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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump just wants to fill train cars with what he obviously considers to be human trash.

Anyone remember how that went last time someone did it?

Train cars that go to sanctuary cities? Are the liberals there setting up concentration camp?

Why would these sanctuary cities represent themselves as sanctuary but really be planning on extermination?

Explain.

Not PP, but carting bodies around the country for political "punishment" (as it was clearly intended) is disgusting.

and AGAIN . . .

1. They are already IN sanctuary cities, as this has been happening now for ages.
2. This is only viewed as a punishment BY liberals, which is confusing to me as a moderate.

How is sending folks to areas that have been welcoming them for ages a punishment?

It's not. But now that they're backed into a corner, that's the only thing they can come up with. And all this time, they've been calling others "racists" for wanting to crack down on illegal immigration. Who are the racists now? Such hypocrites.

[Anonymous]

If this thread doesn't outright prove what liars Trump supporters are, I don't know what does. Misdirection, misinformation, attributing their own bad behavior to others...blah blah blah. So steeped in their own shite they can't smell it anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The President is giving you exactly what you said you welcomed. Remember the signs, the sermons we heard, the taxes we pay, the donations we make, the languages we learned, and hours of volunteering we give? Yeah - he's giving us exactly what we encouraged and support. This community can handle the needs far better than most.

+1,000
Don't forget the marches... these immigrants will have the red carpet rolled out for them! I actually think it's a very intriguing idea. Funny how liberals pay lip service to all their "good deed" and virtue signal whenever humanly possible. But when a real opportunity arrives to take in these immigrants, all of a sudden it's "punishment". Too funny.

TRUMP thinks it’s a punishment. Are you really that dense?

Who cares? YOU don't think it's a punishment, right? Or do you? Which is it?

this

It becomes an attack on Trump when he stated the obvious. While ICE isn't going to OFFICIALLY ship newcomers to sanctuary cities, that's where they're headed. Mo Co, for example, is growing in diversity.

Here are some stats:

The population of Montgomery County, MD is 44.5% White, 19.1% Hispanic, and 17.8% Black. 41% of the people in Montgomery County, MD speak a non-English language, and 84.8% are U.S. citizens.

Astute folks notice it in the schools first. Here is a demographic chart of the MCPS schools - https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/annualreport/2017/
Hispanics make up the largest group. Now, you'd need to examine the numbers more closely to see who's in ESOL classes, for example, in order to analyze funding and growth. And those numbers will change from level to level, as there may be more allocated for ES than for HS, for example, depending upon shifts in the population. But we do know that the group is growing, which makes it attractive for those seeking refuge in similar communities.



So while "Trump thinks it's a punishment," as you so eloquently stated, do YOU think it's a punishment, too? That's the question that's been asked again and again on these threads.

The growth is there, folks. Liberal (and mainly coastal) cities will attract newcomers for many reasons. So how is Trump's "punishment" any different from what's ALREADY BEEN in place for YEARS?

I have an issue with his intentions. He intends to punish US citizens. He intends to “stick it to the libs”. It doesn’t matter if it’s actually a punishment or not. The POTUS is looking for ways to punish Dems because they disagreed with ICE funding. This is just one example of his vindictiveness.

His approval in NC is dropping. What if he withholds FEMA funding if they get another massive hurricane over that?

You probably wouldn’t have an issue with that but I would because I don’t think the POTUS should act like a vindictive, hateful a&$hole to any US citizens. But again that’s where we differ. You enjoy any chance to “stick it to the libs”. That is precisely why you put a vindictive, hateful a$$hole in the White House.

Good grief. How many times have you posted these exact words?? No one cares that *you* have an issue with Trump's intentions. The fact is, it was not a bad suggestion to move people (who we're going to release into the country ANYWAY!!) to cities that brag about being "welcoming" to illegal immigrants. Win-win. They can deal with it. I'm not sure why you object, but it's pretty clear only because you detest Trump. Moving on...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump just wants to fill train cars with what he obviously considers to be human trash.

Anyone remember how that went last time someone did it?

Train cars that go to sanctuary cities? Are the liberals there setting up concentration camp?

Why would these sanctuary cities represent themselves as sanctuary but really be planning on extermination?

Explain.

Not PP, but carting bodies around the country for political "punishment" (as it was clearly intended) is disgusting.

and AGAIN . . .

1. They are already IN sanctuary cities, as this has been happening now for ages.
2. This is only viewed as a punishment BY liberals, which is confusing to me as a moderate.

How is sending folks to areas that have been welcoming them for ages a punishment?

It's not. But now that they're backed into a corner, that's the only thing they can come up with. And all this time, they've been calling others "racists" for wanting to crack down on illegal immigration. Who are the racists now? Such hypocrites.

Again, for the idiots:

Sanctuary city (French: ville sanctuaire; Spanish: ciudad santuario) refers to municipal jurisdictions, typically in North America and Western Europe, that limit their cooperation with the national government's effort to enforce immigration law. Leaders of sanctuary cities say they want to reduce fear of deportation and possible family break-up among people who are in the country illegally, so that such people will be more willing to report crimes, use health and social services, and enroll their children in school. In the United States, municipal policies include prohibiting police or city employees from questioning people about their immigration status and refusing requests by national immigration authorities to detain people beyond their release date, if they were jailed for breaking local law.[1] Such policies can be set expressly in law (de jure) or observed in practice (de facto), but the designation "sanctuary city" does not have a precise legal definition. The Federation for American Immigration Reform estimated in 2018 that more than 500 U.S. jurisdictions, including states and municipalities, had adopted sanctuary policies.[2]

Studies on the relationship between sanctuary status and crime have found that sanctuary policies either have no effect on crime or that sanctuary cities have lower crime rates and stronger economies than comparable non-sanctuary cities.[3][4][5][6] Opponents of sanctuary cities argue that cities should assist the national government in enforcing immigration law. Supporters of sanctuary cities argue that enforcement of national law is not the duty of localities.[7] Legal opinions vary on whether immigration enforcement by local police is constitutional.[8]

European cities have been inspired by the same political currents of the sanctuary movement as American cities, but the term "sanctuary city" now has different meanings in Europe and North America.[9] In the United Kingdom and Ireland, and in continental Europe, sanctuary city refers to cities that are committed to welcoming refugees, asylum seekers and others who are seeking safety. Such cities are now found in 80 towns, cities and local areas in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.[10] The emphasis is on building bridges of connection and understanding, which is done through raising awareness, befriending schemes and forming cultural connections in the arts, sport, health, education, faith groups and other sectors of society.[11] Glasgow and Swansea have become known as noted sanctuary cities.[10][12][13]

Sanctuary cities is about asking about immigration status. You are confusing American sanctuary cities with European ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Exactly. Liberals are hypocrites.

That wasn't WHY they were designated sanctuary cities, but go ahead and send them. That will surely encourage another huge wave of refugees.

Ok - now we're trying to wordsmith.

Sanctuary cities are INDEED much more hospitable to newcomers. That's a FACT! The availability of resources necessary to provide a comfortable solution for these people is the reason why people come. an added benefit? the ability to track newcomers in case there's another Rockville HS rape incident . . .

EVENTUALLY, MOST will report to friendly areas, which translates into sanctuary cities.

So you can dance around the definition all you want, but liberals created the rules and now you have to learn to live with them.

And I do question what I added in bold. I may be stupid to make an ASSumption, but I'll do it anyway. Is that "threat" one that comes from fear? It appears as though you DON'T want to invite more of "them" in. Am I correct?

It's not a threat. Just a likely outcome.

Would you consider it a threat? Intentions don't matter, so I'm told. So it's really just how you'd interpret it, right?

lol

It's NOT a FUTURE outcome. It's already in place. That's what you don't seem to get.

You don't think that even LARGER groups of refugees will come if they know that Trump is welcoming them into the country?

DP. LARGER groups are now coming because they know that showing up with children will automatically guarantee them an asylum hearing - but more importantly, it will ensure they're released into the U.S. while they "wait" for that hearing. Asylum laws need to be changed and these groups need to wait on Mexico's side for their hearings - not simply be released into the U.S. It's mind-boggling that Mexico isn't stepping up and holding them there while they wait.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Migrants break border gate, force their way into Mexico
Associated Press
Associated PressApril 13, 2019, 8:19 AM EDT
MEXICO CITY (AP) -- Mexican authorities said a group of about 350 migrants broke the locks on a gate at the Guatemalan border Friday and forced their way into southern Mexico to join a larger group of migrants trying to make their way toward the United States.

The National Immigration Institute did not identify the nationalities of the migrants, but they are usually from Central America.

The institute said the migrants were acting in a "hostile" and "aggressive" way, and accused them of also attacking local police in Metapa, a Mexican village that lies between the border and the nearby city of Tapachula.

Claudia Jaqueline Sandoval, 43, from El Progreso, Honduras, was walking toward Tapachula with her 6-year-old daughter. Another son and a daughter are already in the United States.

"I have been HIV positive for 16 years," said Sandoval, but her reason for going north was not just medical treatment. "It has been two years since I heard from my son" in the United States, and money is scarce, she said.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/migrants-break-border-gate-force-way-mexico-182832541.html

Welcome!! Sanctuary cities across the US are preparing for your arrival!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Exactly. Liberals are hypocrites.

That wasn't WHY they were designated sanctuary cities, but go ahead and send them. That will surely encourage another huge wave of refugees.

Ok - now we're trying to wordsmith.

Sanctuary cities are INDEED much more hospitable to newcomers. That's a FACT! The availability of resources necessary to provide a comfortable solution for these people is the reason why people come. an added benefit? the ability to track newcomers in case there's another Rockville HS rape incident . . .

EVENTUALLY, MOST will report to friendly areas, which translates into sanctuary cities.

So you can dance around the definition all you want, but liberals created the rules and now you have to learn to live with them.

And I do question what I added in bold. I may be stupid to make an ASSumption, but I'll do it anyway. Is that "threat" one that comes from fear? It appears as though you DON'T want to invite more of "them" in. Am I correct?

It's not a threat. Just a likely outcome.

Would you consider it a threat? Intentions don't matter, so I'm told. So it's really just how you'd interpret it, right?

lol

It's NOT a FUTURE outcome. It's already in place. That's what you don't seem to get.

You don't think that even LARGER groups of refugees will come if they know that Trump is welcoming them into the country?

DP. LARGER groups are now coming because they know that showing up with children will automatically guarantee them an asylum hearing - but more importantly, it will ensure they're released into the U.S. while they "wait" for that hearing. Asylum laws need to be changed and these groups need to wait on Mexico's side for their hearings - not simply be released into the U.S. It's mind-boggling that Mexico isn't stepping up and holding them there while they wait.

Not really. Mexico would much rather they just move along into the US. Why would Mexico want to hold them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The President is giving you exactly what you said you welcomed. Remember the signs, the sermons we heard, the taxes we pay, the donations we make, the languages we learned, and hours of volunteering we give? Yeah - he's giving us exactly what we encouraged and support. This community can handle the needs far better than most.

+1,000
Don't forget the marches... these immigrants will have the red carpet rolled out for them! I actually think it's a very intriguing idea. Funny how liberals pay lip service to all their "good deed" and virtue signal whenever humanly possible. But when a real opportunity arrives to take in these immigrants, all of a sudden it's "punishment". Too funny.

TRUMP thinks it’s a punishment. Are you really that dense?

Who cares? YOU don't think it's a punishment, right? Or do you? Which is it?

this

It becomes an attack on Trump when he stated the obvious. While ICE isn't going to OFFICIALLY ship newcomers to sanctuary cities, that's where they're headed. Mo Co, for example, is growing in diversity.

Here are some stats:

The population of Montgomery County, MD is 44.5% White, 19.1% Hispanic, and 17.8% Black. 41% of the people in Montgomery County, MD speak a non-English language, and 84.8% are U.S. citizens.

Astute folks notice it in the schools first. Here is a demographic chart of the MCPS schools - https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/annualreport/2017/
Hispanics make up the largest group. Now, you'd need to examine the numbers more closely to see who's in ESOL classes, for example, in order to analyze funding and growth. And those numbers will change from level to level, as there may be more allocated for ES than for HS, for example, depending upon shifts in the population. But we do know that the group is growing, which makes it attractive for those seeking refuge in similar communities.



So while "Trump thinks it's a punishment," as you so eloquently stated, do YOU think it's a punishment, too? That's the question that's been asked again and again on these threads.

The growth is there, folks. Liberal (and mainly coastal) cities will attract newcomers for many reasons. So how is Trump's "punishment" any different from what's ALREADY BEEN in place for YEARS?

Well said. Of course, liberals can’t stand to be called out on their BS, so they’ll simply keep deflecting to “Trump’s trying to *punish* us!!” So funny.

Stop pushing your lies...no one is buying it.

On the contrary, the entire nation is watching you hypocrites trying desperately to walk back your positions on sanctuary cities. We are all watching you and will definitely remember in 2020. "You bought it, you own it" - isn't that what you're always saying?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s invade Mexico and the rest of Central America and make them part of the US. That will solve the illegal immigration problem immediately by default. After executing all the drug lords and corrupt policia, then let’s have all US citizens personally go help all the poor people we will have inheritied by requiring prior citizens to have a newly acquired Latino family live in their home and eat their food for free until they can find a legal job paying minimum wage. Any prior citizen’s family income over $75k will be forfeited to the US government and go into an “integration” fund for helping out under privileged people acquired as a result of our usurpation of Central America. Anyone complaining about this policy will be shot on site, partially to tamp down discord and partially to solve for overpopulation in our new welfare state. Sound good?

Here’s the real question, how many of the “horrified” posters on this forum are getting off their ass to go help an illegal immigrant detainee family in the next week? Yeah ... that’s what I thought. Hypocrites.

+1,000

+infinity

I spent over 10 years working in public health in Montgomery county in their maternity partnership program - a program for undocumented pregnant women. There were women there who were on their FOURTH and FIFTH pregnancies on the counties dime - all of their maternity, health and dental care taken care of by the county for a nominal fee ($10-20 per appointment). I need someone here to explain to me why this is ok - why are we paying for FIVE pregnancies for some of these people?

I was getting off my ass every damn day to help these people - but seeing this shit time after time is what turned me against illegal immigration. There are citizens of Montgomery county that aren’t “poor” enough to afford county services but not “rich” enough to pay for treatment/coverage. Yet the welcome mat is rolled out to those who entered this country illegally. Can one of you please please explain to me how this makes sense?

I expect crickets because I have asked this before and gotten no response.

+1
You will continue to get no response because there is nothing they can say to defend this behavior. They sanctimoniously claim that the undocumented (illegal) are "welcome" here, but the reality is, only in someone else's jurisdiction. Disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here you see typical liberal hypocrisy.

Surely, the best thing for these illegals and refugees is to encourage them to live in areas where they are welcome such as in sanctuary cities. I don't understand the consternation of liberals and those in blue states who have advocated supporting these people.

Unless of course the it is a case of welcoming refugees and other illegals for humanitarian reasons but not in my backyard!

Yep, you nailed it. Of course they’re welcome here, and anyone who disagrees is a “racist”. Wait, they’re actually coming??? NIMBY!!!
Typical.

This thread should be marked as one of the all-time greatest in this forum. Wild.

THIS ^^^^. I've been reading it with sheer amazement and disgust. The hypocrisy is on another level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Democrats all say immigrants are amazing for the country, "true Americans," make an economy thrive, are NOT leeching off welfare, are NOT criminals, are NOT leeching off healthcare, are NOT burdens in public education...so why would they be upset if they got to have a monopoly on them in their favorite cities? Wouldn't all the asylum immigrants make their cities 100x better?

One would think so... so very interesting that they don't seem to feel this way anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This Carlson segment made me chuckle. Calling out the hypocrisy of the left LOVING immigrants...just not in their posh neighborhoods or in their kids exclusive public and private schools.

This is one of the best things I've ever seen. Carlson nails it. "A pony!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The right-wingers here run on emotions, don't confuse them with actual facts and logic. They just don't have the mental capacity. It's a waste of time.

Fixed that for you.

You right-wingers need to stop projecting. And lying. We see right through you.

So you say, old son, so you say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here you see typical liberal hypocrisy.

Surely, the best thing for these illegals and refugees is to encourage them to live in areas where they are welcome such as in sanctuary cities. I don't understand the consternation of liberals and those in blue states who have advocated supporting these people.

Unless of course the it is a case of welcoming refugees and other illegals for humanitarian reasons but not in my backyard!

Yep, you nailed it. Of course they’re welcome here, and anyone who disagrees is a “racist”. Wait, they’re actually coming??? NIMBY!!!
Typical.

This thread should be marked as one of the all-time greatest in this forum. Wild.

No kidding. We've got actual teachers here spewing lies. God knows how many students over the years!

DP. What are the "actual lies" in the PP's post? Please elucidate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The President is giving you exactly what you said you welcomed. Remember the signs, the sermons we heard, the taxes we pay, the donations we make, the languages we learned, and hours of volunteering we give? Yeah - he's giving us exactly what we encouraged and support. This community can handle the needs far better than most.

+1,000
Don't forget the marches... these immigrants will have the red carpet rolled out for them! I actually think it's a very intriguing idea. Funny how liberals pay lip service to all their "good deed" and virtue signal whenever humanly possible. But when a real opportunity arrives to take in these immigrants, all of a sudden it's "punishment". Too funny.

TRUMP thinks it’s a punishment. Are you really that dense?

Who cares? YOU don't think it's a punishment, right? Or do you? Which is it?

this

It becomes an attack on Trump when he stated the obvious. While ICE isn't going to OFFICIALLY ship newcomers to sanctuary cities, that's where they're headed. Mo Co, for example, is growing in diversity.

Here are some stats:

The population of Montgomery County, MD is 44.5% White, 19.1% Hispanic, and 17.8% Black. 41% of the people in Montgomery County, MD speak a non-English language, and 84.8% are U.S. citizens.

Astute folks notice it in the schools first. Here is a demographic chart of the MCPS schools - https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/annualreport/2017/
Hispanics make up the largest group. Now, you'd need to examine the numbers more closely to see who's in ESOL classes, for example, in order to analyze funding and growth. And those numbers will change from level to level, as there may be more allocated for ES than for HS, for example, depending upon shifts in the population. But we do know that the group is growing, which makes it attractive for those seeking refuge in similar communities.



So while "Trump thinks it's a punishment," as you so eloquently stated, do YOU think it's a punishment, too? That's the question that's been asked again and again on these threads.

The growth is there, folks. Liberal (and mainly coastal) cities will attract newcomers for many reasons. So how is Trump's "punishment" any different from what's ALREADY BEEN in place for YEARS?

I have an issue with his intentions. He intends to punish US citizens. He intends to “stick it to the libs”. It doesn’t matter if it’s actually a punishment or not. The POTUS is looking for ways to punish Dems because they disagreed with ICE funding. This is just one example of his vindictiveness.

His approval in NC is dropping. What if he withholds FEMA funding if they get another massive hurricane over that?

You probably wouldn’t have an issue with that but I would because I don’t think the POTUS should act like a vindictive, hateful a&$hole to any US citizens. But again that’s where we differ. You enjoy any chance to “stick it to the libs”. That is precisely why you put a vindictive, hateful a$$hole in the White House.

Iol

I taught in MCPS for over half of my life. Trump's words have really just brought to light what was ALREADY in place regarding changing demographics and funding. What's vindictive about the truth? Sanctuary cities provide resources for struggling folks, and they can monitor them for criminal behavior.

MCPS didn't view the additional newcomers as "punishment" - at least not when I was around. It did all it could to ensure that ESOL was fully funded. You should know that many who arrive are illiterate. So it's like starting at ground zero - similar instruction to what a preschooler would receive. (We're talking high school here . . . ) Certainly there's a budget for ESOL, but school allocations come in a pot, and it's not unheard of to shuffle funding around if the need is there.

And I didn't put Trump in office. lol - But keep making ASSumptions w/o providing any data. At least I can find credible information for posting. You're just angry and resentful for whatever reason.

Try working in challenging schools first. Then let's see you post something "insightful."

You've been teaching for over half of your life, and you think that qualifies you to spew lies about sanctuary cities? Did you also lie to your students?

Wow. Just wow.

Where's the lie?

You know where the lie is. Don't act coy, that's just another form of dishonesty.

no i dont please point it out.

I am the original teacher who posted the chart. I stand by my post.

?If you're going to call me a liar then point out my lies. There is enough evidence I've provided for your counterclaims. That's how one argues, by the way.

But of course, as another PP said, I'm apparently a crappy teacher.

It was specifically pointed out that you were lying about sanctuary cities. And you know that.

START arguing like an intelligent grown up by pointing out what my "lies" are, genius!

You are lazy as hell - or lying yourself.

I'm out. I have better things to do with my time on a Saturday night.

peace, genius!

Here you complete and utter moron, since you seem incapable of a basic internet search. Talk about lazy as hell. You mis-characterized sanctuary cities. How many ways to you need to be told? You must be the sh*ttiest teacher ever.

Sanctuary cities in the US are about not forcing police to question people about their immigrant status, not to be confused with the usage of sanctuary cities in Europe.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_city

Sanctuary city (French: ville sanctuaire; Spanish: ciudad santuario) refers to municipal jurisdictions, typically in North America and Western Europe, that limit their cooperation with the national government's effort to enforce immigration law. Leaders of sanctuary cities say they want to reduce fear of deportation and possible family break-up among people who are in the country illegally, so that such people will be more willing to report crimes, use health and social services, and enroll their children in school. In the United States, municipal policies include prohibiting police or city employees from questioning people about their immigration status and refusing requests by national immigration authorities to detain people beyond their release date, if they were jailed for breaking local law.[1] Such policies can be set expressly in law (de jure) or observed in practice (de facto), but the designation "sanctuary city" does not have a precise legal definition. The Federation for American Immigration Reform estimated in 2018 that more than 500 U.S. jurisdictions, including states and municipalities, had adopted sanctuary policies.[2]

Studies on the relationship between sanctuary status and crime have found that sanctuary policies either have no effect on crime or that sanctuary cities have lower crime rates and stronger economies than comparable non-sanctuary cities.[3][4][5][6] Opponents of sanctuary cities argue that cities should assist the national government in enforcing immigration law. Supporters of sanctuary cities argue that enforcement of national law is not the duty of localities.[7] Legal opinions vary on whether immigration enforcement by local police is constitutional.[8]

European cities have been inspired by the same political currents of the sanctuary movement as American cities, but the term "sanctuary city" now has different meanings in Europe and North America.[9] In the United Kingdom and Ireland, and in continental Europe, sanctuary city refers to cities that are committed to welcoming refugees, asylum seekers and others who are seeking safety. Such cities are now found in 80 towns, cities and local areas in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.[10] .[11] Glasgow and Swansea have become known as noted sanctuary cities.[10][12][13]
-------------

Now STFU.

DP. If I were a liberal, I would be very upset that you were drawing this clear distinction between what liberal American cities do for illegal immigrants and what Europeans are willing to do.

Sanctuary cities in Europe "are committed to welcoming refugees, asylum seekers and others who are seeking safety" and their emphasis is on "building bridges of connection and understanding, which is done through raising awareness, befriending schemes and forming cultural connections in the arts, sport, health, education, faith groups and other sectors of society"

But American sanctuary cities limit what they're willing to do to "limiting their cooperation with the national government's effort to enforce immigration law."

Wow. The European model started like the American model and grew from there into what seems like an actual compassionate, caring, community building way of life. American liberals, as evidenced repeatedly on this thread, just want illegal immigrants to come into the country and stay here, but don't want to actually do anything to welcome them or to make the communities they live in function effectively.

You should be TRYING to make an American sanctuary city look like the Europeans. Put your money where your mouth is. Find ways to welcome illegal immigrants into your communities and integrate them. Enjoy all the benefits you say it brings. Instead, you're shouting indignantly that people don't understand that calling oneself a sanctuary city doesn't mean what you think it means. You sound proud to say, "Let's be real. It's not REALLY a sanctuary for illegal immigrants."

Even if Trump is trying to "punish" these cities, you could totally own him by calling his bluff and saying, "Bring it." All of a sudden, Democrats don't relish that opportunity?