they be sent? Arthur, Nebraska?

Again, the point of a SANCTUARY city is to keep people safe - a place of refuge. California, one hell of a large state, has 18 sanctuary cities. And it's located in a great geographic location.

How is it being petty to send them to places where there are welcoming people and resources?

Please share your REAL feelings? Are you located in a sanctuary city?

That is not the point of a SANCTUARY city. Stop lying.

They should be sent back to the origin where they were taken into custody.

Then why do we have them? The liberals aren't sending them back. They're here - and apparently "welcomed," yes? (although I'm wondering how much NIMBYism is in play here . . . And I wonder how many of you live in sanctuary cities.)

We either help them by providing them in non-hostile environments with necessary resources, or we send them back to their homeland. Which is it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why does it matter if Trump is perceived as spiteful?

The illegals are here and the cities have designated themselves as places that welcome them.

There’s nothing wrong with sanctuary cities accepting people except when Trump sends them?

Ok. Keep them in government facilities or send them back or whatever.

Obviously nothing Trump does is acceptable.

Because our country is a Constitutional democracy, governed by LAWS. Not by the whims of an angry old man.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is about using human beings to “retaliate” and as “political retribution” to send a message to Democrats. Using the lives of other as cannon fire to teach a lesson to dear leader’s political enemies. Not to fix a situation, but to be purely spiteful with people.

Aren't sanctuary cities where they are SUPPOSED to be? Mont. Co. is one, according to the link upthread. How is it retaliatory to send newcomers to areas DESIGNED to attract them?

Because the administration’s motivation was to retaliate by doing so. They wanted to do it to teach a lesson.

Which lesson?

So sending them to a welcoming environment with a strong network of social services is teaching a lesson to whom?

I'm confused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is about using human beings to “retaliate” and as “political retribution” to send a message to Democrats. Using the lives of other as cannon fire to teach a lesson to dear leader’s political enemies. Not to fix a situation, but to be purely spiteful with people.

Aren't sanctuary cities where they are SUPPOSED to be? Mont. Co. is one, according to the link upthread. How is it retaliatory to send newcomers to areas DESIGNED to attract them?

Because the administration’s motivation was to retaliate by doing so. They wanted to do it to teach a lesson.

Which lesson?

So sending them to a welcoming environment with a strong network of social services is teaching a lesson to whom?

I'm confused.

I’m not. Trump could cure cancer and the libs would find some reason to bitch about it. “He’s making money off his cure! His reasons weren’t pure! What an evil evil man!”

The outcome is irrelevant, as long as they have something to bitch about the process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is about using human beings to “retaliate” and as “political retribution” to send a message to Democrats. Using the lives of other as cannon fire to teach a lesson to dear leader’s political enemies. Not to fix a situation, but to be purely spiteful with people.

Aren't sanctuary cities where they are SUPPOSED to be? Mont. Co. is one, according to the link upthread. How is it retaliatory to send newcomers to areas DESIGNED to attract them?

Because the administration’s motivation was to retaliate by doing so. They wanted to do it to teach a lesson.

Which lesson?

So sending them to a welcoming environment with a strong network of social services is teaching a lesson to whom?

I'm confused.

Yes, you are confused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is about using human beings to “retaliate” and as “political retribution” to send a message to Democrats. Using the lives of other as cannon fire to teach a lesson to dear leader’s political enemies. Not to fix a situation, but to be purely spiteful with people.

Aren't sanctuary cities where they are SUPPOSED to be? Mont. Co. is one, according to the link upthread. How is it retaliatory to send newcomers to areas DESIGNED to attract them?

Because the administration’s motivation was to retaliate by doing so. They wanted to do it to teach a lesson.

Which lesson?

So sending them to a welcoming environment with a strong network of social services is teaching a lesson to whom?

I'm confused.

I’m not. Trump could cure cancer and the libs would find some reason to bitch about it. “He’s making money off his cure! His reasons weren’t pure! What an evil evil man!”

The outcome is irrelevant, as long as they have something to bitch about the process.

What do you think Trump’s motivations are here? The well-being of the detainees?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is about using human beings to “retaliate” and as “political retribution” to send a message to Democrats. Using the lives of other as cannon fire to teach a lesson to dear leader’s political enemies. Not to fix a situation, but to be purely spiteful with people.

Aren't sanctuary cities where they are SUPPOSED to be? Mont. Co. is one, according to the link upthread. How is it retaliatory to send newcomers to areas DESIGNED to attract them?

Because the administration’s motivation was to retaliate by doing so. They wanted to do it to teach a lesson.

Which lesson?

Crickets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

White House officials have tried to pressure U.S. immigration authorities to release detainees onto the streets of “sanctuary cities” to retaliate against President Trump’s political adversaries, according to Department of Homeland Security officials and email messages reviewed by The Washington Post.

Trump administration officials have proposed transporting detained immigrants to sanctuary cities at least twice in the past six months — once in November, as a migrant caravan approached the U.S. southern border, and again in February, amid a standoff with Democrats over funding for Trump’s border wall.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s district in San Francisco was among those the White House wanted to target, according to DHS officials. The administration also considered releasing detainees in other Democratic strongholds.

White House officials first broached the plan in a Nov. 16 email, asking officials at several agencies whether members of the caravan could be arrested at the border and then bused “to small- and mid-sized sanctuary cities,” places where local authorities have refused to hand over illegal immigrants for deportation.

The White House told U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement that the plan was intended to alleviate a shortage of detention space but also served to send a message to Democrats. The attempt at political retribution raised alarm within ICE, with a top official responding that it was rife with budgetary and liability concerns, and noting that “there are PR risks as well.”

After the White House pressed again in February, ICE’s legal department rejected the idea as inappropriate and rebuffed the administration.

I just do not have words to describe my disgust for Trump's capacity for vindictiveness and dangerous fear mongering. When will the country get rid of the monsters in WH. This news is about so many levels of wrongs. Trump wants to use the apprehended immigrants as if they are wild animals to release them in "sanctuary cities" to punish Democrats and blue states!!! WTF!

What is the short-term solution to the 4,000 monthly illegal immigrants entering through the southern border?

There were over 100,000 in the month of March. 4,000 is nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Exactly HOW is welcoming migrants
into sanctuary cities a bad thing??

I agree. If there's no room left to house them at the border, busing them to sanctuary cities is the next logical step. I'm actually surprised liberals haven't organized the buses to do this themselves! What a selfish bunch.