Reply to Immigrants sent to sanction cities

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Immigrants sent to sanction cities"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]
(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. [/quote]

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 [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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?[/quote]

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.[/quote]

You think there is "capacity" in El Paso or other border cities in TX?  LOL.  
The migrants are sent where THEY want to go.  DC is one of those places. 
If you have an issue with that, then take it up with Joe.  This is ultimately his problem that he is refusing to own.  [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics