Why would it be wrong for the U.S to re-locate illegal immigrants to Sanctuary Cities?

[The Irish Ram]

Cato is a Soros think tank. So are Snopes and Factcheck.org. WaPo is owned by liberal and trump hater, Bezo.
You are being fed what you are to believe....

 

[edward37]

I don't understand the counter argument. How is this political when the same politicians are welcoming such illegal immigration, giving them free stuff they don't even give Americans and refuse to fix the problem?

It's honestly mind boggling that anyone who openly supports Sanctuary Cities would be against this idea. It makes perfect sense. The places that want illegal immigration and defend them can now have an unlimited supply. Other communities that don't want lawlessness and breaching of their sovereignty will be void of it.

Because it is an abuse of power to single out particular cities for partisan retribution.

How is it retribution?

The left support these people coming here anyway they can get them. They tell us these are wonderful family people only looking to support themselves. But now that Trump wants to give the left what they want, it's considered punishment by the liberals?

Well if you consider this punishment, then what you are saying is that Democrats want to punish the entire country by letting these people in.

It is clearly political retribution. Even you recognize that. Do really think an action like that by the POTUS is appropriate?

“Those people” are amnesty seekers. That is a legal, not illegal status. Do you and Trump have a problem with legal immigrants?

No, why do you?

Please explain to me how it's retribution when Trump puts these people in liberal cities and it's not retribution when Democrats put them everywhere else. If these people being in our country is a negative, then they should not be in our country period. If they are not a negative as Democrats claim, they should have no problem welcoming in all those asylum seekers.

If Hillary were President, and she got disgusted with the Republicans demand for lower corporate taxes, and she allowed lower corporate taxes in red and purple states, how would that be retribution to Republicans? We would welcome such a move by the President.

Trump is admitting that he wants to put these refugees in sanctuary cities solely because they are sanctuary cities. That is political retribution. There is no evidence Democrats have ever done the same. Obama sent refugees to red and blue states. There is no evidence they are against taking their fair share.

And speaking of political retribution Look what this pos trump did to blue states with their taxes

 

[busybee01]

THE CLEVERNESS OF TRUMP’S “SANCTUARY CITY” TROLLING:

The responses from The Sanctuary Cities to Trump are reinforcing what he’s saying, that it’s bad to have a sudden big influx of economically needy immigrants. Trump wins if he gets the sanctuary city proponents to show that they were just posing as immigrant friendly. He called their bluff.

Trump put himself in a no lose situation. If they bite their tongue, he wins because those vagrants will destroy an area in no time. If they fight it like they're doing, or otherwise bus those people out of there, it would demonstrate how they really feel about the asylum system we have.

Trump is in a no win scenario. Suburban voters do not believe that Presidential actions should be based on politics. They will not support Trump and down goes Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin and the election.

 

[busybee01]

Cato is a Soros think tank. So are Snopes and Factcheck.org. WaPo is owned by liberal and trump hater, Bezo.
You are being fed what you are to believe....

Do you know any other fairy tales? Like Goldilocks and the 3 Bears?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Seems like something Nixon would do

Even Nixon was not this slick. Trump just made a move to checkmate. If Democrats don't give him a problem, they will pollute their cities and states and drive them into bankruptcy. If they resist like they are doing now, it will show what hypocrites the Democrats are.

It's a win-win for Trump, so why shouldn't he do it?

More like Nixon was not that sick

Trump will fail in his petty retribution. Just like he did in his petty government shutdown

Why do you not want these people to go to sanctuary cities? Where should they go?

 

[ThisIsMe]

I don't understand the counter argument. How is this political when the same politicians are welcoming such illegal immigration, giving them free stuff they don't even give Americans and refuse to fix the problem?

It's honestly mind boggling that anyone who openly supports Sanctuary Cities would be against this idea. It makes perfect sense. The places that want illegal immigration and defend them can now have an unlimited supply. Other communities that don't want lawlessness and breaching of their sovereignty will be void of it.

Because it is an abuse of power to single out particular cities for partisan retribution.

How is it retribution?

The left support these people coming here anyway they can get them. They tell us these are wonderful family people only looking to support themselves. But now that Trump wants to give the left what they want, it's considered punishment by the liberals?

Well if you consider this punishment, then what you are saying is that Democrats want to punish the entire country by letting these people in.

It is clearly political retribution. Even you recognize that. Do really think an action like that by the POTUS is appropriate?

“Those people” are amnesty seekers. That is a legal, not illegal status. Do you and Trump have a problem with legal immigrants?

No, why do you?

Please explain to me how it's retribution when Trump puts these people in liberal cities and it's not retribution when Democrats put them everywhere else. If these people being in our country is a negative, then they should not be in our country period. If they are not a negative as Democrats claim, they should have no problem welcoming in all those asylum seekers.

If Hillary were President, and she got disgusted with the Republicans demand for lower corporate taxes, and she allowed lower corporate taxes in red and purple states, how would that be retribution to Republicans? We would welcome such a move by the President.

Trump is admitting that he wants to put these refugees in sanctuary cities solely because they are sanctuary cities. That is political retribution. There is no evidence Democrats have ever done the same. Obama sent refugees to red and blue states. There is no evidence they are against taking their fair share.

Do you think putting them in sanctuary cities is wrong? If so, why? Where do you think they should go?

 

[BlindBoo]

Cato is a Soros think tank. So are Snopes and Factcheck.org. WaPo is owned by liberal and trump hater, Bezo.
You are being fed what you are to believe....

Cato is independent of it's contributors.

The Kochs Aren't the Only Funders of Cato

Corporate sponsors include such major companies as FedEx, Google, CME Group and Whole Foods.

Many individuals and family foundations have also contributed. One could certainly argue that these donors also have a stake in Cato, even if they don't hold shares.

The map below shows not only the Koch connections, but some of the donor foundations and their officers. (An interactive version can be found on the Muckety web site.)

 

[bendog]

Seems like something Nixon would do

Even Nixon was not this slick. Trump just made a move to checkmate. If Democrats don't give him a problem, they will pollute their cities and states and drive them into bankruptcy. If they resist like they are doing now, it will show what hypocrites the Democrats are.

It's a win-win for Trump, so why shouldn't he do it?

More like Nixon was not that sick

Trump will fail in his petty retribution. Just like he did in his petty government shutdown

Why do you not want these people to go to sanctuary cities? Where should they go?

ummmmmm federal jail to await deportation … like the Oranguton promised

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

THE CLEVERNESS OF TRUMP’S “SANCTUARY CITY” TROLLING:

The responses from The Sanctuary Cities to Trump are reinforcing what he’s saying, that it’s bad to have a sudden big influx of economically needy immigrants. Trump wins if he gets the sanctuary city proponents to show that they were just posing as immigrant friendly. He called their bluff.

Trump put himself in a no lose situation. If they bite their tongue, he wins because those vagrants will destroy an area in no time. If they fight it like they're doing, or otherwise bus those people out of there, it would demonstrate how they really feel about the asylum system we have.

Trump is in a no win scenario. Suburban voters do not believe that Presidential actions should be based on politics. They will not support Trump and down goes Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin and the election.

Keep dreaming. Trump is an entertainer and a naturally funny guy. With the exception of those in the sanctuary cities, most everybody else is laughing their ass off.

Trump is a shoe-in for 2020.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Because it is an abuse of power to single out particular cities for partisan retribution.

How is it retribution?

The left support these people coming here anyway they can get them. They tell us these are wonderful family people only looking to support themselves. But now that Trump wants to give the left what they want, it's considered punishment by the liberals?

Well if you consider this punishment, then what you are saying is that Democrats want to punish the entire country by letting these people in.

It is clearly political retribution. Even you recognize that. Do really think an action like that by the POTUS is appropriate?

“Those people” are amnesty seekers. That is a legal, not illegal status. Do you and Trump have a problem with legal immigrants?

No, why do you?

Please explain to me how it's retribution when Trump puts these people in liberal cities and it's not retribution when Democrats put them everywhere else. If these people being in our country is a negative, then they should not be in our country period. If they are not a negative as Democrats claim, they should have no problem welcoming in all those asylum seekers.

If Hillary were President, and she got disgusted with the Republicans demand for lower corporate taxes, and she allowed lower corporate taxes in red and purple states, how would that be retribution to Republicans? We would welcome such a move by the President.

Trump is admitting that he wants to put these refugees in sanctuary cities solely because they are sanctuary cities. That is political retribution. There is no evidence Democrats have ever done the same. Obama sent refugees to red and blue states. There is no evidence they are against taking their fair share.

And speaking of political retribution Look what this pos trump did to blue states with their taxes

Blue states love taxes just as much as they like illegals. Only a liberal can get pissed about a President giving them everything they want.

 

[Papageorgio]

Upgrading Ellis Island is a more equitable solution under the common law.

Putting them on Ellis Island? Restrict their movements? What an evil person you are. If we send them to Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento, Fresno, Anaheim or other Sanctuary cities, they will be happier, the only issue as no lefty will employee them while they are still non-citizens, so that would be an issue. Other than that the left loves and welcomes them.

Ellis Island could process thousands per day; we should have no refugee problem on our southern border.

You can set that up at a border can't you?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't understand the counter argument. How is this political when the same politicians are welcoming such illegal immigration, giving them free stuff they don't even give Americans and refuse to fix the problem?

It's honestly mind boggling that anyone who openly supports Sanctuary Cities would be against this idea. It makes perfect sense. The places that want illegal immigration and defend them can now have an unlimited supply. Other communities that don't want lawlessness and breaching of their sovereignty will be void of it.

Because it is an abuse of power to single out particular cities for partisan retribution.

How is it retribution?

The left support these people coming here anyway they can get them. They tell us these are wonderful family people only looking to support themselves. But now that Trump wants to give the left what they want, it's considered punishment by the liberals?

Well if you consider this punishment, then what you are saying is that Democrats want to punish the entire country by letting these people in.

It is clearly political retribution. Even you recognize that. Do really think an action like that by the POTUS is appropriate?

“Those people” are amnesty seekers. That is a legal, not illegal status. Do you and Trump have a problem with legal immigrants?

No, why do you?

Please explain to me how it's retribution when Trump puts these people in liberal cities and it's not retribution when Democrats put them everywhere else. If these people being in our country is a negative, then they should not be in our country period. If they are not a negative as Democrats claim, they should have no problem welcoming in all those asylum seekers.

If Hillary were President, and she got disgusted with the Republicans demand for lower corporate taxes, and she allowed lower corporate taxes in red and purple states, how would that be retribution to Republicans? We would welcome such a move by the President.

Trump is admitting that he wants to put these refugees in sanctuary cities solely because they are sanctuary cities. That is political retribution. There is no evidence Democrats have ever done the same. Obama sent refugees to red and blue states. There is no evidence they are against taking their fair share.

What fair share? We don't want them. You people do.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

More importantly, if some are so upset at this idea they will work REALLY hard to fix the problem and support Trumps efforts in doing so.

He is calling out the hypocrisy obviously and you can be sure those citizens living in these Sanctuary Cities will take a vastly different perspective of this and their elected leaders if they see the numbers increase.

I don't think it's a bad or unjust choice at all. Trump has to outplay and expose those who won't support the policies he was elected on. Can you imagine Hollywood fools rethinking their position when there are tents outside their mansions?

Also, when someone says "we are a nation of immigrants", it's so disingenuous. Of course you are, but they didn't enter illegally. You controlled who entered and who could be emigrate. Many legal immigrants are probably asking themselves, "why did I go through the hassle?". Some probably still in the long process who have resentment for those who enter your country illegally.

I think what Trump should do is have Ben Carson buy up homes in the same area of all these do-good Democrats and put those people there. I'm sure Piglosi would love to have one or two dozen living on her street.

The Congress would have to authorize such a program.

No, Congress only authorizes the funds which HUD already has. It's up to the HUD director how those funds are spent.

No it is not. The HUD Director is not a king. He cannot buy up houses unless Congress approves. You really need to go back to school.

Sure he can. WTF do you think a HUD director does?

Congress just appropriates money, not run ever Fn bureaucracy we have in this country.

 

[LeftofLeft]

I would send them to Mara Lago
I hear they are hiring illegal aliens

Your side can’t send them anywhere. Your side’s premise has been that illegals need to be embraced. Here is your shot. Show US how it’s done. Show US how San Francisco and other Sanctuary cities can assimilate a flood of illegalsgals witb little to no vetting.

No.

The democratic party policy (if you want to call it “my side”) is that illegals should be treated as humanely as possible pending deportation. Your wanting to throw them into a wood chipper is brazenly callus and very un-American by the way.

Then Democrats should proactively embrace all illegals into their sanctuary cities. I don’t want them to be thrown into a wood chopper. I want them to respect US law and process.

I would like a law that doesn’t allow for kidnapping and kids having to defend themselves in court.

So you prefer to leave them in control of human traffickers and smugglers.

I would prefer a process to completely vet the adults as much as possible to mitigate the risk of human smuggling and traffickers. Catch and release is no sustainable and can grow into a major vulnerability from a security perspective; both to US citizens and innocent children being brought in.

 

[Papageorgio]

Better red than dead ,,,,,,,or republican

The problem with you leftists is you actually believe you own this country. You don't. You want to turn us into one of those other shithole Socialist countries, but never pack your bags to move there yourself.

But if it were up to me, I would divide this country right in half. A line from somewhere in Minnesota to Texas. Then conservative live on one side and liberals on the other. Nothing would make me happier. Then we will build a huge Trump wall so you can't get to our side.

That's the way to settle our many differences in this country. Plus never having to tolerate liberal idiocy would make life a whole lot better for most of us.

Just need to wall off California and NY.

"California's economy has surpassed that of the United Kingdom to become the world's fifth largest, according to new federal data made public Friday. California's gross domestic product rose by $127 billion from 2016 to 2017, surpassing $2.7 trillion, the data said.May 5, 2018"

"Residents in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York have some of the highest tax bills in the nation. They also pay thousands more in federal taxes than their state receives back in federal funding."

The Top Four Reasons California Is Unsustainable

Tax cut economics is why California is unsustainable. We were running budget surpluses until the right wing insisted on tax cut economics.

The Democrats have controlled the legislature in California, for the most of the last 42 years, how did they get a bill to cut taxes through?

 

[bendog]

Your side can’t send them anywhere. Your side’s premise has been that illegals need to be embraced. Here is your shot. Show US how it’s done. Show US how San Francisco and other Sanctuary cities can assimilate a flood of illegalsgals witb little to no vetting.

No.

The democratic party policy (if you want to call it “my side”) is that illegals should be treated as humanely as possible pending deportation. Your wanting to throw them into a wood chipper is brazenly callus and very un-American by the way.

Then Democrats should proactively embrace all illegals into their sanctuary cities. I don’t want them to be thrown into a wood chopper. I want them to respect US law and process.

I would like a law that doesn’t allow for kidnapping and kids having to defend themselves in court.

So you prefer to leave them in control of human traffickers and smugglers.

I would prefer a process to completely vet the adults as much as possible to mitigate the risk of human smuggling and traffickers. Catch and release is no sustainable and can grow into a major vulnerability from a security perspective; both to US citizens and innocent children being brought in.

I'd prefer we just did not have amnesty unless the person applied before entering the country, and no person apprehended and charged with coming here illegally was released prior to a court hearing. I also wish Trump would build the family detention centers originally considered under Obama (with humane education and medical care) and contend in court that the Flores consent decree amounted to the govt consenting to an illegal judicial interpretation of law.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't understand the counter argument. How is this political when the same politicians are welcoming such illegal immigration, giving them free stuff they don't even give Americans and refuse to fix the problem?

It's honestly mind boggling that anyone who openly supports Sanctuary Cities would be against this idea. It makes perfect sense. The places that want illegal immigration and defend them can now have an unlimited supply. Other communities that don't want lawlessness and breaching of their sovereignty will be void of it.

I don't see any enumerated power in the constitution that grants the federal government permission to seize and relocate a person at all.

I don't see where in the Constitution Church and State exists, gay marriage, or food stamps.

It's not a constitutional issue, it's a presidential issue.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You said earlier that we didn't need to increase the penalties. You said they only needed to be enforced which Trump is doing better than any past President.

No, I said we didn't need to change THE LAW. The penalties we have are just fine ... if they were actually enforced.

Do try to pay attention, I realize that something that involves not driving in a straight line is complicated for you.

You just repeated what I said. What was different? I think it's you that needs to pay attention to WTF you're writing.

 

[hunarcy]

Your side can’t send them anywhere. Your side’s premise has been that illegals need to be embraced. Here is your shot. Show US how it’s done. Show US how San Francisco and other Sanctuary cities can assimilate a flood of illegalsgals witb little to no vetting.

No.

The democratic party policy (if you want to call it “my side”) is that illegals should be treated as humanely as possible pending deportation. Your wanting to throw them into a wood chipper is brazenly callus and very un-American by the way.

Then Democrats should proactively embrace all illegals into their sanctuary cities. I don’t want them to be thrown into a wood chopper. I want them to respect US law and process.

I would like a law that doesn’t allow for kidnapping and kids having to defend themselves in court.

So you prefer to leave them in control of human traffickers and smugglers.

I would prefer a process to completely vet the adults as much as possible to mitigate the risk of human smuggling and traffickers. Catch and release is no sustainable and can grow into a major vulnerability from a security perspective; both to US citizens and innocent children being brought in.

How are you doing to do that?

 

[bodecea]

Cato is a Soros think tank. So are Snopes and Factcheck.org. WaPo is owned by liberal and trump hater, Bezo.
You are being fed what you are to believe....

(((SOROS)))