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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Same. And I think most Trump supporters would agree.

Just to recap. Trump supporters fully this this because it’s “sticking it to the libs”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bet there are a ton of farms that need workers that would love to have them. Also the trucking industry is really short of drivers. Colorodo has a worker shortage.

Lots of ideas for places to send them.

I wonder how many R businessmen are calling us their Senator trying to get a few busliads.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

This, exactly. Finally, the chicken has come home to roost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well said. Except we've sent BILLIONS of dollars, not millions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Another DP. I completely agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What if Obama sat in his office with his advisors plotting various ways to punish Republicans. Think that's OK for him to do as POTUS?

You're leaving something important out of your hypothetical: is it something Republicans said they *wanted* in the first place?? If yes, then it wouldn't be considered punishment, would it? Words are important.

[Anonymous]

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

“The White House was considering a plan to punish Democrats if they did not relent on ICE funding for beds.”

Regardless if you think it’s a punishment or not that was the intention. To punish Dems over budget negotiations over ICE funding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What if Obama sat in his office with his advisors plotting various ways to punish Republicans. Think that's OK for him to do as POTUS?

As stated before I'd be perfectly fine with allowing anyone with a gun in places that dont want gun restrictions while keeping restrictions in liberal areas. I think people should have to live with the policies they advocate for.

So it's totally fine if Obama and his advisors were sitting around trying to find ways to PUNISH Republicans. You'd be totally fine with that? Fully support it? Think it's patriotic and presidential? Completely A-OK?

DP. Your constant reptetition of the same questions clearly shows you're not grasping the concept of "give the people what they want."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought the country was full?

I feel like I just heard this somewhere....


But glad we have the space to accommodate more refugees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What if Obama sat in his office with his advisors plotting various ways to punish Republicans. Think that's OK for him to do as POTUS?

As stated before I'd be perfectly fine with allowing anyone with a gun in places that dont want gun restrictions while keeping restrictions in liberal areas. I think people should have to live with the policies they advocate for.

So it's totally fine if Obama and his advisors were sitting around trying to find ways to PUNISH Republicans. You'd be totally fine with that? Fully support it? Think it's patriotic and presidential? Completely A-OK?

So you would be Okay for a Democratic president to:

- Take away social security from red states
- Take away ACA from red states
- Take away Medicare from Red States
- Fight tooth and nail to take away disaster relief from red states
- If universal healthcare is implemented, to make it available only in blue states
- if free college plan is implemented, to make it available only in blue states?
- pay for infrastructure improvement only in blue states

In a nutshell, you would be okay for a Democratic president to look out for the welfare of the Blue States and stick it to the red states?

Trump isn’t taking anything from you. He’s fulfilling one of your political platforms.

You should thank him.

You are intellectually dishonest to pretend not to understand I am alluding to.

They are amoral scum. What do you expect?

Ah, yes. The "amoral scum" poster. Do you realize people are laughing at you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Dropping them off on a random street corner in the middle of the night was what was proposed

On a sanctuary. Perfect.

Good to know. At least y'all have finally admitted that you don't care about illegal immigration or any of the other claptrap that comes out yall's mouth. All that matters to you is hate and "sticking it to the libs".

Who writes like this? ^^^ Wow.
-DP

[Anonymous]

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.

But liberals have repeatedly denied that illegal immigrants are any of these things. So he's simply giving abiding by their wishes, by offering to deliver them to the appropriate cities. Why do you have a problem with this? Remember, you don't think there are any rapists, violent gang members, or terrorists in these groups. So what's the issue?

[Anonymous]

This is wonderful news that the MAGAs now think we have the space to accommodate these immigrants. Send them over. I’m sure the news of this generosity will encourage even more refugees to seek safety of the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is an excellent example of what idiots Trump-supporters are. They don't understand what sanctuary cities are. They don't get that using human beings as pawns in political games is wrong. They spew fallacies about what "Democrats want" on immigration based on right-wing propaganda.

Pathetic and deplorable.

I'm not a Trump supporter, but b/c of your attitude (as you reflect the norm), I happily escaped the Ds.

At the root of this issue are two topics: NIMBYism and hypocrisy, which are intertwined.

Sanctuary cities are MUCH MORE receptive with regard to illegal immigration. There are NO guarantees regarding security; that's understood. However, the liberalism in those areas is widespread and thus, accepting.

I can personally speak to Montgomery County, having lived there for a large chunk of my life.

It's a win-win with Nancy Navarro on the County Council and CASA in Wheaton, right? a match made in heaven!

But then something suddenly changed. Trump hastily made another statement about sanctuary cities absorbing illegal immigrants. ICE cleared up the issue, shouting about budgetary constraints and dangers to the immigrants, not to mention the legalities around transporting them.

fine - not the first time Trump put his food in his mouth, right?

But what was amazing were the responses from liberals. Regardless of obstacles facing ICE over this issue, liberals were the first ones to jump on Trump for making this suggestion. Where was the COMPASSION for them? Why didn't any of you jump in and offer solutions? Instead, you attacked Trump for making this suggestion. You didn't worry about those who struggled for weeks to WALK their way to the border.

attack
attack
attack

But you offered no solutions.

They WILL end up in sanctuary cities. I hope you all know that. So maybe then you'll show some compassion b/c NIMBYism and hypocrisy are ugly, especially for die-hard liberals.

APPLAUSE. This is it, exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is an excellent example of what idiots Trump-supporters are. They don't understand what sanctuary cities are. They don't get that using human beings as pawns in political games is wrong. They spew fallacies about what "Democrats want" on immigration based on right-wing propaganda.

Pathetic and deplorable.

I'm not a Trump supporter, but b/c of your attitude (as you reflect the norm), I happily escaped the Ds.

At the root of this issue are two topics: NIMBYism and hypocrisy, which are intertwined.

Sanctuary cities are MUCH MORE receptive with regard to illegal immigration. There are NO guarantees regarding security; that's understood. However, the liberalism in those areas is widespread and thus, accepting.

I can personally speak to Montgomery County, having lived there for a large chunk of my life.

It's a win-win with Nancy Navarro on the County Council and CASA in Wheaton, right? a match made in heaven!

But then something suddenly changed. Trump hastily made another statement about sanctuary cities absorbing illegal immigrants. ICE cleared up the issue, shouting about budgetary constraints and dangers to the immigrants, not to mention the legalities around transporting them.

fine - not the first time Trump put his food in his mouth, right?

But what was amazing were the responses from liberals. Regardless of obstacles facing ICE over this issue, liberals were the first ones to jump on Trump for making this suggestion. Where was the COMPASSION for them? Why didn't any of you jump in and offer solutions? Instead, you attacked Trump for making this suggestion. You didn't worry about those who struggled for weeks to WALK their way to the border.

attack
attack
attack

But you offered no solutions.

They WILL end up in sanctuary cities. I hope you all know that. So maybe then you'll show some compassion b/c NIMBYism and hypocrisy are ugly, especially for die-hard liberals.

This is not about NIMBYism. This is about you don't just take human beings and randomly dump them in some city. Are there support systems in place for these people? Where will they stay?

Trump did put his foot in his mouth. So did you. You just proved my point.

Yes, we need solutions. Are the GOP prepared to put aside their fight for a stupid wall and talk about common sense solutions?

Interesting that you don't seem at all concerned about these logistics when asylum-seekers are released into the U.S. on their own. Don't you worry about their support system? Where they'll stay? Nope, apparently this is only now occurring to you, and only because Trump suggested it. Typical.