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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am noting one hell of a lot of moonwalking back campaign rhetoric here, folks.

Is that between the flying monkeys and polka-dotted unicorns?

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s absurd how certain people are pretending this proposal died because sanctuary cities refused to take people in, rather than because ICE doesn’t have the money to transport them that far and there are huge liability risks if there’s an accident along the way. Trump and Miller made a stupid and dangerous suggestion that ICE rejected as unworkable. That’s all this is about.

My kid drives half way across this country to go to college regularly bc they couldn't get into their state school or any other school with top scores and incredible public health volunteer experience. Surely, my governor could lead other governors to provide guided escorts to our fine county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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?

Still waiting on an answer to this.

He knows which communities are best able to not be consumed by an onslaught of people who view laws as optional.

But the motivation was....

To give the sanctuary cities and counties those they desire to protect.

Out of the kindness of his heart? Pure BS and you know it.

[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: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?

Still waiting on an answer to this.

He knows which communities are best able to not be consumed by an onslaught of people who view laws as optional.

But the motivation was....

To give the sanctuary cities and counties those they desire to protect.

Out of the kindness of his heart? Pure BS and you know it.

To quote Hillary, what difference does it make, unless you are suggesting they won't be safe in sanctuary cities. I'm not understanding the objection here. It seems leftists want the concept of sanctuary cities but don't want the realities.

[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: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?

Still waiting on an answer to this.

He knows which communities are best able to not be consumed by an onslaught of people who view laws as optional.

But the motivation was....

To give the sanctuary cities and counties those they desire to protect.

Out of the kindness of his heart? Pure BS and you know it.

again - DESPITE his motivation, if liberals are so kind, the push behind this decision should NOT cause them to question the need to absorb these folks into welcoming areas.

Who cares what his motives are?

The people are here. They're not returning, and they need a place where people WANT them, with resources to help them.

How has THAT part of the argument changed???????????????????

[Anonymous]

To quote Hillary, what difference does it make, unless you are suggesting they won't be safe in sanctuary cities. I'm not understanding the objection here. It seems leftists want the concept of sanctuary cities but don't want the realities.

Nimby . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s absurd how certain people are pretending this proposal died because sanctuary cities refused to take people in, rather than because ICE doesn’t have the money to transport them that far and there are huge liability risks if there’s an accident along the way. Trump and Miller made a stupid and dangerous suggestion that ICE rejected as unworkable. That’s all this is about.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s absurd how certain people are pretending this proposal died because sanctuary cities refused to take people in, rather than because ICE doesn’t have the money to transport them that far and there are huge liability risks if there’s an accident along the way. Trump and Miller made a stupid and dangerous suggestion that ICE rejected as unworkable. That’s all this is about.

+1

It really doesn't matter, however. Does it?

Ridiculous or not, even if there were a logistical and safe way to transport illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities or "welcoming cities," the responses on this thread are STILL very telling.

Show of hands - those of you in Mo Co . . . would you welcome these folks, many who have faced a lifetime of obstacles, into your community if ICE transported them to - oh - Wheaton?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s absurd how certain people are pretending this proposal died because sanctuary cities refused to take people in, rather than because ICE doesn’t have the money to transport them that far and there are huge liability risks if there’s an accident along the way. Trump and Miller made a stupid and dangerous suggestion that ICE rejected as unworkable. That’s all this is about.

It is not just stupid and dangerous. The idea is full of spite and a plan to portray immigrants as some kind of animals that they would be released in sanctuary cities to teach those "libs" a lesson. It is dehumanizing immigrants. Trump has been trying to teach a lesson to the blue states; by taking away SALT deductions, coming in the way of providing adequate disaster relief, taking away money allocated for healthcare etc. This is yet another ploy in his devious plan to teach lessons to people who did not support and vote for him.

No, liberals are not criticizing to welcome the immigrants (wish Trump gets dropped on his head and wake up to actually do that), they are criticizing Trump's vindictiveness and deviousness. He does not act presidential even for a second. With his spiteful approach to every policy) he will never be a president for all Americans! He is disgusting, so are the people who support his policies and gaslight anyone who dare to criticize their Dear Leader.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s absurd how certain people are pretending this proposal died because sanctuary cities refused to take people in, rather than because ICE doesn’t have the money to transport them that far and there are huge liability risks if there’s an accident along the way. Trump and Miller made a stupid and dangerous suggestion that ICE rejected as unworkable. That’s all this is about.

+1

It really doesn't matter, however. Does it?

Ridiculous or not, even if there were a logistical and safe way to transport illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities or "welcoming cities," the responses on this thread are STILL very telling.

Show of hands - those of you in Mo Co . . . would you welcome these folks, many who have faced a lifetime of obstacles, into your community if ICE transported them to - oh - Wheaton?

Yes it does matter.

[Anonymous]

Why does it not matter to conservatives that their Dear Leader is a spiteful a**hole and vindictiveness drives all his policies?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s absurd how certain people are pretending this proposal died because sanctuary cities refused to take people in, rather than because ICE doesn’t have the money to transport them that far and there are huge liability risks if there’s an accident along the way. Trump and Miller made a stupid and dangerous suggestion that ICE rejected as unworkable. That’s all this is about.

It is not just stupid and dangerous. The idea is full of spite and a plan to portray immigrants as some kind of animals that they would be released in sanctuary cities to teach those "libs" a lesson. It is dehumanizing immigrants. Trump has been trying to teach a lesson to the blue states; by taking away SALT deductions, coming in the way of providing adequate disaster relief, taking away money allocated for healthcare etc. This is yet another ploy in his devious plan to teach lessons to people who did not support and vote for him.

No, liberals are not criticizing to welcome the immigrants (wish Trump gets dropped on his head and wake up to actually do that), they are criticizing Trump's vindictiveness and deviousness. He does not act presidential even for a second. With his spiteful approach to every policy) he will never be a president for all Americans! He is disgusting, so are the people who support his policies and gaslight anyone who dare to criticize their Dear Leader.

Liberals hate the taste of their own medicine.

[Anonymous]

They should be dropped off at Mar-A-Lago. They would be very welcome there. We know Trump loves hiring them for their inexpensive labor costs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s absurd how certain people are pretending this proposal died because sanctuary cities refused to take people in, rather than because ICE doesn’t have the money to transport them that far and there are huge liability risks if there’s an accident along the way. Trump and Miller made a stupid and dangerous suggestion that ICE rejected as unworkable. That’s all this is about.

+1

It really doesn't matter, however. Does it?

Ridiculous or not, even if there were a logistical and safe way to transport illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities or "welcoming cities," the responses on this thread are STILL very telling.

Show of hands - those of you in Mo Co . . . would you welcome these folks, many who have faced a lifetime of obstacles, into your community if ICE transported them to - oh - Wheaton?

Yes (and kick you out)