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?

That’s like asking why women wouldn’t want to move to states where they can get an abortion if their pregnancy has complications and their life or fertility is at risk, and where maternal and infant mortality rates aren’t the worst in the nation. Are you wondering why all women of childbearing age aren’t moving to states and cities that are healthcare friendly or pregnancy friendly? And do you feel like it’s ok to trick people with high risk pregnancies into going to states that have better outcomes without coordinating with the healthcare systems in the new places? Just dump a bus load of pregnant women and their families outside a clinic after hours after promising that there will be someone there to house and care for them, just so the original state doesn’t have to deal with them or provide care for them when they can’t afford to pay their portion of the hospital bills? I mean, why wouldn’t women be happy that they got to a safer, more welcoming place?

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.

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?

Almost all of the transported migrants have been people who have applied for asylum and have a hearing somewhere at some future date, so technically they are here legally, not illegally, but they need to find a place to live until their asylum hearing.

You and Texas and Florida are confusing asylum applicants with undocumented workers. Undocumented workers go where the employers who want to hire them are. Those employers are mostly in agriculture and agricultural industries, construction, hotels and other low-income hospitality and service industries. A lot of those employers are in Florida and Texas.

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 immigrants do end up in cities like this. I live in Portland Maine and there has been a growing population of Africans here due, explicitly, due to refugee resettlement programs. Texas and Florida are lying to you if they say that all the immigrants stay there. They do not. They get into the system and relocated. But picking up a group of immigrants and dumping them on a street corner somewhere to make a political stunt is wrong. I can guarantee you that if DeSantis and Abbot tried to reach out and talk to other states and the federal government about interim housing solutions for immigrants they would agree, there are likely already programs in place. But they have convinced you of something that is implied in this action that is false, which is the idea that these states are dealing with this alone. They are not.

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?

Anonymous wrote:Texas and Florida lie to the immigrants that there are people and programs arranged to help them and then dump the immigrants somewhere in an enlightened civilized place but with no resources, no assistance, and no notification or coordination with the local governments, agencies, non-profits, churches, etc. in the new place, because the Texas and Florida Governors want a video they can laugh at showing the immigrant children being left crying with their confused and frightened parents in the dark in front of a closed building.

Short version: Texas and Florida are run by fascists.

And even more strangely, Texas and Florida governors dump migrants in Washington DC where the city and its residents have absolutely nothing to do with federal immigration policy because they don't even have a vote or representation in Congress.

Texas and Florida lie to the immigrants that there are people and programs arranged to help them and then dump the immigrants somewhere in an enlightened civilized place but with no resources, no assistance, and no notification or coordination with the local governments, agencies, non-profits, churches, etc. in the new place, because the Texas and Florida Governors want a video they can laugh at showing the immigrant children being left crying with their confused and frightened parents in the dark in front of a closed building.

Short version: Texas and Florida are run by fascists.

^ I will also add that it also DOES NOT mean that the city will give an illegal alien a pass if they commit other crimes that ARE within the city's jurisdiction to enforce. If an illegal alien commits armed robbery, the city ABSOLUTELY WILL arrest them, prosecute them, and if a jury convicts them, will jail them.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yes, I had the wrong term. Thank you for correcting me and not blasting me. Appreciate the open dialogue.

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

(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.

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?