President Trump threatens to send immigrants crossing the border illegally straight to sanctuary cities

  • 117 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Avatar image for ad1x2
#1 Edited by ad1x2 (7396 posts) -

Yesterday, it was reported that the Trump Administration was considering sending people that entered the country illegally straight to the sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with federal law enforcement in their deportation. Earlier today, Donald Trump tweeted the above tweets confirming the reports. Outrage ensues.

Thoughts? Are you for or against the idea assuming there were no legal barriers to it?

Avatar image for mattbbpl
#2 Posted by mattbbpl (16979 posts) -

The news today regarding Trump's actions was freaking weird. Releasing ICE detainees as political retribution and pre-emptively telling McAllenan he'd pardon him for violating immigration law at his request?

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
#3 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (10598 posts) -

This seems very illegal and VERY inhuman. I can't think of a single good thing about this accusation.

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
#4 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (10598 posts) -

@mattbbpl said:

The news today regarding Trump's actions was freaking weird. Releasing ICE detainees as political retribution and pre-emptively telling McAllenan he'd pardon him for violating immigration law at his request?

Is that technically legal?

'Hey, break the law and I got you bro!'

Avatar image for mattbbpl
#5 Posted by mattbbpl (16979 posts) -

@HoolaHoopMan said:
@mattbbpl said:

The news today regarding Trump's actions was freaking weird. Releasing ICE detainees as political retribution and pre-emptively telling McAllenan he'd pardon him for violating immigration law at his request?

Is that technically legal?

'Hey, break the law and I got you bro!'

I believe so as the presidential power to pardon at the federal level is generally considered absolute. In a normal era with an ethical party at the helm, it would be met with impeachment proceedings. But this isn't a normal political era, and the president's party has no ethical boundaries.

Avatar image for ad1x2
#6 Posted by ad1x2 (7396 posts) -

@HoolaHoopMan said:

This seems very illegal and VERY inhuman. I can't think of a single good thing about this accusation.

It probably does have the potential to be illegal, but in terms of it being inhuman that could be debatable. Do the sanctuary cities have the resources to take them in, as well as the will to care for them indefinitely? Or will they just join the homeless on the streets? Will they be allowed to leave those sanctuary cities after being dropped off if they have the ability to do so, or will Trump try to cordon off the cities preventing them from leaving?

This is obviously a political move, but the political fallout remains to be seen. Maybe he thinks that overwhelming the cities with the migrants will make their voters rethink their sanctuary policies. It could backfire and cost him later if he follows through with the threat even if it’s still legal.

Avatar image for zaryia
#7 Edited by Zaryia (8167 posts) -

1. Illegal.

2. Petty.

3. Not something you want to play with. Imagine if this type of Political punishment was used by a Democrat. Stop all the Blue state funding given to Red states since they are against rich tax cuts (this would be devastating). End ACA in Red States, with no replacement (RIP). Send all mass garbage and waste to Red States since they vote against the environment.

Avatar image for mrbojangles25
#8 Posted by mrbojangles25 (43752 posts) -

Isn't this what Castro did with his criminal population and political opponents? Essentially sent them to the US.

Avatar image for joebones5000
#9 Posted by joebones5000 (2094 posts) -

Just like they did during the obama administration, republicans had plenty of time to work on immigration in congress, but did nothing.

Avatar image for evilross
#11 Edited by evilross (1974 posts) -

The migrants want to be here, and the sanctuary cities say they want them.

It sounds like a good idea to me.

Let them stay there while they go the court system to determine their asylum status, then go from there. What’s the problem with this?

Avatar image for MirkoS77
#12 Posted by MirkoS77 (14046 posts) -

This reminds me of the Nazis rounding up the Jews into ghettos.

Avatar image for zaryia
#13 Edited by Zaryia (8167 posts) -
@evilross said:

The migrants want to be here, and the sanctuary cities say they want them.

It sounds like a good idea to me.

Let them stay there while they go the court system to determine their asylum status, then go from there. What’s the problem with this?

1. It's logistically illegal. A lot of the work required to get it done would never go through.

2. That's not exactly what Sanctuary cities are all about tbh. It's to keep illegals who are already there safe. I do take issues with some of what they do though, as in Independent.

3. If you don't mind this, would you mind a Democrat President also doing retribution based off of policy they don't like? Like literally using Red states as landfill since (R) Politicans have shitty environmental voting records? Exclusively ship all of the garbage there from now on, since they clearly don't give a shit about the environment so whats the problem with this? Or remove ACA from Red states only with zero replacements, going by GOP voting records whats the problem with this? Or put a total end to Blue states heavily funding Red states as they currently do, GOP leaders have issues with Taxes so whats the problem with this? Or end several social programs in Red State (whose constituents depend on) because they oddly hate those kinds of policies so much (Mitch even wants 2020 to be a referendum against social programs - SO lets end them ALL in red states ASAP!)?

This is just a shitty troll attempt to "own the libs" by Trump, when in fact a (D) president could suggest far far more devastating way to "own the Cons" as I suggested above. Only I don't think they would stoop that low, unlike Trump.

Avatar image for theone86
#14 Posted by theone86 (22417 posts) -

I think the most absurd part about all of this is how Trump seems to think that sanctuary cities are somehow cordoned off from the rest of America, like if immigrants really wanted to stroll into Texas they'd be all like, "oh, but the government put us in Chicago, damn!" I mean, already, the largest populations of immigrants are in inland states (Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island are all very high up on the list, very far from the Mexican border). Part of the reason sanctuary cities are sanctuary cities is because they already have large immigrant populations and have decided to treat them humanely (crazy, I know). It's not like forcing more immigrants to live there is going to cause them to freak out. The issue is that you're forcing them to live there, not that they're actually living there. It's even worse when they have families in other areas of the country that are helping them adjust, or when it could cause them to miss an important court date. That's also not to even mention the tremendous financial cost it would incur to detain all of these people, transport them across the country, and then deal with the logistics of handling their legal cases when they've just been transported across the country. But apparently just letting them into the country and having them figure out how to support themselves while they wait for their court date is too much of a hassle. "catch and release, herp derp!"

Avatar image for evilross
#15 Posted by evilross (1974 posts) -

@zaryia

You are responding to the migrants going to sanctuary cities by likening it to “shipping all the garbage to red states”.

Is that what you think sending migrants to places like San Francisco is? Dumping garbage in San Fran? Doesn’t sound like you have a very high opinion of these people that are trying to escape from whatever it is they are trying to escape from.

It comes down to this: No matter if you or anyone else wants to believe it or not, there is a crisis at the border. It’s not new, it’s been building for years, all the way back to the 80’s when the Reagan administration pushed through the last wave of amnesty grants to people that had skirted the system and settled in the US without going through the proper channels. It’s only gotten progressively worse, and no one in Washington, Democrat or Republican have done a damn thing about it.

Millions of dollars have been flushed down the proverbial toilet sending aid to corrupt governments in central and South America that has never made it to the people and has not been used to build the infrastructure needed to make the countries economically sustainable. Failed aid programs, the bogus war on drugs, and the US refusing to enforce existing immigration law along with Mexico’s willing compliance to turn a blind eye to everything have gotten us in this situation we are in now.

It’s completely unsustainable, and pretending there is not a problem isn’t going to help. That’s what Washington has been doing for the last 25 years. You can’t have unfettered immigration, and you can’t feasibly shut the border either.

My commit above was meant to show the ignorance of the whole situation. One side saying “Sure let them all in, it’s all great and wonderful” and the other saying “No, no, no, just build a wall and let someone else worry about it.” Both idea are equally stupid, and incredibly short-sighted.

So what do you do then? Well, I’m sure your not going to like what I’m going to say, but someone has to say it. You got to fix the root of the problem. Fix these failed countries that all these people are leaving. This is the 21st century, and it’s about damn time the rest of the world got on board. Shut down these petty little despot dictatorships, clean house of all the South American non functioning governments and build new republics from the ground up. There is absolutely no reason that those countries can’t be profitable and free and enjoy the benefits that come along with civic and fiscal responsibility. If it takes annexation and declaring them US territories like Purto Rico then so be it, although that would not be my first preference.

The bottom line is this. How much do you really care? Do you want to really fix the problem, and do people good, and build a solid foundation for millions present and future, or do you want to just want to stick your finger in the dam then pat yourself on the back and tell yourself how big of a heart you have and how compassionate you are?

This isn’t working, it hasn’t worked, and now it’s past breaking point. It’s time to fix it. It’s not our problem, but they have now made it our problem. So let’s do what America does, and fix the damn problem.

Avatar image for Solaryellow
#16 Posted by Solaryellow (4801 posts) -

The left is vocal with allowing illegals into our country but obviously they don't support these people enough to welcome them into their areas of life.

Avatar image for Treflis
#17 Posted by Treflis (13619 posts) -

...He does realize that modern cities don't have walls around them and people can leave doesn't he?

Contrary to how Cities look in a late stage of a Civilization VI game.

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
#18 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (10598 posts) -

@ad1x2 said:
@HoolaHoopMan said:

This seems very illegal and VERY inhuman. I can't think of a single good thing about this accusation.

It probably does have the potential to be illegal, but in terms of it being inhuman that could be debatable. Do the sanctuary cities have the resources to take them in, as well as the will to care for them indefinitely? Or will they just join the homeless on the streets? Will they be allowed to leave those sanctuary cities after being dropped off if they have the ability to do so, or will Trump try to cordon off the cities preventing them from leaving?

This is obviously a political move, but the political fallout remains to be seen. Maybe he thinks that overwhelming the cities with the migrants will make their voters rethink their sanctuary policies. It could backfire and cost him later if he follows through with the threat even if it’s still legal.

Forcibly relocating people, families, children, in order secure political retribution isn't blatantly unethical to you? Christ, the thing people are attempting to justify.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
#19 Posted by Jacanuk (18251 posts) -

LOL, this is pure popcorn gold.

Matt shows he has no clue as to what is actually impeachable, Zaryia compares illegal immigrants to trash and the rest is somehow mortified about the mere thought of their precious illegals actually being placed in cities the left control.....

Funny thread, which is needed in PG once in a while.

Avatar image for nintendoboy16
#20 Posted by nintendoboy16 (36044 posts) -
@MirkoS77 said:

This reminds me of the Nazis rounding up the Jews into ghettos.

But of course, compare anything to the Nazis (even if it's accurate). "This is how Trump won." Ugh...

Avatar image for nattydaddy604
#21 Posted by NattyDaddy604 (304 posts) -

@ad1x2: This is a treasonous action of Trump. He's aiding and abetting those who enter the country illegally safe passage. He does not serve the American people

Avatar image for nattydaddy604
#22 Posted by NattyDaddy604 (304 posts) -

@Jacanuk: That is because they genuinely do not care about their country. Look at how they are making this a party thing. It is hilarious

Avatar image for ad1x2
#23 Edited by ad1x2 (7396 posts) -

@HoolaHoopMan said:
@ad1x2 said:
@HoolaHoopMan said:

This seems very illegal and VERY inhuman. I can't think of a single good thing about this accusation.

It probably does have the potential to be illegal, but in terms of it being inhuman that could be debatable. Do the sanctuary cities have the resources to take them in, as well as the will to care for them indefinitely? Or will they just join the homeless on the streets? Will they be allowed to leave those sanctuary cities after being dropped off if they have the ability to do so, or will Trump try to cordon off the cities preventing them from leaving?

This is obviously a political move, but the political fallout remains to be seen. Maybe he thinks that overwhelming the cities with the migrants will make their voters rethink their sanctuary policies. It could backfire and cost him later if he follows through with the threat even if it’s still legal.

Forcibly relocating people, families, children, in order secure political retribution isn't blatantly unethical to you? Christ, the thing people are attempting to justify.

Between immediate deportation, locking them up, and transporting them to sanctuary cities they could potentially leave at anytime, which one would you think activists would consider less cruel? Many activists claim that deporting or detaining them when they are fleeing poverty is cruel and even racist, and the sanctuary cities claim that they will keep those migrants safe and protect them from ICE. The mayor-elect of Chicago says she would welcome them with open arms.

Avatar image for ad1x2
#24 Posted by ad1x2 (7396 posts) -

@nattydaddy604 said:

@ad1x2: This is a treasonous action of Trump. He's aiding and abetting those who enter the country illegally safe passage. He does not serve the American people

If you think this is bad, what do you think a theoretical President O’Rourke that says he wants to tear down the existing border wall would do? Or a theoretical President Sanders whose Medicare for All bill may cover people in the country illegally?

Avatar image for Solaryellow
#25 Posted by Solaryellow (4801 posts) -

Comparing this with the Nazi's? That's when you know someone is fueled by emotion rather than a logical view of the situation.

@Jacanuk

The left doesn't want these people, period. Of course they sit on their throne and condemn those opposed to illegal aliens but when push comes to shove they don't walk the walk.

Avatar image for nattydaddy604
#26 Posted by NattyDaddy604 (304 posts) -

@ad1x2 said:

If you think this is bad, what do you think a theoretical President O’Rourke that says he wants to tear down the existing border wall would do? Or a theoretical President Sanders whose Medicare for All bill may cover people in the country illegally?

Oh I know. It's ridiculous. It's just hilarious how cucked people are nowadays. Men used to fight to preserve their way of life, fight against unjust governments... Now, everyone is just bending over and taking it up the rear. And the amount of people who blindly believe everything is ok, or these elected crooks are serving the interests of the American people. Absolute laughing stock.

Avatar image for jeezers
#27 Edited by jeezers (2617 posts) -

@evilross: yeah sounds like a win win situation.

We have an immigration crysis

Sanctuary cities voted to take in illegal immigrants

Border Patrol is overwhelmed

Sanctuary cities SHOULD take all illegal immigrants, they wanted to undermine federal law by making these places allow it on the state level, illegals want to get to a sanctuary city once they cross anyway.

We can give the illegals thier options

"Would like to be detained or go to a sanctuary city"

Everyone gets what they want, it helps border Patrol

And liberals get to help illegals

It really is a win win

Avatar image for Stevo_the_gamer
#28 Posted by Stevo_the_gamer (45131 posts) -

Hilarious to see the left all of sudden do an about face on protecting the illegals. Almost spat out my coffee reading it.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
#29 Posted by Jacanuk (18251 posts) -
@Solaryellow said:

Comparing this with the Nazi's? That's when you know someone is fueled by emotion rather than a logical view of the situation.

@Jacanuk

The left doesn't want these people, period. Of course they sit on their throne and condemn those opposed to illegal aliens but when push comes to shove they don't walk the walk.

LOL ya it´s funny to hear them talk about illegals like they are seen as a punishment and compare them to"trash"

You would think that Democrats and the left would welcome a chance to get them and be glad that Trump wants to place them in cities where they can be "protected"

Avatar image for nattydaddy604
#30 Posted by NattyDaddy604 (304 posts) -

@Solaryellow said:

Comparing this with the Nazi's? That's when you know someone is fueled by emotion rather than a logical view of the situation.

@Jacanuk

The left doesn't want these people, period. Of course they sit on their throne and condemn those opposed to illegal aliens but when push comes to shove they don't walk the walk.

The left is indoctrinated fools. They look at the Hollywood elitists for advice, yet these same people are in gated communities, enjoying multi-million dollar mansions. Just look at California. Cesspool of degeneracy. Socialism (aka Marxism) is a plague that must be cut off at its roots.

Avatar image for zaryia
#31 Edited by Zaryia (8167 posts) -
@Jacanuk said:

LOL, this is pure popcorn gold.

Matt shows he has no clue as to what is actually impeachable, Zaryia compares illegal immigrants to trash and the rest is somehow mortified about the mere thought of their precious illegals actually being placed in cities the left control.....

Funny thread, which is needed in PG once in a while.

I didn't literally compare Illegals to trash. But you are correct, I do think of this move as a political punishment. No city would be equipped for such a thing, no matter how SJW they are. Mind you I am not a big proponent of Sanctuary Cities.

I was giving examples of political retribution that Dems could propose. One of the first things that came to my mind was (R) voting records on the environment..

Hence this statement,

This is just a shitty troll attempt to "own the libs" by Trump, when in fact a (D) president could suggest far far more devastating way to "own the Cons"as I suggested above. Only I don't think they would stoop that low, unlike Trump.

I'm sorry if you took it that way.

No matter which side does, it's still lunacy and sets a very poor precedent. Oh and it's illegal, as are the example I gave.

Avatar image for zaryia
#32 Edited by Zaryia (8167 posts) -
@nattydaddy604 said:Socialism (aka Marxism) is a plague that must be cut off at its roots.

Socialism? Don't know if I'd call it that. But the countries Dems draw policy from are all objectively better places to live than USA at the moment.

"plague".

@nattydaddy604 said:

@Jacanuk: That is because they genuinely do not care about their country. Look at how they are making this a party thing. It is hilarious

Trump made it a party thing. This is political retaliation. With that being said,

1. I'm an Independent and do not completely agree with Sanctuary City policy.

2. But I'm also not a political tribal and see harmful political retribution as absolute bullshit.

3. As an Independent, if this insane political retribution actually goes through I would fearthe next (D) President use this tactic to punish Red states and cities that do not comply with common sense environmentalism. Ending Blue States from subsidizing them or use them as landfills if they hate the Earth so much?

Avatar image for SUD123456
#33 Posted by SUD123456 (5285 posts) -

Sounds like a great plan. Stop putting these people in camps and send them to sanctuary cities. Those cities can then buy them bus tickets to wherever they really want to go.

Trump proves once again what a genius he is. Democrats really ought to just say yes and shut these morons up. Then when they get into power they can use the same logic to force whatever insane crap they want to do down Republicans throats.

Cause America is a political cesspool and I love watching cucks like the people in this thread trying to justify stupidity.

Avatar image for zaryia
#34 Edited by Zaryia (8167 posts) -
@SUD123456 said:

Then when they get into power they can use the same logic to force whatever insane crap they want to do down Republicans throats.

That would be disastrous for the country, as GOP voting records have set themselves up for far greater potential political retribution as I earlier pointed out.

No side should do this kind of shit. A dangerous (and illegal) precedent.

Avatar image for evilross
#35 Edited by evilross (1974 posts) -

You guys are still arguing the same sad partisan stories that have been pushed for the last 25 years and accomplish nothing. It’s like if you accidentally cut yourself and are bleeding arguing over if you should bleed on the floor or go outside and bleed on the ground instead of dressing the damn wound.

I pointed out earlier what the underlying issues are and why we have them and what we should do, hoping to get some real thought going about what we as a nation can do so solve this problem now that we have been forced into it, but nope, it’s still just name calling and finger pointing.

This is why we have this damn problem to start with.

Avatar image for Sevenizz
#36 Edited by Sevenizz (3593 posts) -

Isn’t that why these so-called sanctuary cities exist? What’s the foul here?

Avatar image for nepu7supastar7
#37 Posted by nepu7supastar7 (5056 posts) -

@ad1x2:

Sounds like a straight up child throwing a tantrum. Is Trump is stupid enough to try it? Possibly. Would he get away with it? Definitely not. But hey, I welcome him to try! It's not it would be the first utterly careless and irresponsible thing he's ever done. But let's screw protocol and release detainees into the wild! That'll show those pesky liberals and their sanctuary cities! Give them more people!

Avatar image for zaryia
#38 Edited by Zaryia (8167 posts) -
@Sevenizz said:

Isn’t that why these so-called sanctuary cities exist?

Not entirely.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/04/12/sanctuary-cities-illegal-immigrants-can-carry-many-definitions/3449063002/

What’s the foul here?

It sets a bad precedent, it illegal, and there isn't the funds for it.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
#39 Posted by Jacanuk (18251 posts) -
@zaryia said:
@Jacanuk said:

LOL, this is pure popcorn gold.

Matt shows he has no clue as to what is actually impeachable, Zaryia compares illegal immigrants to trash and the rest is somehow mortified about the mere thought of their precious illegals actually being placed in cities the left control.....

Funny thread, which is needed in PG once in a while.

I didn't literally compare Illegals to trash. But you are correct, I do think of this move as a political punishment. No city would be equipped for such a thing, no matter how SJW they are. Mind you I am not a big proponent of Sanctuary Cities.

I was giving examples of political retribution that Dems could propose. One of the first things that came to my mind was (R) voting records on the environment..

Hence this statement,

This is just a shitty troll attempt to "own the libs" by Trump, when in fact a (D) president could suggest far far more devastating way to "own the Cons"as I suggested above. Only I don't think they would stoop that low, unlike Trump.

I'm sorry if you took it that way.

No matter which side does, it's still lunacy and sets a very poor precedent. Oh and it's illegal, as are the example I gave.

But you are making absolutely zero sense. You should be thrilled that illegals are going to be placed in cities since your side is advocating for illegals to be allowed into the country and no borders so anyone can come into the US because we are among the richest country in the world

Also, the negative connotation you guys put in Trump´s tweet is puzzling, Democrats love illegals, so how can placing them in places that have laws to help illegals stay ever be seen as a punishment?

No matter the intent by Trump, the Democrats should jump on this with open arms and just think of the potential votes you guys can get.

Avatar image for zaryia
#40 Edited by Zaryia (8167 posts) -
@Jacanuk said:

You should be thrilled that illegals are going to be placed in cities since your side is advocating for illegals to be allowed into the country and no borders so anyone can come into the US because we are among the richest country in the world

Sigh.

Mind you I am not a big proponent of Sanctuary Cities.

Oh and lol "my side".

@Jacanuk said:

No matter the intent by Trump, the Democrats should jump on this with open arms and just think of the potential votes you guys can get.

I'm not a Democrat.

My main point was a Democrat President could inflict far worse political retribution and this is a bad (and illegal) precedent.

Avatar image for jeezers
#41 Edited by jeezers (2617 posts) -

@nepu7supastar7: isnt having something like sanctuary cities hypocritical to federal law?

Arent they inticing illegal immigrants to come to those cities anyway??

The left doesnt make any sense to me, we dont have the resources at the boarder to handle this influx of illegals, you dont want a strong border, you want sanctuary cities, now people are mad he wants to send detained illegals to the sanctuary cities??? They dont want to fix the border, they want to end ICE, and they want to give illegals sanctuary. But god forbid the burden gets put on these places that voted to counter federal law.

Like wtf sanctuary cities are basically telling illegal immigrants if they cross and make it to them they are protected and wont get deported, trump doing this is basically giving them exactly what they want,

TRUMP IS SAYING, LIBERALS YOU WON!!! NOW CLAIM YOUR PRIZE!!

Avatar image for zaryia
#42 Edited by Zaryia (8167 posts) -
@jeezers said:

you dont want a strong border,

They dont want to fix the border,

This isn't true though. They vote for billions each year. And when (R) were in complete control they couldn't agree on immigration reform either.

As for Sanctuary cities, I don't think their infrastructure could handle an influx of illegals. They don't think there would be enough funding for the busing itself as well.

  • The senior White House official acknowledged: "It's not going to happen because ICE [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement] can't do it. They don't have the cash and they can't ask for federal funds to do that."

Also,

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/04/12/sanctuary-cities-illegal-immigrants-can-carry-many-definitions/3449063002/

Avatar image for Jacanuk
#43 Posted by Jacanuk (18251 posts) -
@zaryia said:
@Jacanuk said:

You should be thrilled that illegals are going to be placed in cities since your side is advocating for illegals to be allowed into the country and no borders so anyone can come into the US because we are among the richest country in the world

Sigh.

Mind you I am not a big proponent of Sanctuary Cities.

Oh and lol "my side".

@Jacanuk said:

No matter the intent by Trump, the Democrats should jump on this with open arms and just think of the potential votes you guys can get.

I'm not a Democrat.

My main point was a Democrat President could inflict far worse political retribution and this is a bad (and illegal) precedent.

And your point is confusing because how can something you really want, be seen as anything but as a giant win for the democrats, so why would any "democratic" president need to retribute?

Also please do explain how placing them in sanctuary cities is "illegal"? what law prevents the President of these united states from deciding where illegal detainees go.

Avatar image for zaryia
#44 Edited by Zaryia (8167 posts) -
@Jacanuk said:

And your point is confusing because how can something you really want, be seen as anything but as a giant win for the democrats, so why would any "democratic" president need to retribute?

And those retribution examples I gave were based on policy many Cons really seem to want. But anyways,

@Jacanuk said:

Also please do explain how placing them in sanctuary cities is "illegal"? what law prevents the President of these united states from deciding where illegal detainees go.

Sure,

"While the department has the legal authority to use its budget to move and release migrants to locations far from where they were apprehended, detained or processed, officials could only do so in a way consistent with what the comptroller general had referred to as "an authorized agency purpose," Mitnick wrote. Examples of this that he cited included providing appropriate health care, fulfilling a transfer request or relieving facility overcrowding.Moreover, Mitnick noted, such a proposal could be self-defeating: transporting an undocumented immigrant to a remote location where he had no ties would increase the likelihood that he would become a flight risk and not attend his removal proceedings."

Challenging the White House to provide a "strong mission-related rationale" for the proposal, Mitnick noted that even if they could provide such rationales, the new policy would prompt a "litigation risk" for the US government for violating the "due process" rights of the undocumented immigrants by moving them to places where they have no community, family ties, or employment opportunities.

"Once the lawyers explained it, the issue was ultimately dropped," an official said.

Trump is just trolling to make a point. If Dems were as demented they would too on several topics.

Avatar image for jeezers
#45 Edited by jeezers (2617 posts) -

@zaryia: I dont care what the Rs and Ds have done in the past they keep neglecting the problem, yes they put money into it, enough for shitty 5 foots chain fences that dont do a damn thing, just give trump the wall, they fight him tooth and nail over, but jesus christ these shitty fences going from regan, clinton, Bush, obama dont do a damn thing.

People say the wall is a waste of money but it would be alot better than these half ass fences and many areas still have nothing.

They have played on the heart strings of people to try to smear trump, they dont care about America, they only care about power and beating trump, im so sick of the hypocrisy

Avatar image for Sevenizz
#46 Posted by Sevenizz (3593 posts) -

@zaryia: But shouldn’t that be the price a sanc city pays if they don’t want to comply with the federal government who are supposed to report their non documented migrants?

Avatar image for zaryia
#47 Edited by Zaryia (8167 posts) -
@jeezers said:

they dont care about America,

Most Americans don't care about America?

https://news.gallup.com/poll/246455/solid-majority-opposes-new-construction-border-wall.aspx

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/433051-poll-large-majority-oppose-emergency-declaration-for-border-wall

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/394480-poll-88-percent-of-voters-dont-want-families-separated-at-border

Avatar image for zaryia
#48 Posted by Zaryia (8167 posts) -
@Sevenizz said:

@zaryia: But shouldn’t that be the price a sanc city pays if they don’t want to comply with the federal government who are supposed to report their non documented migrants?

In your opinion. Legally, no.

Avatar image for ad1x2
#49 Posted by ad1x2 (7396 posts) -
@Jacanuk said:

No matter the intent by Trump, the Democrats should jump on this with open arms and just think of the potential votes you guys can get.

In terms of votes, some Democrats have argued that the idea illegal immigrants vote in federal elections is fake news made to excuse what they consider racist voter ID laws. So I doubt you will get anybody to claim that they will be happy about the increased population for the purpose of votes. In a more practical sense, they may welcome it because it could result in their new residents increasing census numbers (which count non-citizens), which could result in more representatives in the House and more Electoral College votes for their state.

But having them settle in red states like Texas instead opens up the possibility of those immigrants befriending and dating citizens, who turn around and vote for people more likely to pass amnesty laws to keep their friends and significant others from being deported which would turn those red states purple and eventually blue. That could be one reason why they would be opposed to them being sent straight to sanctuary cities in states that already have strong blue representation.

Avatar image for jeezers
#50 Edited by jeezers (2617 posts) -

@zaryia: thats what happens when the majority of the media is pulling at peoples heart strings, they show you pictures of children crying. It makes people sad and then go against thier own interest.

Its the same shitty tactics they use to get americans to agree to go to war, show a picture of a dead child and then people will agree to go to war with a country that has nothing to do with us.

Thats why you have the new york times showing kids in cages durring obamas administration and then acting like its trumps fault. Thats why they label anyone whos concerned about illegal immigration as just being racists. If illegals were not a burden then sanctuary cities should be ecstatic about this. But they know its going to be too much, and they wont be able to handle it. Because its a problem that has been neglected for the past 30 years with both dems and repubs acting like they are going to do something but ultimately dont do shit but throw some shitty 5 foot fences up and call it a day. Trump has been consistant on the immigration crysis and the left hates him so much they will ignore common sense to stop anything he does even if it is for the countries best interest.

Most corporate media hates trump, thats why trump hates the MSM back. They know this was a big issue he ran on, so they gotta make sure he doesnt succeed. They will call him a racist, bigot, alt right nazi because he wants to actually address the problem, unlike bush and clinton who diddnt do shit. Even Fox shit all over him untill he beat the neo cons and only now do they suck up, (every other major corporate media station shits on trump 24/7 they are multi million dollar companies that will lie to serve thier own corporate interests) because they realized even republicans hate neocons. Its about POWER.

Btw trump fans dont read the Hill, thats for the liberals