Immigrants sent to sanction cities

[Anonymous]

OP, the truth is that nobody wants them really.
Some are just afraid to say it and then they get busloads dumped on them. Their electorate wants them to welcome immigrants (just not on their street).
Too many people are abusing the legal Avenue of asking for asylum since they have a bogus claim but they can wait for years to get their hearing. I heard there’s no last in first to trial (and hopefully out) policy but not sure.
They have to wait for a few months or a year for their work permit so before that they work under the table (and sometimes after but they have the option to pay taxes and work legally).
There needs to be a law change. It’s like birthright citizenship that is legal but has become a loophole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, the truth is that nobody wants them really.
Some are just afraid to say it and then they get busloads dumped on them. Their electorate wants them to welcome immigrants (just not on their street).
Too many people are abusing the legal Avenue of asking for asylum since they have a bogus claim but they can wait for years to get their hearing. I heard there’s no last in first to trial (and hopefully out) policy but not sure.
They have to wait for a few months or a year for their work permit so before that they work under the table (and sometimes after but they have the option to pay taxes and work legally).
There needs to be a law change. It’s like birthright citizenship that is legal but has become a loophole.

We do actually want them. Have you peeked into a restaurant kitchen, construction site, et cetera? We gainfully employ them by the millions. As such the better answer would be to fix the visa program so they can come here legally and work. And at the same time, fix the system for dealing with asylees. Republicans have refused to provide much needed funding and resources to speed up hearings and deportations so that there isn't a massive backlog forcing us to just turn them loose and ask them to show up for a hearing date 2 years out. Why can't we do any of that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
(I think you mean "sanctuary." It's a totally different term, right?)

Why should local law enforcement be forced to be the enforcement arm of federal policy? Isn't that supposed to be the job of federal law enforcement?

What you are proposing is against state and local freedom. It's un-American.

So all the rhetoric about migrants being welcome is just rhetoric? The border states want actual border security. Politicians who opposed policies like stay in Mexico should have no problem housing the migrants they argued should be allowed in

Dp- rhetoric? All it means is that local law enforcement isn’t doing the fed’s job for them. It also allows illegal immigrants to report crimes without fear.

NP.... and you are exactly right. Nobody in "sanctuary cities" is saying those cities will pay for room and board and everything else. Not even the mayor of San Francisco says that. That narrative is a fiction, a gross embellishment that's purely made-up by the right wing. it's their rhetoric, not ours.

Sanctuary city means the city will not enforce immigration law. And they shouldn't, either - because it's not the city's job to do it. Immigration enforcement is strictly a matter of federal jurisdiction.

Hope that sets you straight, OP - because that is the fact, and anyone who's suggested otherwise to you is wrong.

Op here and thanks for the details and that makes sense. But then, wouldn't illegal immigrants prefer to be in these cities so they aren't living in constant fear (like they are in TX and FL)?

I agree that the false pretenses is awful and should be banned. But for the sake of discussion, what if there weren't false pretenses? What if I am governor of a state and offer illegal immigrants an opportunity to go to another city (for free transportation) to a sanctuary city. Would there be anything wrong with that?

From my (very limited) understanding of all this, it seems like these cities don't want and can't take in all these illegal immigrants. I'm trying to figure out why immigrants would want to stay in the states that don't offer protections and why it's so much better to stay in TX/FL than it would be to go to more immigrant friendly states?

Most undocumented migrants to the US tend to go where they already have relatives and/or other personal contacts OR where they have heard there is work. Given that there are already very large Hispanic populations in TX and FL and CA, that is where most tend to go.

That is how it used to be but now most states have sizable Hispanic populations. Kansas City is now a third Hispanic. There are large Hispanic communities in Hanford and Bridgeport Connecticut, in Chicago, NYC, 43% of Providence, Rhode Island is Hispanic, several cities in Illinois and Colorado are over a third Hispanic.

If you have no contacts in the US it is way better to go to a Blue state because there is way more support. Hispanics are found throughout the US.

New England cities with large Hispanic communities are not a new development. Most of those communities are Puerto Rican, and have been in NE for decades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DeSantis spent $650,000 of the Florida taxpayers money to transport about 50 migrants from Texas to Massachusetts.

How much do you think it would cost you to fly from Texas to Massachusetts? One way. About $130,000?

It was a political stunt, but even if it wasn't, how utterly moronic is this?

Lots of people in Florida voted for him anyway, although I would bet 99% of those who did do not know the details of the political stunt, they just thought it was funny. I guess they thought it was okay for him to move Venezuelan people from Texas to Massachusetts. For $130,000 each.

DeSantis feels so deprived because he doesn't have his own illegal immigrants. Stupid Cubans and their wet foot dry foot policy!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
(I think you mean "sanctuary." It's a totally different term, right?)

Why should local law enforcement be forced to be the enforcement arm of federal policy? Isn't that supposed to be the job of federal law enforcement?

What you are proposing is against state and local freedom. It's un-American.

So all the rhetoric about migrants being welcome is just rhetoric? The border states want actual border security. Politicians who opposed policies like stay in Mexico should have no problem housing the migrants they argued should be allowed in

Dp- rhetoric? All it means is that local law enforcement isn’t doing the fed’s job for them. It also allows illegal immigrants to report crimes without fear.

NP.... and you are exactly right. Nobody in "sanctuary cities" is saying those cities will pay for room and board and everything else. Not even the mayor of San Francisco says that. That narrative is a fiction, a gross embellishment that's purely made-up by the right wing. it's their rhetoric, not ours.

Sanctuary city means the city will not enforce immigration law. And they shouldn't, either - because it's not the city's job to do it. Immigration enforcement is strictly a matter of federal jurisdiction.

Hope that sets you straight, OP - because that is the fact, and anyone who's suggested otherwise to you is wrong.

Op here and thanks for the details and that makes sense. But then, wouldn't illegal immigrants prefer to be in these cities so they aren't living in constant fear (like they are in TX and FL)?

I agree that the false pretenses is awful and should be banned. But for the sake of discussion, what if there weren't false pretenses? What if I am governor of a state and offer illegal immigrants an opportunity to go to another city (for free transportation) to a sanctuary city. Would there be anything wrong with that?

From my (very limited) understanding of all this, it seems like these cities don't want and can't take in all these illegal immigrants. I'm trying to figure out why immigrants would want to stay in the states that don't offer protections and why it's so much better to stay in TX/FL than it would be to go to more immigrant friendly states?

Migrants should go where there is safety but also opportunity and capacity. The problem with just randomly dumping busload after busload of migrants on DC's streets as Texas has done is that DC's shelters are already overflowing and out of room and DC's services are over capacity and and it would be far more expensive to try and add more capacity in DC than it is in most other parts of the country.

If your house has capacity, do your part!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why people are so upset with Tx and FL for transporting immigrants to sanction cities. I've heard is that it's unfair to the people being sent. My question is that if a city declares itself as a sanction city, then it is stating that they welcome and can accommodate the influx of people. So, why is it so wrong to send people to cities that can accommodate them?

1. Sanctuary cities were designated thus to prevent undocumented residents from living in a constant state of fear of being deported at any moment and for the safety of the undocumented (who are often among the most vulnerable residents) because they are less likely to ask for help from the police and other local government representatives if they fear deportation. For cities that have large percentages of immigrants, legal or otherwise, that makes a lot of sense. I have a relative who is a mayor of a mid-size city and they reiterated this position. This does not translate into telling people to come to that city and promising to accommodate them.

2. Transporting people across state lines under false pretense is immoral and possibly illegal.

Are you saying Biden's administration acting immorally and illegally by allowing these people to cross US border line?

NP. I am, yes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
(I think you mean "sanctuary." It's a totally different term, right?)

Why should local law enforcement be forced to be the enforcement arm of federal policy? Isn't that supposed to be the job of federal law enforcement?

What you are proposing is against state and local freedom. It's un-American.

So all the rhetoric about migrants being welcome is just rhetoric? The border states want actual border security. Politicians who opposed policies like stay in Mexico should have no problem housing the migrants they argued should be allowed in

Dp- rhetoric? All it means is that local law enforcement isn’t doing the fed’s job for them. It also allows illegal immigrants to report crimes without fear.

NP.... and you are exactly right. Nobody in "sanctuary cities" is saying those cities will pay for room and board and everything else. Not even the mayor of San Francisco says that. That narrative is a fiction, a gross embellishment that's purely made-up by the right wing. it's their rhetoric, not ours.

Sanctuary city means the city will not enforce immigration law. And they shouldn't, either - because it's not the city's job to do it. Immigration enforcement is strictly a matter of federal jurisdiction.

Hope that sets you straight, OP - because that is the fact, and anyone who's suggested otherwise to you is wrong.

Op here and thanks for the details and that makes sense. But then, wouldn't illegal immigrants prefer to be in these cities so they aren't living in constant fear (like they are in TX and FL)?

I agree that the false pretenses is awful and should be banned. But for the sake of discussion, what if there weren't false pretenses? What if I am governor of a state and offer illegal immigrants an opportunity to go to another city (for free transportation) to a sanctuary city. Would there be anything wrong with that?

From my (very limited) understanding of all this, it seems like these cities don't want and can't take in all these illegal immigrants. I'm trying to figure out why immigrants would want to stay in the states that don't offer protections and why it's so much better to stay in TX/FL than it would be to go to more immigrant friendly states?

Migrants should go where there is safety but also opportunity and capacity. The problem with just randomly dumping busload after busload of migrants on DC's streets as Texas has done is that DC's shelters are already overflowing and out of room and DC's services are over capacity and and it would be far more expensive to try and add more capacity in DC than it is in most other parts of the country.

If your house has capacity, do your part!

+1
And EVERY house has capacity. Homeowners can sleep on the living room couch and give up their bedroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, the truth is that nobody wants them really.
Some are just afraid to say it and then they get busloads dumped on them. Their electorate wants them to welcome immigrants (just not on their street).
Too many people are abusing the legal Avenue of asking for asylum since they have a bogus claim but they can wait for years to get their hearing. I heard there’s no last in first to trial (and hopefully out) policy but not sure.
They have to wait for a few months or a year for their work permit so before that they work under the table (and sometimes after but they have the option to pay taxes and work legally).
There needs to be a law change. It’s like birthright citizenship that is legal but has become a loophole.

The truth is we don't want human beings treated as props for Republicans to use to make a point. DeSantis is actively trying to scoop up people who aren't even in Florida! So dehumanizing.

Yes we liberals will take care of them because they are people. And we'll take the refugees you were too scared to take. This is America, it's what we do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, the truth is that nobody wants them really.
Some are just afraid to say it and then they get busloads dumped on them. Their electorate wants them to welcome immigrants (just not on their street).
Too many people are abusing the legal Avenue of asking for asylum since they have a bogus claim but they can wait for years to get their hearing. I heard there’s no last in first to trial (and hopefully out) policy but not sure.
They have to wait for a few months or a year for their work permit so before that they work under the table (and sometimes after but they have the option to pay taxes and work legally).
There needs to be a law change. It’s like birthright citizenship that is legal but has become a loophole.

The truth is we don't want human beings treated as props for Republicans to use to make a point. DeSantis is actively trying to scoop up people who aren't even in Florida! So dehumanizing.

Yes we liberals will take care of them because they are people. And we'll take the refugees you were too scared to take. This is America, it's what we do.

And the truth is, we conservatives don’t want cartels to run the southern border, using children as chattel to get adults across. We don’t want you to thwart our efforts to make sure these kids are with family and not traffickers. So how about we make it much harder for people to get to/across the border, and also at the very least, enforce asylum law instead of pretending that you are. And there is no way in heck you will open the doors of your own home to take people in. How do I know this? Because you said “This is America”, meaning you have NO problem putting the burden of mass immigration on the American TAXPAYER, regardless of how some of those taxpayers feel. And when people rightfully complain about they personally are impacted by mass immigration, the liberal response is to call them bigots. BUT, when those unvetted immigrants you kindly let into the country commit a heinous crime, your response then is to look at a photo of a clearly ethnic man (samepeople you called brown when you were calling us bigots) you then try and tell us that person is white. So don’t speak to me about using people as props.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, the truth is that nobody wants them really.
I heard there’s no last in first to trial (and hopefully out) policy but not sure.

This was implemented under Trump, at least for some cases. Under Biden it is let them in and wait for a hearing, which of course they can skip.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
We do actually want them. Have you peeked into a restaurant kitchen, construction site, et cetera? We gainfully employ them by the millions. As such the better answer would be to fix the visa program so they can come here legally and work. And at the same time, fix the system for dealing with asylees. Republicans have refused to provide much needed funding and resources to speed up hearings and deportations so that there isn't a massive backlog forcing us to just turn them loose and ask them to show up for a hearing date 2 years out. Why can't we do any of that?

So you want cheap labor, or at least believe the stories coming from the lobbyists for companies that want cheap labor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
(I think you mean "sanctuary." It's a totally different term, right?)

Why should local law enforcement be forced to be the enforcement arm of federal policy? Isn't that supposed to be the job of federal law enforcement?

What you are proposing is against state and local freedom. It's un-American.

So all the rhetoric about migrants being welcome is just rhetoric? The border states want actual border security. Politicians who opposed policies like stay in Mexico should have no problem housing the migrants they argued should be allowed in

Dp- rhetoric? All it means is that local law enforcement isn’t doing the fed’s job for them. It also allows illegal immigrants to report crimes without fear.

NP.... and you are exactly right. Nobody in "sanctuary cities" is saying those cities will pay for room and board and everything else. Not even the mayor of San Francisco says that. That narrative is a fiction, a gross embellishment that's purely made-up by the right wing. it's their rhetoric, not ours.

Sanctuary city means the city will not enforce immigration law. And they shouldn't, either - because it's not the city's job to do it. Immigration enforcement is strictly a matter of federal jurisdiction.

Hope that sets you straight, OP - because that is the fact, and anyone who's suggested otherwise to you is wrong.

Op here and thanks for the details and that makes sense. But then, wouldn't illegal immigrants prefer to be in these cities so they aren't living in constant fear (like they are in TX and FL)?

I agree that the false pretenses is awful and should be banned. But for the sake of discussion, what if there weren't false pretenses? What if I am governor of a state and offer illegal immigrants an opportunity to go to another city (for free transportation) to a sanctuary city. Would there be anything wrong with that?

From my (very limited) understanding of all this, it seems like these cities don't want and can't take in all these illegal immigrants. I'm trying to figure out why immigrants would want to stay in the states that don't offer protections and why it's so much better to stay in TX/FL than it would be to go to more immigrant friendly states?

Migrants should go where there is safety but also opportunity and capacity. The problem with just randomly dumping busload after busload of migrants on DC's streets as Texas has done is that DC's shelters are already overflowing and out of room and DC's services are over capacity and and it would be far more expensive to try and add more capacity in DC than it is in most other parts of the country.

If your house has capacity, do your part!

+1
And EVERY house has capacity. Homeowners can sleep on the living room couch and give up their bedroom.

+2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
(I think you mean "sanctuary." It's a totally different term, right?)

Why should local law enforcement be forced to be the enforcement arm of federal policy? Isn't that supposed to be the job of federal law enforcement?

What you are proposing is against state and local freedom. It's un-American.

So all the rhetoric about migrants being welcome is just rhetoric? The border states want actual border security. Politicians who opposed policies like stay in Mexico should have no problem housing the migrants they argued should be allowed in

Dp- rhetoric? All it means is that local law enforcement isn’t doing the fed’s job for them. It also allows illegal immigrants to report crimes without fear.

NP.... and you are exactly right. Nobody in "sanctuary cities" is saying those cities will pay for room and board and everything else. Not even the mayor of San Francisco says that. That narrative is a fiction, a gross embellishment that's purely made-up by the right wing. it's their rhetoric, not ours.

Sanctuary city means the city will not enforce immigration law. And they shouldn't, either - because it's not the city's job to do it. Immigration enforcement is strictly a matter of federal jurisdiction.

Hope that sets you straight, OP - because that is the fact, and anyone who's suggested otherwise to you is wrong.

Op here and thanks for the details and that makes sense. But then, wouldn't illegal immigrants prefer to be in these cities so they aren't living in constant fear (like they are in TX and FL)?

I agree that the false pretenses is awful and should be banned. But for the sake of discussion, what if there weren't false pretenses? What if I am governor of a state and offer illegal immigrants an opportunity to go to another city (for free transportation) to a sanctuary city. Would there be anything wrong with that?

From my (very limited) understanding of all this, it seems like these cities don't want and can't take in all these illegal immigrants. I'm trying to figure out why immigrants would want to stay in the states that don't offer protections and why it's so much better to stay in TX/FL than it would be to go to more immigrant friendly states?

Migrants should go where there is safety but also opportunity and capacity. The problem with just randomly dumping busload after busload of migrants on DC's streets as Texas has done is that DC's shelters are already overflowing and out of room and DC's services are over capacity and and it would be far more expensive to try and add more capacity in DC than it is in most other parts of the country.

If your house has capacity, do your part!

+1
And EVERY house has capacity. Homeowners can sleep on the living room couch and give up their bedroom.

+2

+3
I know DCUM's finest would be happy to do their part!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why people are so upset with Tx and FL for transporting immigrants to sanction cities. I've heard is that it's unfair to the people being sent. My question is that if a city declares itself as a sanction city, then it is stating that they welcome and can accommodate the influx of people. So, why is it so wrong to send people to cities that can accommodate them?

Because it's racist, performative dog poop, for one. Republicans aren't interested in solving the problem; it's far too politically valuable to them to maintain the status quo and use it as a wedge issue.

DP. Actually, it's incredibly useful. Let blue cities across the country see what it's like to take on the burden of housing, food, education, healthcare, etc. of illegal immigrants. Maybe once they realize this is not just going to happen conveniently far away in border states, the same people who claim to be so tolerant of illegal immigration will wake up and realize this is NOT sustainable. No other country in the world allows this many people in, free to live anywhere they want while they wait years for a hearing that many don't even show up for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
(I think you mean "sanctuary." It's a totally different term, right?)

Why should local law enforcement be forced to be the enforcement arm of federal policy? Isn't that supposed to be the job of federal law enforcement?

What you are proposing is against state and local freedom. It's un-American.

So all the rhetoric about migrants being welcome is just rhetoric? The border states want actual border security. Politicians who opposed policies like stay in Mexico should have no problem housing the migrants they argued should be allowed in

Dp- rhetoric? All it means is that local law enforcement isn’t doing the fed’s job for them. It also allows illegal immigrants to report crimes without fear.

NP.... and you are exactly right. Nobody in "sanctuary cities" is saying those cities will pay for room and board and everything else. Not even the mayor of San Francisco says that. That narrative is a fiction, a gross embellishment that's purely made-up by the right wing. it's their rhetoric, not ours.

Sanctuary city means the city will not enforce immigration law. And they shouldn't, either - because it's not the city's job to do it. Immigration enforcement is strictly a matter of federal jurisdiction.

Hope that sets you straight, OP - because that is the fact, and anyone who's suggested otherwise to you is wrong.

Op here and thanks for the details and that makes sense. But then, wouldn't illegal immigrants prefer to be in these cities so they aren't living in constant fear (like they are in TX and FL)?

I agree that the false pretenses is awful and should be banned. But for the sake of discussion, what if there weren't false pretenses? What if I am governor of a state and offer illegal immigrants an opportunity to go to another city (for free transportation) to a sanctuary city. Would there be anything wrong with that?

From my (very limited) understanding of all this, it seems like these cities don't want and can't take in all these illegal immigrants. I'm trying to figure out why immigrants would want to stay in the states that don't offer protections and why it's so much better to stay in TX/FL than it would be to go to more immigrant friendly states?

Migrants should go where there is safety but also opportunity and capacity. The problem with just randomly dumping busload after busload of migrants on DC's streets as Texas has done is that DC's shelters are already overflowing and out of room and DC's services are over capacity and and it would be far more expensive to try and add more capacity in DC than it is in most other parts of the country.

DP. So what you're saying is that there is no more room in DC for these migrants, so they should go to OTHER cities. Or that Texas should just suck it up and make more room there. Right? Let me guess - you welcome the migrants! Just not in your city.