Anonymous wrote:Oh boy, nazis are running America. Remember when things were normal under Obama?

Anonymous wrote:according to the libs... which have provided zero solutions to immigration which everyone agrees our laws need to be reformed. Sending them back is not humane, detaining them is not humane, making them wait in Mexico is not humane. What is it? Apparently we should just keep turning a blind eye to this and do nothing.

Makes no sense. What is wrong with sending them to sanctuary cities? Isn't that the whole point? Keep saying you welcome them then take the influx. Why are you upset by this?

There is no solution that works for you. Typical hypocrites. You are going to hand this election to Trump and blame nobody but yourselves.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Myth: Democrats want open borders.
Fact: Democrats want a comprehensive and humane immigration policy.

Myth: Democrats don’t want asylum seekers in their Sanctuary City.
Fact: Democrats welcome asylum seekers but disapprove of Trump and his Administration is treating these immigrants. Separating families and using them as pawns is gross.

Fact: comprehensive means not a $1 for a barrier/wall/fence even though dems proposed the same under Obama. RESIST at all costs.
Fact: Dems aren't welcoming illegal asylum seekers as now being reported on msn.com

The PP got some "facts" wrong. Democrats have actually agreed on the need for some physical barriers along the border but don't want to build a wall along the entire border.
Also asylum seekers are not "illegal". US law asks asylum seekers to present themselves at a border checkpoint if they want to be considered for asylum. In other words you cannot apply in a US embassy or consulate in another country.
One actual fact PP. No mainstream Democratic politician wants open borders. We all want to limit illegal immigration.

The differences lie in how we would like to treat people who (legally) apply for asylum as well as economic migrants who cross the border illegally.
Do you treat them humanely and take special care to treat young children with kindness?
Do you keep good records so that you are not separating (in many cases permanently) thousands of young children from their parents?
Do you increase the resources expended on our woefully understaffed border patrol (they are having a tough time recruiting quality applicants)?
Do you increase the number of immigration judges so that you can more quickly process asylum seekers. Right now the law states that once you apply you can be released into the community to work while you wait for your asylum hearing. The court dates are now at least two years after you apply which invites an increase in fraudulent asylum claims which is unfair to legitimate asylum seekers.
Do you work hard to help the three Northern Triangle countries to reduce the horrific levels of crime and violence that are pushing families to flee in incredible numbers

What is clear is that current policies are not working and border crossings have hit an incredible high of close to 80,000 a month- an eleven year high.
There are a lot of people on both sides of the aisle who want to work on this problem and who have offered decent policy proposals. Why not start there?

btw the idea behind sanctuary cities is that local governments want to know who lives in their communities. They don't want large groups of people living in the shadows because that can be a public safety and a public health risk. The idea that the federal government would unload hundreds of thousands of undocumented people without a highly detailed plan and the resources to implement that plan would make good governance impossible for these local governments. So yes you can treat all the residents in your community with dignity and respect regardless of their immigration status and still not want a sudden influx of people without a plan and resources from the federal government. Having Chaos deliberately unleashed by the federal government is completely beyond the pale

I dont believe you that people cant request asylum by presenting themselves at embassies.

DP, you don't have to believe the PP, but then look up the law. The PP is correct. Google is your friend.

Its parsing words...they can request assistance at embassies if in imminent danger or meeting asylum requirements. Fact is, they dont. If they are some new form of refugee the world has never seen before (ie not persecuted by state etc) then laws and international response needs to catch up.

This exactly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Myth: Democrats want open borders.
Fact: Democrats want a comprehensive and humane immigration policy.

Myth: Democrats don’t want asylum seekers in their Sanctuary City.
Fact: Democrats welcome asylum seekers but disapprove of Trump and his Administration is treating these immigrants. Separating families and using them as pawns is gross.

Fact: comprehensive means not a $1 for a barrier/wall/fence even though dems proposed the same under Obama. RESIST at all costs.
Fact: Dems aren't welcoming illegal asylum seekers as now being reported on msn.com

The PP got some "facts" wrong. Democrats have actually agreed on the need for some physical barriers along the border but don't want to build a wall along the entire border.
Also asylum seekers are not "illegal". US law asks asylum seekers to present themselves at a border checkpoint if they want to be considered for asylum. In other words you cannot apply in a US embassy or consulate in another country.
One actual fact PP. No mainstream Democratic politician wants open borders. We all want to limit illegal immigration.

The differences lie in how we would like to treat people who (legally) apply for asylum as well as economic migrants who cross the border illegally.
Do you treat them humanely and take special care to treat young children with kindness?
Do you keep good records so that you are not separating (in many cases permanently) thousands of young children from their parents?
Do you increase the resources expended on our woefully understaffed border patrol (they are having a tough time recruiting quality applicants)?
Do you increase the number of immigration judges so that you can more quickly process asylum seekers. Right now the law states that once you apply you can be released into the community to work while you wait for your asylum hearing. The court dates are now at least two years after you apply which invites an increase in fraudulent asylum claims which is unfair to legitimate asylum seekers.
Do you work hard to help the three Northern Triangle countries to reduce the horrific levels of crime and violence that are pushing families to flee in incredible numbers

What is clear is that current policies are not working and border crossings have hit an incredible high of close to 80,000 a month- an eleven year high.
There are a lot of people on both sides of the aisle who want to work on this problem and who have offered decent policy proposals. Why not start there?

btw the idea behind sanctuary cities is that local governments want to know who lives in their communities. They don't want large groups of people living in the shadows because that can be a public safety and a public health risk. The idea that the federal government would unload hundreds of thousands of undocumented people without a highly detailed plan and the resources to implement that plan would make good governance impossible for these local governments. So yes you can treat all the residents in your community with dignity and respect regardless of their immigration status and still not want a sudden influx of people without a plan and resources from the federal government. Having Chaos deliberately unleashed by the federal government is completely beyond the pale

I dont believe you that people cant request asylum by presenting themselves at embassies.

DP, you don't have to believe the PP, but then look up the law. The PP is correct. Google is your friend.

Its parsing words...they can request assistance at embassies if in imminent danger or meeting asylum requirements. Fact is, they dont. If they are some new form of refugee the world has never seen before (ie not persecuted by state etc) then laws and international response needs to catch up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Myth: Democrats want open borders.
Fact: Democrats want a comprehensive and humane immigration policy.

Myth: Democrats don’t want asylum seekers in their Sanctuary City.
Fact: Democrats welcome asylum seekers but disapprove of Trump and his Administration is treating these immigrants. Separating families and using them as pawns is gross.

Fact: comprehensive means not a $1 for a barrier/wall/fence even though dems proposed the same under Obama. RESIST at all costs.
Fact: Dems aren't welcoming illegal asylum seekers as now being reported on msn.com

The PP got some "facts" wrong. Democrats have actually agreed on the need for some physical barriers along the border but don't want to build a wall along the entire border.
Also asylum seekers are not "illegal". US law asks asylum seekers to present themselves at a border checkpoint if they want to be considered for asylum. In other words you cannot apply in a US embassy or consulate in another country.
One actual fact PP. No mainstream Democratic politician wants open borders. We all want to limit illegal immigration.

The differences lie in how we would like to treat people who (legally) apply for asylum as well as economic migrants who cross the border illegally.
Do you treat them humanely and take special care to treat young children with kindness?
Do you keep good records so that you are not separating (in many cases permanently) thousands of young children from their parents?
Do you increase the resources expended on our woefully understaffed border patrol (they are having a tough time recruiting quality applicants)?
Do you increase the number of immigration judges so that you can more quickly process asylum seekers. Right now the law states that once you apply you can be released into the community to work while you wait for your asylum hearing. The court dates are now at least two years after you apply which invites an increase in fraudulent asylum claims which is unfair to legitimate asylum seekers.
Do you work hard to help the three Northern Triangle countries to reduce the horrific levels of crime and violence that are pushing families to flee in incredible numbers

What is clear is that current policies are not working and border crossings have hit an incredible high of close to 80,000 a month- an eleven year high.
There are a lot of people on both sides of the aisle who want to work on this problem and who have offered decent policy proposals. Why not start there?

btw the idea behind sanctuary cities is that local governments want to know who lives in their communities. They don't want large groups of people living in the shadows because that can be a public safety and a public health risk. The idea that the federal government would unload hundreds of thousands of undocumented people without a highly detailed plan and the resources to implement that plan would make good governance impossible for these local governments. So yes you can treat all the residents in your community with dignity and respect regardless of their immigration status and still not want a sudden influx of people without a plan and resources from the federal government. Having Chaos deliberately unleashed by the federal government is completely beyond the pale

I dont believe you that people cant request asylum by presenting themselves at embassies.

DP, you don't have to believe the PP, but then look up the law. The PP is correct. Google is your friend.

Anonymous wrote:Send them to the richest places in the US. See how quick the "progressive" phonies turn into immigration hardliners. Build asylum apartment complexes in:

Brentwood Los Angeles, CA
Scarsdale Westchester County, NY
Lake Forest Lake County, IL
Atherton San Mateo County, CA
Chevy Chase MoGo, MD
East Hampton Suffolk County, NY
Cape Cod Barnstable County, MA

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is an excellent example of what idiots Trump-supporters are. They don't understand what sanctuary cities are. They don't get that using human beings as pawns in political games is wrong. They spew fallacies about what "Democrats want" on immigration based on right-wing propaganda.

Pathetic and deplorable.

I'm not a Trump supporter, but b/c of your attitude (as you reflect the norm), I happily escaped the Ds.

At the root of this issue are two topics: NIMBYism and hypocrisy, which are intertwined.

Sanctuary cities are MUCH MORE receptive with regard to illegal immigration. There are NO guarantees regarding security; that's understood. However, the liberalism in those areas is widespread and thus, accepting.

I can personally speak to Montgomery County, having lived there for a large chunk of my life.

It's a win-win with Nancy Navarro on the County Council and CASA in Wheaton, right? a match made in heaven!

But then something suddenly changed. Trump hastily made another statement about sanctuary cities absorbing illegal immigrants. ICE cleared up the issue, shouting about budgetary constraints and dangers to the immigrants, not to mention the legalities around transporting them.

fine - not the first time Trump put his food in his mouth, right?

But what was amazing were the responses from liberals. Regardless of obstacles facing ICE over this issue, liberals were the first ones to jump on Trump for making this suggestion. Where was the COMPASSION for them? Why didn't any of you jump in and offer solutions? Instead, you attacked Trump for making this suggestion. You didn't worry about those who struggled for weeks to WALK their way to the border.

attack
attack
attack

But you offered no solutions.

They WILL end up in sanctuary cities. I hope you all know that. So maybe then you'll show some compassion b/c NIMBYism and hypocrisy are ugly, especially for die-hard liberals.

This is not about NIMBYism. This is about you don't just take human beings and randomly dump them in some city. Are there support systems in place for these people? Where will they stay?

Trump did put his foot in his mouth. So did you. You just proved my point.

Yes, we need solutions. Are the GOP prepared to put aside their fight for a stupid wall and talk about common sense solutions?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is an excellent example of what idiots Trump-supporters are. They don't understand what sanctuary cities are. They don't get that using human beings as pawns in political games is wrong. They spew fallacies about what "Democrats want" on immigration based on right-wing propaganda.

Pathetic and deplorable.

I'm not a Trump supporter, but b/c of your attitude (as you reflect the norm), I happily escaped the Ds.

At the root of this issue are two topics: NIMBYism and hypocrisy, which are intertwined.

Sanctuary cities are MUCH MORE receptive with regard to illegal immigration. There are NO guarantees regarding security; that's understood. However, the liberalism in those areas is widespread and thus, accepting.

I can personally speak to Montgomery County, having lived there for a large chunk of my life.

It's a win-win with Nancy Navarro on the County Council and CASA in Wheaton, right? a match made in heaven!

But then something suddenly changed. Trump hastily made another statement about sanctuary cities absorbing illegal immigrants. ICE cleared up the issue, shouting about budgetary constraints and dangers to the immigrants, not to mention the legalities around transporting them.

fine - not the first time Trump put his food in his mouth, right?

But what was amazing were the responses from liberals. Regardless of obstacles facing ICE over this issue, liberals were the first ones to jump on Trump for making this suggestion. Where was the COMPASSION for them? Why didn't any of you jump in and offer solutions? Instead, you attacked Trump for making this suggestion. You didn't worry about those who struggled for weeks to WALK their way to the border.

attack
attack
attack

But you offered no solutions.

They WILL end up in sanctuary cities. I hope you all know that. So maybe then you'll show some compassion b/c NIMBYism and hypocrisy are ugly, especially for die-hard liberals.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Myth: Democrats want open borders.
Fact: Democrats want a comprehensive and humane immigration policy.

Myth: Democrats don’t want asylum seekers in their Sanctuary City.
Fact: Democrats welcome asylum seekers but disapprove of Trump and his Administration is treating these immigrants. Separating families and using them as pawns is gross.

Fact: comprehensive means not a $1 for a barrier/wall/fence even though dems proposed the same under Obama. RESIST at all costs.
Fact: Dems aren't welcoming illegal asylum seekers as now being reported on msn.com

Anonymous wrote:I'm a progressive who was a staffer on the Hill and I find this kind of funny.

We need to remember these tactics so when we are back in power, we can troll the other side just as hard.

Anonymous wrote:This thread is an excellent example of what idiots Trump-supporters are. They don't understand what sanctuary cities are. They don't get that using human beings as pawns in political games is wrong. They spew fallacies about what "Democrats want" on immigration based on right-wing propaganda.

Pathetic and deplorable.