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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

OK, OP

Let's discuss this.

First, here's a list of sanctuary cities (2017) - https://www.kgun9.com/news/local-news/list-of-sanctuary-cities-2017

I'll cite the ones in VA and MD since many posters live in these states - and DC is on the list, too.

Maryland

Baltimore
Montgomery County
Prince George's County


Virginia

Arlington County
Chesterfield County

So we can agree that these areas are liberal and many clearly dislike Trump, yes? These are "welcoming areas" for people in distress, yes? The current administration is hostile to border crossing folks, correct? They cage kids and separate children from parents, right? So a sanctuary city is a godsend.

You're now saying that Trump is PUNISHING liberal cities - where many of his opponents are housed - by sending to them the VERY PEOPLE they wish to protect as they cross over the border.

So I'll ask these questions - Are you in or near one of the sanctuary cities? And even if you're not, what are your concerns? safety? space?

Certainly you don't expect unfriendly, non-sanctuary cities to house these folks, correct?

+1,000
I literally cannot wait to read the responses.

[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?

Crickets.

Go back and read the OP. It’s pretty apparent. People are fodder for political games in the eyes of your dear leader no matter how you try to spin it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ok - so according to law, where should we send them?

These are the sanctuary stats: CA, CO, CT, DC (not a state), FL, GA, IA, IL, KS, LA, MA, MD, MN, NE, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OR, PA, RI, TX, VA, VT, WA, WI.

[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?

Crickets.

This county's policies welcome the undocumented. These politicians ran on these Sanctuary policies and chastised Trump and his supporters for fiscal sanity. This isn't retribution if you voted for people who campaigned on it or work for people who spread the word, "Sanctuary Cities are Open For Business."

Y'all are sh*tting where you eat. Be careful when you step all over your message like this.

[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.

If Trump was trying his best, putting all of his effort into trying to find a cure for cancer, I'd be happy. He wouldn't even have to find a cure, just try. And nothing is stopping him from doing that. But instead, he bitches about immigration and cuts regulations, increasing the risk of cancer.

[Anonymous]

This is wonderful news that the MAGAs are now so concerned about the detainees’ welfare and want to ensure their safety. No need to limit their relocation to just sanctuary cities when we have so many caring people from so many different places who want to look out for them.

[Anonymous]

https://cis.org/Map-Sanctuary-Cities-Counties-and-States

Map 1: Sanctuary Cities, Counties, and States
Updated March 18, 2019
The sanctuary jurisdictions are listed below. These cities, counties, and states have laws, ordinances, regulations, resolutions, policies, or other practices that obstruct immigration enforcement and shield criminals from ICE — either by refusing to or prohibiting agencies from complying with ICE detainers, imposing unreasonable conditions on detainer acceptance, denying ICE access to interview incarcerated aliens, or otherwise impeding communication or information exchanges between their personnel and federal immigration officers.

A detainer is the primary tool used by ICE to gain custody of criminal aliens for deportation. It is a notice to another law enforcement agency that ICE intends to assume custody of an alien and includes information on the alien's previous criminal history, immigration violations, and potential threat to public safety or security.

There’s a map and info. How is it punishing anyone?

Let the cities help. They care and have resources. Don’t talk the talk and then refuse to walk the walk.

[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.

It's absurd to declare yourself a welcoming space for illegal immigrants, and then stomp your feet when the administration takes you up on your offer. You people are truly clueless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is wonderful news that the MAGAs are now so concerned about the detainees’ welfare and want to ensure their safety. No need to limit their relocation to just sanctuary cities when we have so many caring people from so many different places who want to look out for them.

How many do you care for? How many live with you? How much do you contribute?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yep. Prepare for some major backtracking and spin.

[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.

It's absurd to declare yourself a welcoming space for illegal immigrants, and then stomp your feet when the administration takes you up on your offer. You people are truly clueless.

They aren't "declaring" themselves as a welcoming space for illegal immigrants. Stop lying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Crickets.

Go back and read the OP. It’s pretty apparent. People are fodder for political games in the eyes of your dear leader no matter how you try to spin it.

But his motivations shouldn't matter in this case.

The cities were designed to be safe spaces for illegal immigrants. Despite his ulterior motives, why should people now BALK at the decision to welcome more and more folks into these cities?

Basically, the liberals responding are doing the same thing - using illegal immigrants as pawns, with an additional layer of hypocrisy added into the mix.

Liberals: We want them. We have sanctuary cities for them.
Conservatives: We don't want them, but we have them. So we'll send more your way.
Liberals: No! You are cruel by using these newcomers as pawns in a dangerous game!

Again, motivation aside, if you want them inside the border, where should they go?

+1

Libs have entire cities crafted for illegals and then get outraged Trump days take them.

Hypocrites.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ok - so according to law, where should we send them?

These are the sanctuary stats: CA, CO, CT, DC (not a state), FL, GA, IA, IL, KS, LA, MA, MD, MN, NE, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OR, PA, RI, TX, VA, VT, WA, WI.

Citation? Your list is wrong. VA is not a sanctuary state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is wonderful news that the MAGAs are now so concerned about the detainees’ welfare and want to ensure their safety. No need to limit their relocation to just sanctuary cities when we have so many caring people from so many different places who want to look out for them.

So this is like busing (or redistricting).

Perfect!

[Anonymous]

Says not days