Anonymous wrote:^^ Sorry my math was bad, it was $13,000 each. Same point though.

Anonymous wrote:

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:

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?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Watch the immigration hearing on C-SPAN to learn why there are indeed, not legal because those programs run today are not legal

Asylum applicants are legally here while their case is pending. It’s not a complicated concept to understand.

Again, watch the hearing

Is it a Republican “hearing”? No thanks.

Entertaining to watch the Groomer Old Party traffic humans though. It’s very much their style.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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:

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: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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Watch the immigration hearing on C-SPAN to learn why there are indeed, not legal because those programs run today are not legal

Asylum applicants are legally here while their case is pending. It’s not a complicated concept to understand.

Again, watch the hearing

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Watch the immigration hearing on C-SPAN to learn why there are indeed, not legal because those programs run today are not legal

Asylum applicants are legally here while their case is pending. It’s not a complicated concept to understand.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Watch the immigration hearing on C-SPAN to learn why there are indeed, not legal because those programs run today are not legal

Asylum applicants are legally here while their case is pending. It’s not a complicated concept to understand.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So what you are saying here is the people should have a say as to where these immigrants go, right?

Dp- Everyone does through their elected representative. Everyone except residents of Dc..

So then it’s ok for TX and FL to send them elsewhere if the people don’t want them. Did your mayor and local elected officials say they are welcome?

My mayor hasn’t said anything, but I live in Ohio. Apparently they do a better job teaching civics here, than from wherever you’re posting . 😉

People vote for the mayor, so they have a say

Wait are we talking about federal laws or not?
Pick a lane my dudes.