Trump to dump detained illegal immigrants in sanctuary cities

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



BrolyBlack
Sounds like a good plan

Bashar Teg
"Der liberals r gunna be so triggered der hur hur"

snowdragon
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
"Der liberals r gunna be so triggered der hur hur"

Oh, they will be while simultaneously wiping the load off their chins crying tears of joy mumbling about immigration reform and sore knees.

mike brown
Trump is on drugs

Surtur
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
https://i.imgur.com/bV3bwL2.jpg

Oh my.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
"Der liberals r gunna be so triggered der hur hur"

I don't think so?

Seems like the humane choice. It's what a very liberal president would do, I think. They'd support sanctuary cities and free detainees inside those cities.

Surtur
Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't think so?

Seems like the humane choice. It's what a very liberal president would do, I think. They'd support sanctuary cities and free detainees inside those cities.

Nancy Pelosi did get triggered over this lol.

You already know why: cuz it was Trump's idea.

BrolyBlack
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
"Der liberals r gunna be so triggered der hur hur"

Why is it a bad plan?

BrolyBlack
Originally posted by mike brown
Trump is on drugs

Wait...... Wasn't the purpose of establishing these "Sanctuary" cities to provide safe havens for illegal immigrants? (with a side order of leftist "virtue signaling"wink

jaden_2.0
Makes sense electorally. If they end up voting it's going to be for democrats in places they'd already win anyway.

BackFire
Bus them to Texas for the 2020 election.

BrolyBlack
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Makes sense electorally. If they end up voting it's going to be for democrats in places they'd already win anyway.

More than that, Why not put them where the cities want them and give them protection?

mike brown
Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't think so?

Seems like the humane choice. It's what a very liberal president would do, I think. They'd support sanctuary cities and free detainees inside those cities. ... It's actually an act of retaliation against his political rivals. After all this time speaking out against sanctuary cities Trump suddenly supports them for humane reasons? REALLY?

Silent Master
If the cities want them, what's the problem?

mike brown
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Makes sense electorally. If they end up voting it's going to be for democrats in places they'd already win anyway. I would assume if they get to the point of being able to vote they will easily be able to move where ever they want without being prosecuted or deported. Like I mentioned, this is basically about trying to use the influx of detainees as a sort of resource-consuming pestilence on districts of political rivals. And I really doubt it's even gonna happen. This from the same genius that proposed we "get rid of asylum judges."

mike brown
Originally posted by Silent Master
If the cities want them, what's the problem? I'm not really defending sanctuary cities... I'm spelling out Trump's obvious motives in my eyes.

But yeah... They don't apparently want to deport their residents. That doesn't mean they want ICE to start directing massive waves of detainees to their districts.

BrolyBlack
Who cares

mike brown
I dunno... You made the thread so you tell me

dadudemon
Originally posted by mike brown
... It's actually an act of retaliation against his political rivals. After all this time speaking out against sanctuary cities Trump suddenly supports them for humane reasons? REALLY? Originally posted by mike brown
I would assume if they get to the point of being able to vote they will easily be able to move where ever they want without being prosecuted or deported. Like I mentioned, this is basically about trying to use the influx of detainees as a sort of resource-consuming pestilence on districts of political rivals. And I really doubt it's even gonna happen. This from the same genius that proposed we "get rid of asylum judges."

No, I get the game. You're not wrong.

But it seems like a win for people who support this, right?

It feels like the episode of the Simpsons where Homer walks in on Bart and his room if full of cigarette's and Homer says, "Bart, you're gonna smoke every one of these!"

It's like that.

jaden_2.0
So it's the legislative equivalent of the retarded "if you like immigrants so much why not let some stay at your house" argument?

mike brown
Originally posted by dadudemon
No, I get the game. You're not wrong.

But it seems like a win for people who support this, right?

It feels like the episode of the Simpsons where Homer walks in on Bart and his room if full of cigarette's and Homer says, "Bart, you're gonna smoke every one of these!"

It's like that. Nah I don't think it is a win for them cause essentially it will make it harder for sanctuary cities to exist. It's like say a city like San Fran has a progressive policy towards the homeless... And as a result everyone starts shipping their homeless to San Fran.

But like I said, based on the commentary I've seen on it, it doesn't seem all that likely to happen anyway. Even ICE seems to be reluctant. Could just be more dick waving from Trump.

snowdragon
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
So it's the legislative equivalent of the retarded "if you like immigrants so much why not let some stay at your house" argument?

I thought it was more along the lines of Murika was built on immigrants so we need more...argument.

Silent Master
Originally posted by mike brown
I'm not really defending sanctuary cities... I'm spelling out Trump's obvious motives in my eyes.

But yeah... They don't apparently want to deport their residents. That doesn't mean they want ICE to start directing massive waves of detainees to their districts.

Why not?

BrolyBlack
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
"Der liberals r gunna be so triggered der hur hur"

This sounds like a great plan, the people who feel these people deserve to be here, whether legally or not, can show them first hand how wonderful, caring and giving they are, by housing them, feeding them and welcoming them. This is a great humanitarian move by the president. The people who are outraged, are just virtue signalers, they talk a big game, but when it comes down to it, it's ok as long as i don't have to deal with it. But, it's ok for the border towns to take on all these?

mike brown
Originally posted by Silent Master
Why not? Pretty sure I already answered that. Because they will make it harder to sustain those districts. Anytime you flood one area with tons of low income, unskilled laborers all at once you are going to have problems.

mike brown
Originally posted by BrolyBlack
This sounds like a great plan, the people who feel these people deserve to be here, whether legally or not, can show them first hand how wonderful, caring and giving they are, by housing them, feeding them and welcoming them. This is a great humanitarian move by the president. The people who are outraged, are just virtue signalers, they talk a big game, but when it comes down to it, it's ok as long as i don't have to deal with it. But, it's ok for the border towns to take on all theses? 1) it's not about how caring anyone is... It's about pragmatic constraints on how many people you can easily deal with at once. See my homeless analogy.

2) No, the border towns should be given federal assistance to deal with the problem. But there is a difference between purposely sending the people to specific districts out of spite and the fact that border towns feel the impact naturally due to their location.

Emperordmb
Well IIRC the democrats have voted down funding for beds and rooms and shit at the border to hold people making asylum claims while said claims are reviewed.

What's weird is they actively seem to want illegal immigration.

mike brown
Yes I agree that was a dumb move when they did that.. but this isn't a good solution...

Silent Master
Originally posted by mike brown
Pretty sure I already answered that. Because they will make it harder to sustain those districts. Anytime you flood one area with tons of low income, unskilled laborers all at once you are going to have problems.

Are you saying that illegal immigrants are a drain on society?

mike brown
I'm saying that you have to moderate that kind of thing... Moving too many people too quickly into one area can cause problems, yes.

Ftr I do think illegal immigration is a problem because they're undocumented. But what we are dealing with right now are largely people who are walking right up to the border and asking for asylum rather than trying to sneak in.

Silent Master
Originally posted by mike brown
I'm saying that you have to moderate that kind of thing... Moving too many people too quickly into one area can cause problems, yes.

How many is too many?

mike brown
Lol... Are you asking for an actual number or what?

Silent Master
If you don't know, why are you saying this is a bad thing?

mike brown
You're right.... I shouldn't have jumped the gun until I found out exactly how many detainees each district can reasonably handle... Thank you for correcting me

Surtur
Originally posted by mike brown
... It's actually an act of retaliation against his political rivals. After all this time speaking out against sanctuary cities Trump suddenly supports them for humane reasons? REALLY?

And delaying Trumps various court nominee's was an act of retaliation by Dem's. Saying he couldn't give his state of the union was as well, etc. So the point is...? They lost all room to cry over this stuff.

ArtificialGlory
Originally posted by BackFire
Bus them to Texas for the 2020 election.
Make Texas vote blue 2020.

Emperordmb
I used to consider myself more neutral on the issue of immigration, in the sense that I don't feel the way Trump does and I don't feel the way the democrats do.

I still don't agree fully with Trump, my stance itself hasn't shifted, but it's become increasingly obvious to me that the democrats seem opposed to border security. So obviously the issue is going to tilt me a certain way in 2020.

When they vote to not provide funding for beds and rooms and expedited legal processes at the border so those with asylum claims can actually be held while their claims are being reviewed (presumably quicker with more funding to that whole process), why would that be? It seems like their hoping there's a shortage of resources that forces the government to release them prematurely into the general public.

When Beto talks, not about not wanting to spend money on a wall, but about tearing down barriers at the border that have already been paid for and built, what the **** is the reasoning behind that?

ABOLISH ICE!!! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE Make cities where federal law can't be enforced.

Putinbot1
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
So it's the legislative equivalent of the retarded "if you like immigrants so much why not let some stay at your house" argument? thumb up

mike brown
Originally posted by Surtur
And delaying Trumps various court nominee's was an act of retaliation by Dem's. Saying he couldn't give his state of the union was as well, etc. So the point is...? They lost all room to cry over this stuff. 1) not like I'm saying that an act of retaliation is unique to Trump... I'm just not buying the people trying to spin it as humanitarianism from a president who talks about the people in question as the sort of proverbial horde of barbarians at the gates.

2) the real problem with this proposal is not that it's an act of retaliation, it's that he's using people who are in a desperate situation as a sort of political bargaining chip with no concern whatsoever about either their well being or what's best for the country. Bottom line is he wants his symbolic victory on the border via a wall he can slap his name on... And he's been throwing hissy fits every time someone stands in the way of that. See: govt shut down

3) this is basically why nobody has any standards for their own side any more. Because they can always just deflect with "well the other side..."

mike brown
Originally posted by Emperordmb


I still don't agree fully with Trump, my stance itself hasn't shifted, but it's become increasingly obvious to me that the democrats seem opposed to border security. So obviously the issue is going to tilt me a certain way in 2020. There's an element of the left that is either for open borders or something close to that. But there are plenty on the left right now who weren't against basic border security until Trump made the wall his trademark. Now they are basically doing everything they can to prevent him getting much done on that front. Very similar to how many establishment Republicans treated Obamacare even though that had been more open to that sort of thing in the past

Basically, I believe they are being obstructionists at I mentioned above. The beds thing was in the negotiations after the failed negotiation tactic that was Trump's govt shut down. They are trying to make him look weak. And many of them aren't particularly concerned about immigration in general.

Personally I think the main problem with our immigration is people being undocumented.. I'm fine with the numbers of people coming here ( the asylum seekers are a temporary spike due to deteriorating conditions in a few countries). The system should be changed to make legal immigration easier. And the majority of illegals are visa overstays so something should be done about that as well.

I think border security is more of a problem because of the cartels than immigrants personally. I think a coast to coast wall is simplistic... But something should be done yes.

Emperordmb
Originally posted by mike brown
There's an element of the left that is either for open borders or something close to that. But there are plenty on the left right now who weren't against basic border security until Trump made the wall his trademark. Now they are basically doing everything they can to prevent him getting much done on that front. Very similar to how many establishment Republicans treated Obamacare even though that had been more open to that sort of thing in the past
I do think most of the left is more reasonable. But it's more radical elements are disproportionately represented in the politicians. I think part of it is backlash to Trump, but I also think another significant part is the democratic politicians pandering to the more radical element of their base.

It's not just immigration. Take something like third trimester abortion, which 4/5 of Americans are against. The Democrat party line that most of the 2020 candidates are towing is in support of third trimester abortion.

Originally posted by mike brown
Basically, I believe they are being obstructionists at I mentioned above. The beds thing was in the negotiations after the failed negotiation tactic that was Trump's govt shut down. They are trying to make him look weak. And many of them aren't particularly concerned about immigration in general.

Personally I think the main problem with our immigration is people being undocumented.. I'm fine with the numbers of people coming here ( the asylum seekers are a temporary spike due to deteriorating conditions in a few countries). The system should be changed to make legal immigration easier. And the majority of illegals are visa overstays so something should be done about that as well.

I think border security is more of a problem because of the cartels than immigrants personally. I think a coast to coast wall is simplistic... But something should be done yes.
Yeah, I mean you seem like a reasonable guy.

Either way I really don't trust the democratic party on this issue.

mike brown
Originally posted by Emperordmb
I do think most of the left is more reasonable. But it's more radical elements are disproportionately represented in the politicians. I think part of it is backlash to Trump, but I also think another significant part is the democratic politicians pandering to the more radical element of their base.

It's not just immigration. Take something like third trimester abortion, which 4/5 of Americans are against. The Democrat party line that most of the 2020 candidates are towing is in support of third trimester abortion. Yeah well the party is swinging to the left as reaction both to Trump and to the populist awakening on both sides in the last election. I think it's likely an overcorrection and a lot of the establishment types will find their way back toward the center left if the populists either don't take the presidency in 2020 or they do take it and have a bad time in office.


I'm closer to the Dems than Trump by far when it comes to immigration... I have extended family that could face deportation. But it's not really my top issue and I usually don't vote. If anything prompts me to vote it will be to get rid of Trump for myriad of reasons... Near the top of the list being that I think it's a national embarrassment to have him as our figurehead. But that all depends on who the Dems throw up there to oppose him.

SquallX

Emperordmb
thumb up

mike brown
Forget candidates... Can we not agree Trump is the most embarrassing president this country has had in a long time?

And criticizing his policy doesn't prove his point at all. There are even people on the right and people in ICE who realize it's a terrible idea. Common sense needs to trump partisan loyalty at some point or we are completely ****ed as a society. This policy doesn't help immigrants and it doesn't help the people concerned about border security. It's purely a threat to his political rivals. What did Trump say... Something like "I have an unlimited supply"? That's the tone of this whole thing.

Surtur
"You say 'friction' -- I say he's trying to pit Americans against each other and make us less safe." -Cory Booker

Gee why would this make us less safe Cory?

cdtm
Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Sounds like a good plan


So more left voters in left states. Trump troll is obvious, what's the point of dumping left voters in left cities?


They're supposed to be flipping right voting middle America. Why else would dems that were against illegal immigration, suddenly be for it?

Silent Master
Since people don't like this idea, what are the democrats ideas for dealing with illegal immigration?

Robtard

mike brown
Originally posted by Silent Master
Since people don't like this idea, what are the democrats ideas for dealing with illegal immigration? I can't speak for the Democrats but personally they should get at many asylum judges as they can down there to deal with these cases as quickly as possible. What you have to remember is this is not normal immigration we're dealing with, it's people who came seeking asylum. That's what's holding up the process because each case needs to be looked at.

Silent Master
So the democrats don't have any ideas for dealing with illegal immigrants?

Robtard
Mike Brown just pointed out one major issue, a lack of Judges and more Judges is something Democrats are pushing for.

Despite Trump's bogus claim of "thousands of judges", there are fewer than 400 and they're ridiculously backlogged and Trump likes it this way as it creates chaos he can prey on.

"There are currently 733,365 pending immigration cases which means that the average immigration judge would have a backlog of over 2,000 cases." -snip

Silent Master
More judges would be good to handle all the asylum requests, but that is only a small part of the overall illegal immigration problem.

What are they doing to solve the main issue?

Robtard
Actually, the asylum seekers issue is a large part.

The non asylum trespassers issue has already been covered as well, where you also asleep? Beef up our border security and use technology. eg A drone can cover far more area than a bunch of guys in trucks and when a drone spots an illegal border crossing attempt, ground personal can be sent directly to the spot.

Silent Master
Really, what percentage of illegal immigrants are legit aslyum seekers?

Surtur
I'm just curious why we'd be less safe over this...I'm told illegals totally commit less crime than americans. Why would Trump's plan put our safety in danger?

I am laughing at how even the Washington Post now admits we have a crisis at the border. What happened to all these once held truths? Illegals are safe and there is no border crisis...

Robtard
Originally posted by Silent Master
Really, what percentage of illegal immigrants are legit aslyum seekers?


You're moving the goal post. Those coming over under the Asylum seeker clause are up. We don't know how many are "legit", that's up to the Judges to decide on a case to case basis and as noted about, we have too few Judges to review the cases in an orderly/timely fashion.

Silent Master
I may have worded that badly, so what percentage of illegal immigrants are people actively seeking asylum?

Robtard
Originally posted by Surtur
I'm just curious why we'd be less safe over this...I'm told illegals totally commit less crime than americans. Why would Trump's plan put our safety in danger?

I am laughing at how even the Washington Post now admits we have a crisis at the border. What happened to all these once held truths? Illegals are safe and there is no border crisis...

^ Surt trig'd himself again. Too funny.

Surtur
Originally posted by Robtard
^ Surt trig'd himself again. Too funny.

Mocking Cory Booker and laughing at the WaPo are now signs you're triggered? Oh Rob...you're slipping.

Robtard
Originally posted by Silent Master
I may have worded that badly, so what percentage of illegal immigrants are people actively seeking asylum?

Not sure on the exact number, just that the number of asylum seekers has dramatically increased.

snowdragon
Originally posted by Robtard
Not sure on the exact number, just that the number of asylum seekers has dramatically increased.

Lulz, that's because it's the known method of coming to the US legally then hiding in the interior illegally eek!

Something like 90% of asylum seekers doesn't qualify for asylum, but dumping them in sanctuary cities should be great news for those places since they are so great for the economy and stuff. roll eyes (sarcastic)

Robtard
If they're properly vetted, I don't have much of a problem with it.

But to deny that Trump is threatening with this because he's a petty maninfant clown is silly. You have to be retarded.

Surtur

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.