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.

If Trump was trying his best, putting all of his effort into trying to find a cure for cancer, I'd be happy. He wouldn't even have to find a cure, just try. And nothing is stopping him from doing that. But instead, he bitches about immigration and cuts regulations, increasing the risk of cancer.

Said the ignorant person without knowledge GOP led The 21st Century Cures Act and who forgot about "Right To Try" legislation. Do some research before you spit out marbles again.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does it matter if Trump is perceived as spiteful?

The illegals are here and the cities have designated themselves as places that welcome them.

There’s nothing wrong with sanctuary cities accepting people except when Trump sends them?

Ok. Keep them in government facilities or send them back or whatever.

Obviously nothing Trump does is acceptable.

Because our country is a Constitutional democracy, governed by LAWS. Not by the whims of an angry old man.

Ok - so according to law, where should we send them?

These are the sanctuary stats: CA, CO, CT, DC (not a state), FL, GA, IA, IL, KS, LA, MA, MD, MN, NE, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OR, PA, RI, TX, VA, VT, WA, WI.

Citation? Your list is wrong. VA is not a sanctuary state.

Virginia

Arlington County
Chesterfield County
Fairfax County

These are sanctuary cities in VA.

https://cis.org/Map-Sanctuary-Cities-Counties-and-States

Wrong. Arlington, VA is not a sanctuary city.



“Alternative facts” again, Kellyanne?

Center for Immigration Studies Staff List
Center Staff

Mark Krikorian, Executive Director
Andrew R. Arthur, Resident Fellow in Law and Policy
Julie Axelrod, Chief Litigation Counsel
Todd Bensman, Senior National Security Fellow
Steven A. Camarota, Director of Research
Jamie Greedan, Program Manager
Bryan Griffith, Multimedia Director
Preston Huennekens, Research Associate
Jerry Kammer, Senior Research Fellow
Patrick McHugh, Editor
Cynthia Owens, Director of Administration
Thomas Redding, Research Associate
Nayla Rush, Senior Researcher
Marguerite Telford, Director of Communications
Jessica M. Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies
John Wahala, Assistant Director
Karen Zeigler, Demographer
Center Fellows

Don Barnett, Fellow
Dan Cadman, Fellow
Glynn Custred, Fellow
John Miano, Fellow
Ronald W. Mortensen, Fellow
David North, Fellow
David Seminara, Fellow
Stephen Steinlight, Fellow
Board of Directors

Peter Nunez, Chairman of the Board of Directors
Thomas C.T. Brokaw, Board Member
William W. Chip, Board Member
T. Willard Fair, Board Member
Carol Iannone, Board Member
Kent Lundgren, Board Member
Frank Morris, Sr., Board Member; Founding Board Member
Harry E. Soyster, Board Member
Jan Ting, Board Member
Daniel N. Vara, Jr., Board Member
Former Staff and Fellows

Michael W. Cutler, Former Fellow
James R. Edwards, Jr., Former Fellow
Jon Feere, Former Legal Policy Analyst; Current Senior Advisor for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
George B. High, Former Executive Director
Rosemary Jenks, Former Senior Analyst; Current Director of Government Relations at NumbersUSA
John Keeley, Former Director of Communications
Janice Kephart, Former National Security Director
Kausha Luna, Former Research Associate
Robert Malloy, Former Research Analyst
John L. Martin, Former Research Director
Stanley Renshon, Former Fellow
Ashley Monique Webster, Former Demographer
Former Board Members

Vernon M. Briggs Jr., Former Board Member; Founding Board Member
George Borjas, Former Board Member; Current Professor of Economics and Social Policy, Harvard Kennedy School
Bay Buchanan, Former Board Member
Patrick Burns, Former Board Member
Roger Conner, Former Board Member; Founding Board Member
Ron Foster, Former Board Member
Otis L. Graham Jr., Former Board Member; Founding Chairman
George W. Grayson, Former Board Member; Founding Board Member
Jacquelyne Jackson, Former Board Member
Eugene Katz, Former Board Member
Malcolm R. Lovell, Former Board Member; Founding Board Member
Scott McConnell, Former Board Member
Elizabeth Paddock, Former Board Member; Founding Board Member
Robert M. Sayre, Former Board Member
David Simcox, Former Chairman of the Board of Directors
Eleanor Weinstock, Former Board Member
Dr. Ieda Siqueira Wiarda, Former Board Member
Anita Winsor-Edwards, Former Board Member
Mary Wohlford, Former Board Member

These people and the Center for Immigration Studies say it is.

You should take their lies up with them.

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?

Crickets.

Go back and read the OP. It’s pretty apparent. People are fodder for political games in the eyes of your dear leader no matter how you try to spin it.

But his motivations shouldn't matter in this case.

The cities were designed to be safe spaces for illegal immigrants. Despite his ulterior motives, why should people now BALK at the decision to welcome more and more folks into these cities?

Basically, the liberals responding are doing the same thing - using illegal immigrants as pawns, with an additional layer of hypocrisy added into the mix.

Liberals: We want them. We have sanctuary cities for them.
Conservatives: We don't want them, but we have them. So we'll send more your way.
Liberals: No! You are cruel by using these newcomers as pawns in a dangerous game!

Again, motivation aside, if you want them inside the border, where should they go?

+1

Libs have entire cities crafted for illegals and then get outraged Trump days take them.

Hypocrites.

"Libs" didn't "craft" cities for illegals.

Stop lying.

+1

So ridiculous.

I've love to see these good people placed in sanctuaries! GREAT IDEA!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://cis.org/Map-Sanctuary-Cities-Counties-and-States

Map 1: Sanctuary Cities, Counties, and States
Updated March 18, 2019
The sanctuary jurisdictions are listed below. These cities, counties, and states have laws, ordinances, regulations, resolutions, policies, or other practices that obstruct immigration enforcement and shield criminals from ICE — either by refusing to or prohibiting agencies from complying with ICE detainers, imposing unreasonable conditions on detainer acceptance, denying ICE access to interview incarcerated aliens, or otherwise impeding communication or information exchanges between their personnel and federal immigration officers.

A detainer is the primary tool used by ICE to gain custody of criminal aliens for deportation. It is a notice to another law enforcement agency that ICE intends to assume custody of an alien and includes information on the alien's previous criminal history, immigration violations, and potential threat to public safety or security.

There’s a map and info. How is it punishing anyone?

Let the cities help. They care and have resources. Don’t talk the talk and then refuse to walk the walk.

Find a better source. This list is wrong.

Arlington, VA is not a sanctuary city.

eh
What's the difference?
https://www.arlnow.com/2017/03/01/arlington-county-on-immigration-welcoming-but-not-a-sanctuary-jurisdiction/

Though Arlington County welcomes people of all legal statuses, it can’t protect them from federal immigration enforcement.

That’s the gist of what Arlington County Manager Mark Schwartz said during a County Board meeting this week. Schwartz announced the launch of a new website aimed at answering many of the questions residents have had in the wake of recent uncertainty over immigration enforcement across the U.S.

It's easier to receive assistance in "welcoming" areas. Do you think teachers in challenging schools - those with extremely liberal views - are turning kids in?

Which public schools anywhere report kids to ICE?

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?

Crickets.

Go back and read the OP. It’s pretty apparent. People are fodder for political games in the eyes of your dear leader no matter how you try to spin it.

But his motivations shouldn't matter in this case.

The cities were designed to be safe spaces for illegal immigrants. Despite his ulterior motives, why should people now BALK at the decision to welcome more and more folks into these cities?

Basically, the liberals responding are doing the same thing - using illegal immigrants as pawns, with an additional layer of hypocrisy added into the mix.

Liberals: We want them. We have sanctuary cities for them.
Conservatives: We don't want them, but we have them. So we'll send more your way.
Liberals: No! You are cruel by using these newcomers as pawns in a dangerous game!

Again, motivation aside, if you want them inside the border, where should they go?

+1

Libs have entire cities crafted for illegals and then get outraged Trump days take them.

Hypocrites.

"Libs" didn't "craft" cities for illegals.

Stop lying.

Accusing people of lying isn’t a refutation.

You add zero facts or links or citations.

Stop lying.

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?

Crickets.

Go back and read the OP. It’s pretty apparent. People are fodder for political games in the eyes of your dear leader no matter how you try to spin it.

But his motivations shouldn't matter in this case.

The cities were designed to be safe spaces for illegal immigrants. Despite his ulterior motives, why should people now BALK at the decision to welcome more and more folks into these cities?

Basically, the liberals responding are doing the same thing - using illegal immigrants as pawns, with an additional layer of hypocrisy added into the mix.

Liberals: We want them. We have sanctuary cities for them.
Conservatives: We don't want them, but we have them. So we'll send more your way.
Liberals: No! You are cruel by using these newcomers as pawns in a dangerous game!

Again, motivation aside, if you want them inside the border, where should they go?

Motivation should always matter, especially in this case. The blind eye you are willing to turn speakes volumes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does it matter if Trump is perceived as spiteful?

The illegals are here and the cities have designated themselves as places that welcome them.

There’s nothing wrong with sanctuary cities accepting people except when Trump sends them?

Ok. Keep them in government facilities or send them back or whatever.

Obviously nothing Trump does is acceptable.

Because our country is a Constitutional democracy, governed by LAWS. Not by the whims of an angry old man.

Ok - so according to law, where should we send them?

These are the sanctuary stats: CA, CO, CT, DC (not a state), FL, GA, IA, IL, KS, LA, MA, MD, MN, NE, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OR, PA, RI, TX, VA, VT, WA, WI.

Citation? Your list is wrong. VA is not a sanctuary state.

Virginia

Arlington County
Chesterfield County
Fairfax County

These are sanctuary cities in VA.

https://cis.org/Map-Sanctuary-Cities-Counties-and-States

Wrong. Arlington, VA is not a sanctuary city.



“Alternative facts” again, Kellyanne?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://cis.org/Map-Sanctuary-Cities-Counties-and-States

Map 1: Sanctuary Cities, Counties, and States
Updated March 18, 2019
The sanctuary jurisdictions are listed below. These cities, counties, and states have laws, ordinances, regulations, resolutions, policies, or other practices that obstruct immigration enforcement and shield criminals from ICE — either by refusing to or prohibiting agencies from complying with ICE detainers, imposing unreasonable conditions on detainer acceptance, denying ICE access to interview incarcerated aliens, or otherwise impeding communication or information exchanges between their personnel and federal immigration officers.

A detainer is the primary tool used by ICE to gain custody of criminal aliens for deportation. It is a notice to another law enforcement agency that ICE intends to assume custody of an alien and includes information on the alien's previous criminal history, immigration violations, and potential threat to public safety or security.

There’s a map and info. How is it punishing anyone?

Let the cities help. They care and have resources. Don’t talk the talk and then refuse to walk the walk.

Find a better source. This list is wrong.

Arlington, VA is not a sanctuary city.

eh
What's the difference?
https://www.arlnow.com/2017/03/01/arlington-county-on-immigration-welcoming-but-not-a-sanctuary-jurisdiction/

Though Arlington County welcomes people of all legal statuses, it can’t protect them from federal immigration enforcement.

That’s the gist of what Arlington County Manager Mark Schwartz said during a County Board meeting this week. Schwartz announced the launch of a new website aimed at answering many of the questions residents have had in the wake of recent uncertainty over immigration enforcement across the U.S.

It's easier to receive assistance in "welcoming" areas. Do you think teachers in challenging schools - those with extremely liberal views - are turning kids in?

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?

Crickets.

Go back and read the OP. It’s pretty apparent. People are fodder for political games in the eyes of your dear leader no matter how you try to spin it.

But his motivations shouldn't matter in this case.

The cities were designed to be safe spaces for illegal immigrants. Despite his ulterior motives, why should people now BALK at the decision to welcome more and more folks into these cities?

Basically, the liberals responding are doing the same thing - using illegal immigrants as pawns, with an additional layer of hypocrisy added into the mix.

Liberals: We want them. We have sanctuary cities for them.
Conservatives: We don't want them, but we have them. So we'll send more your way.
Liberals: No! You are cruel by using these newcomers as pawns in a dangerous game!

Again, motivation aside, if you want them inside the border, where should they go?

+1

Libs have entire cities crafted for illegals and then get outraged Trump days take them.

Hypocrites.

"Libs" didn't "craft" cities for illegals.

Stop lying.

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.

It's absurd to declare yourself a welcoming space for illegal immigrants, and then stomp your feet when the administration takes you up on your offer. You people are truly clueless.

They aren't "declaring" themselves as a welcoming space for illegal immigrants. Stop lying.

Why don't you ask teachers in challenging schools in MCPS how many kids were afraid to come to school after Trump was elected. lots

why? b/c Mo Co is very welcoming

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does it matter if Trump is perceived as spiteful?

The illegals are here and the cities have designated themselves as places that welcome them.

There’s nothing wrong with sanctuary cities accepting people except when Trump sends them?

Ok. Keep them in government facilities or send them back or whatever.

Obviously nothing Trump does is acceptable.

Because our country is a Constitutional democracy, governed by LAWS. Not by the whims of an angry old man.

Ok - so according to law, where should we send them?

These are the sanctuary stats: CA, CO, CT, DC (not a state), FL, GA, IA, IL, KS, LA, MA, MD, MN, NE, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OR, PA, RI, TX, VA, VT, WA, WI.

Citation? Your list is wrong. VA is not a sanctuary state.

Virginia

Arlington County
Chesterfield County
Fairfax County

These are sanctuary cities in VA.

https://cis.org/Map-Sanctuary-Cities-Counties-and-States

Anonymous wrote:https://cis.org/Map-Sanctuary-Cities-Counties-and-States

Map 1: Sanctuary Cities, Counties, and States
Updated March 18, 2019
The sanctuary jurisdictions are listed below. These cities, counties, and states have laws, ordinances, regulations, resolutions, policies, or other practices that obstruct immigration enforcement and shield criminals from ICE — either by refusing to or prohibiting agencies from complying with ICE detainers, imposing unreasonable conditions on detainer acceptance, denying ICE access to interview incarcerated aliens, or otherwise impeding communication or information exchanges between their personnel and federal immigration officers.

A detainer is the primary tool used by ICE to gain custody of criminal aliens for deportation. It is a notice to another law enforcement agency that ICE intends to assume custody of an alien and includes information on the alien's previous criminal history, immigration violations, and potential threat to public safety or security.

There’s a map and info. How is it punishing anyone?

Let the cities help. They care and have resources. Don’t talk the talk and then refuse to walk the walk.

Find a better source. This list is wrong.

Arlington, VA is not a sanctuary city.

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?

Crickets.

Go back and read the OP. It’s pretty apparent. People are fodder for political games in the eyes of your dear leader no matter how you try to spin it.

But his motivations shouldn't matter in this case.

The cities were designed to be safe spaces for illegal immigrants. Despite his ulterior motives, why should people now BALK at the decision to welcome more and more folks into these cities?

Basically, the liberals responding are doing the same thing - using illegal immigrants as pawns, with an additional layer of hypocrisy added into the mix.

Liberals: We want them. We have sanctuary cities for them.
Conservatives: We don't want them, but we have them. So we'll send more your way.
Liberals: No! You are cruel by using these newcomers as pawns in a dangerous game!

Again, motivation aside, if you want them inside the border, where should they go?

The cities were not designed to be safe spaces for illegal immigrants. Stop lying.