"... against Democrats who oppose President Donald Trump's plans for a border wall, a source familiar with the discussions told CNN on Thursday. Trump personally pushed Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen to follow through on the plan, the source said. Nielsen resisted and the DHS legal team eventually produced an analysis that killed the plan, which was first reported by The Washington Post. The proposal is another example of Trump's willingness to enact hardline immigration policies to deliver on border security.... White House senior adviser Stephen Miller urged senior DHS officials to make the plan a reality, the source said. The plan finally died after Miller and other White House officials pushed it in February, according to the source. Miller was angered that DHS lawyers refused to produce legal guidance that would make the plan viable, saying the proposal would likely be illegal.... 'Sanctuary city' is a broad term applied to jurisdictions that have policies in place designed to limit cooperation with or involvement in federal immigration enforcement actions.... 'The extent of this administration's cynicism and cruelty cannot be overstated,' [a spokesperson for Nancy Pelosi] said in a statement. 'Using human beings — including little children — as pawns in their warped game to perpetuate fear and demonize immigrants is despicable, and in some cases, criminal. The American people have resoundingly rejected this Administration's toxic anti-immigrant policies, and Democrats will continue to advance immigration policies that keep us safe and honor our values.'"
CNN reports.
I don't think it's true that the American people have "resoundingly rejected" the Trump administration's approach to immigration, but it does seem obvious that this policy — was it seriously proposed? — would have upset and offended a lot of people. I wonder who wanted this story out and how accurate it is. People say a lot of things when they are brainstorming behind closed doors. But this supposedly reached the stage where DHS "produced an analysis." An analysis of what? Of "the plan"? What plan? Was there an idea that might have been worked into a plan that was analyzed and found unworkable? Who knows? This report on a phantom plan seems like a platform for denouncing the desire to enforce immigration law as "despicable" and "toxic."
UPDATE: Trump
has now tweeted about this:
Due to the fact that Democrats are unwilling to change our very dangerous immigration laws, we are indeed, as reported, giving strong considerations to placing Illegal Immigrants in Sanctuary Cities only....
....The Radical Left always seems to have an Open Borders, Open Arms policy – so this should make them very happy!
Posts
161 comments:
This idea occurred to me long ago. Make the city grovel in it’s dust. If illegal immigration imports new Democrat voters, having to live alongside it’s effects creates new Republican ones.
The one thing bureaucracies are good at is coming up with reasons not to do stuff.
I thought these were good immigrants. How can they be a punishment.
Many of us suggested this months ago. It would be the perfect solution. So long as they make sure the immigrants are placed in the UMC & wealthy white liberals' neighborhoods.
Where would the detainees have otherwise been released? Non-sanctuary cities?
Or would they have remained in detention?
it does seem obvious that this policy — was it seriously proposed? — would have upset and offended a lot of people.
Why? It sounds like they were putting immigrants where they were most wanted. Is the Dem outrage an admission their previous position was posturing and they agree illegals are a problem?
Forcing Democrats to eat their own dog food. Brilliant!
The MSM and the fringe far left, the whackiest 10%, are so far gone the rest of America ignores them.
There's an argument to be made for 'accelerationism'. Mencken was right. These people want this and they deserve to get it good and hard. Pedal. Gas. More.
(P.S. Did you know that California can be crossed East/West by mechanized military forces in less than a day? Let's test it!)
If true, there is certainly a devilish quality to the plan. But if the folks in the sanctuary cities are the ones pressing for releasing these aliens into our country, and if they’re making a big show out of not cooperating with federal officials (for example, by refusing to notify the feds when one of these aliens gets released from police custody after some sort of brush with the criminal law), then why not release the aliens into those jurisdictions?The sanctuary city people ought to applaud this as the only humane thing to do!
Will this turn out to be like the separation of minors? In other words, the same thing Obama did, but it was okay then because his motives were pure?
Hey Fen, we need your law again.
Sanctuary Cities, Counties and States
If a serious proposal it is both appalling on its face and it goes against Trump's own arguments.
Trump claims that a border wall is necessary to prevent criminals from crossing the border (among other things). But his proposal supposes that the government should take the the illegal aliens apprehended -- people Trump contends include violent criminals --, transport them across the United States, and release them in specific cities.
Sanctuary cities may be run by Trump opponents, but they are populated by U.S. citizens of all types. If Trump's stated rationale for his policy is to protect U.S. citizens, then he needs to stick to the policy of protecting U.S. citizens. If not, then there's zero reason to take the defense of his policy seriously.
I don't think it's true that the American people have "resoundingly rejected" the Trump administration's approach to immigration,
No they haven’t.
but it does seem obvious that this policy — was it seriously proposed?
Good question.
— would have upset and offended a lot of people.
If it would upset and offend only people who are already upset and offended that Donald Trump has a heartbeat, then where’s the risk?
I wonder who wanted this story out and how accurate it is.
Another good question.
People say a lot of things when they are brainstorming behind closed doors. But this supposedly reached the stage where DHS "produced an analysis." An analysis of what? Of "the plan"? What plan? Was there an idea that might have been worked into a plan that was analyzed and found unworkable? Who knows? This report on a phantom plan seems like a platform for denouncing the desire to enforce immigration law as "despicable" and "toxic."
I think you broke the code.
but it does seem obvious that this policy — was it seriously proposed? — would have upset and offended a lot of people.
In the words of Ian Fleming,
The girl's eyes in the pale face were blue-black with fear. Her lips trembled. She said, "Will it hurt?"
"Silence!" Doctor No's voice was the crack of a whip. "Enough of this foolery. Of course it will hurt. I am interested in pain. I am also interested in finding out how much the human body can endure. From time to time I make experiments on those of my people who have to be punished. And on trespassers like yourselves.
Obama loved the pain of those not in his thrall. Clinton felt your pain and what better way than to inflict it? Some people won't understand the difference between the dollar and the whip until they learn it on their own hides.
If illegal immigrants are so great, these cities should have nothing to worry about. If they're not...maybe these cities should stop sanctuarying them.
SALT cap discriminates against PDJT's enemies too. What a masterstroke that was. Fuck you. War. Next DHS chief needs better lawyers.
Dear Executive Branch: Obey the will of the President. That is all.
Drop them inside Nancy Pelosi's walls. Hollywood people live behind walls. What a compassionate idea.
Wouldn't it seem that the best place to send the immigrants is to locations that have demonstrated a willingness to accept them? What is wrong with that concept?
Trump is thinking about doing bad stuff!
According to unnamed sources!
How is this a hardline policy?
I say move about 10,000 of these illegal aliens into the Bronx. Or San Fran. Love your neighbor.
but it does seem obvious that this policy — was it seriously proposed? — would have upset and offended a lot of people
Please explain on what legitimate grounds anyone could complain about this.
You want people to be able to get into the country illegally, and stay here? Fine, YOU get them, all of them.
That's pure justice
The Dems and MSM are in full meltdown mode. It will only get worse when Comey, Brennan, Rice and Lynch go to jail.
Or are the liberals only willing to have unlimited immigration if it doesn't impact them much personally?
"...hardline immigration policies...
Translation: "...any effective enforcement of existing immigration law whatsoever."
AA: This report on a phantom plan seems like a platform for denouncing the desire to enforce immigration law as "despicable" and "toxic."
Ya think?
Let me FTFY:
"All msm 'reporting' on the subject of immigration is a platform for denouncing the desire to enforce immigration law as 'despicable' and 'toxic.'"
"The American people have resoundingly rejected this Administration's toxic anti-immigrant policies,..."
"Anti-immigrant" is a false expansion of the term to include illegal aliens.
"...and Democrats will continue to advance immigration policies that keep us safe and honor our values.'"
Word salad.
Obama did that with refugees, but I guess that was different.
Pelosi, "'Using human beings — including little children — as pawns in their warped game to get President Trump is despicable. But we refuse to enact legislation to stop this invasion."
The Trump administration couldn't even take the heat for separating minors from their families, even with the precedent set by the Obama administraiton. This policy -- again, if serious -- wouldn't have lasted 24 hours.
Do you have any idea what the optics would look like? Were they planning to transport the undesirables in cattle cars?
Trump and his supporters make a big deal out of the small number of illegal aliens that commit murders and rapes. The fact that the percentages are low don't matter. So what do you think would happen the first time the Trump administration detains some actual criminals, has them in custody, then decides to transport them to a "democratic" city and release them? Who are you going to blame for the consequences?
Sanctuary cities may be run by Trump opponents, but they are populated by U.S. citizens of all types.
Who voted for those leftist creeps.
Explain how all those Somalis got to Minnesota. A little colder than Somalia.
I think it is an excellent idea. Nancy and Gavin want lots of illegals and will "resist" attempts to send them home. What better place than California, especially as I don't live there anymore.
Maybe those "U.S. citizens of all types" will figure out that voting for the left is not as good an idea when you have to pay a price,.
Trump and his supporters make a big deal out of the small number of illegal aliens that commit murders and rapes.
So do the victims. Not you, though.
The reaction of the left to this proposal is validation of Fen's law: "The Left doesn't really believe in the things they lecture the rest of us about."
I think I can evaluate the veracity of this story without even using any words, verbally or even in my head:
"CNN"
"How dare you bring these fine people into my neighborhood."
Don't worry, if it's nice enough a federal judge lives nearby and will issue an injunction to stop the government from doing so.
What they can't stop is the federal government giving released immigrants a list of the sanctuary cities, the benefits of living there, and the most direct ways to travel.
The whole point of brainstorming as a group activity is to get all ideas out, regardless of how unrealistic they may be.
Sending the illegals to sanctuary cities could force those city's leaders to suffer the consequences of their policy and enlighten them to the issues our border cities are dealing with, possibly changing the political dynamics and, ultimately, policy. It sounds as if the argument that the political damage would be too great won the day. For now.
Other than the problem that ICE won't get any local help if they have to find these people at a later date, I didn't see any downside to this idea. Why shouldn't they go to places that are on record as wanting them in the country, as opposed to places that have not said so?
Interesting how the Dems and left think accommodating refugees awaiting disposition of their cases is an attack on them... but not a problem for those communities that already bear the burden. Really?
If this was even a thing, of course.
All the outrage seems to be about having their bluff called and impinging on their Constitutional right to indulge in cheap virtue signaling. How it looks to me, anyway
And, on most aspects of illegal immigration, the polling says that Trump has plurality or majority support.
"So what do you think would happen the first time the Trump administration detains some actual criminals, has them in custody, then decides to transport them to a "democratic" city and release them? Who are you going to blame for the consequences?"
I wouldn't expect the Trump administration, if they knew them to be "actual criminals", to relaease them. Unless they were forced to by you guys.
Who are you going to blame for the consequences?
YOU! Or the Hawaiian judge, take your pick.
Every alien the courts release, and therefore it is permissible to release them, should be placed on some marginally acceptable form of transportation and plonked down at the municipal bus depot of whichever city. Or just do it however Obama did it. Obviously that's okay with you.
As for bad press, just don't tell anybody. Like Obama.
The founding fathers had it right, a tax on all or a tax on none.
If you're not willing to pay your share, you should not take from others at your benefit.
The point of this exercise was to turn California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and Texas blue with as little collateral damage as possible.
When that objective is reached, they'll vote to shut the door.
Didn’t the previous Administration refuse to disclose where within the US it was transferring noncitizens processed at the southern border? I recall suspecting that they were mostly being transferred to swing states (to await that glorious day when they would be awarded voting rights), rather than to the places that would likely be most welcoming to them. But I don’t recall that the numbers were ever either officially disclosed or leaked.
Michael K said...
So do the victims. Not you, though.
You misunderstand the meaning of "a big deal". Murder is horrifying. Making a big deal out of a murder to justify a sweeping political policy is not the same thing as the sorrow one feels about a murder. Megan's Law is not the same as Megan, just as the Brady Bill is not the same as Brady.
Who voted for those leftist creeps.
So much for your victim sympathy.
* * *
We are talking about a hypothetical case, of course. But hypothetically, do you really think a random murderer in a big city is going to target his victims based on their voting record? Of course not. Most likely, the victim will be some other poor person living on the margins. Or it will be someone completely random. A kid, or a tourist, or a police officer.
From the Oxford dictionary: “Definition of sanctuary - refuge or safety from pursuit, persecution, or other danger,,....”
So what’s the problem? Isn’t the purpose of sanctuary cities to provide a haven for illegal immigrants?
Evidently, from the point of view of the liberal mediaswine and their pet Democrats sanctuary cities are showpieces. There ought not to be consequences for facilitating violations of federal law, no civil liability for injury caused by their neglect, no sanctuary unless it is to thwart the Trump Administration. Right?
Bad, bad Orangeman for considering fulfilling the wishes of sanctuary cities.
"So what do you think would happen the first time the [sanctuary city] detains some actual criminals, then decides to [not tell ICE so they can be deported] and releases them back into the city? Who are you going to blame for the consequences?"
Shut up, you racist!
Here's another story idea for CNN:
Trump pressured the Dept of Homeland Security to stop migrants, including women and children, from crossing the southern border into the United States without documentation, a source familiar with the discussions told CNN on Thursday.
Sources inside the Agency told our reporters Trump personally pushed Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen to follow through on the controversial plan even though it was clear to everyone in the meetings Trump was fully aware that proper documentation was unavailable to these migrants, who were often crossing at remote locations where document services are not offered by issuing agencies, sometimes due to budget cuts made by the Trump Administration itself.
Didn’t the previous Administration refuse to disclose where within the US it was transferring noncitizens processed at the southern border?
When the Obama Administration does it, it's not a crime.
Hey, those sidewalks won't shit on themselves.
The Dems don't like it when Cloward-Piven is turned around on them.
Hawaii would be my choice. Start with Lanai and move to the bigger islands as they fill up. They would not be able to fly and any ships could be easily interdicted by the USCG or Navy.
This is totally win / win policy. San Francisco would become even more vibrant and the coders would not have to be imported from India. Gavin Newsom would be happy, as would his neighbors in Ross. The middle class has already departed and the schools long ago stopped working. The only problems I see are the transportation costs and the increased competition for prime sidewalk tent space among homeless. Of course they discussed it. I wonder why it was not implemented.
Actually, I think it is a great idea for the virtue signallers to feel impact of their crazy ideas.
@Henry regarding your 8:47: Nice try, but no cigar. If Trump’s goal to protect US citizens from illegals is deliberately thwarted by officials duly elected in certain jurisdictions it is neither appalling nor inconsistent for the constituents to bear the burden of those officials’ policies.
If the constituents don’t like that, they can elect new officials or relocate. Democrats consistently rely on corrupt media and corrupt courts to insulate them from the consequences of their insanity.
Explain how all those Somalis got to Minnesota. A little colder than Somalia.
You seem to have difficulty differentiating between refugees (who go through a long vetting outside the country before they are admitted) and people who enter the country and then claim asylum or enter illegally.
"Do you have any idea what the optics would look like?"
Yes.
"Were they planning to transport the undesirables in cattle cars?"
That's one doozy of a worst case assumption.
"So what do you think would happen the first time the Trump administration detains some actual criminals, has them in custody, then decides to transport them to a "democratic" city and release them?"
Uh, charge them or deport them. Why do assume they would let them go?
"Who are you going to blame for the consequences?"
Who do you blame for the current situation?
What with free will and market forces won't most illegal immigrants choose to live in sanctuary cities anyway? Why not send illegal immigrants to where they will feel most welcome instead of some deplorable city? This will facilitate the assimilation process. It should be looked upon as yet another example of Trump's wisdom and kindness.
First things first, has this been verified and vetted? Is there a paper trail, policy or position paper? Any documentation at all? After all, this is CNN reporting this story. CNN is not credible for the most part.
Second, if memory serves, Rush Limbaugh bused homeless people to Malibu to put the screws to Martin Sheen, who was the mayor of Malibu at that time. This pressuring of homeland security by Trump to dump illegal aliens in sanctuary cities sounds very similar to me.
What does that matter:
https://globalnews.ca/news/5156151/lawyers-argue-terrorist-victim-discrimination/
I have no problem with funneling asylum seekers who have to be admitted to the US while their claims are pending to sanctuary cities. That is where they belong. Let those cities feed, clothe, shelter, educate, and nurse the asylum seekers.
Portland, Maine has welcomed them. Now the city is complaining that they can’t handle the volume.
Too fucking bad.
Immigrants vs. illegal immigrants is roughly the same difference as between subway riders and fare beaters. I think both groups are law abiding in the main, although the fare beaters, almost by definition, have a significantly higher proportion of criminals. The real problem with fare beaters though is that they not only overburden the system but that they make the fare payers feel like schlumps.......I don't know what the saturation point is regarding immigration, but there is a saturation point. The people who voice such worries are not necessarily bigots any more time than illegal immigrants are rapists.
They want them. They can have them but no more federal money. Tax their citizens.
"Actually, I think it is a great idea for the virtue signallers to feel impact of their crazy ideas."
That's your idea, and you would feel the impact of it.
It’s like the property tax limit. You want to pay more taxes? Ok.
I confidently predict that in the next year the following crimes will happen: an illegal immigrant will murder someone, a Muslim fanatic will murder someone, a white supremacist will murder someone. In the first two cases white people will be told that the murders are idiosyncratic and should not be used to demonize the host group. In the last case, we will be told how that white supremacist was inspired by Trump's rhetoric and how all white men are perilously close to going over the edge. Thank God we have a free press to report these crimes and put them in perspective.
Blogger Kevin said...
"So what do you think would happen the first time the [sanctuary city] detains some actual criminals, then decides to [not tell ICE so they can be deported] and releases them back into the city? Who are you going to blame for the consequences?"
They already do that. Ask Kate Steinle.
First of all, I’m calling BS. Anonymous sources and they claim to know that “Trump personally pushed Nielsen...” Right.
Secondly, didn’t the Obama admin bus them to republican states/districts? I guess it’s ok when he does it.
There was a story the other day (well a lot of them) where the lefty Media (BIRM) complained the Trump admin was not supporting the ACA in the court proceedings as they think it’s unconstitutional. Media cried foul of course. And I just shook my head. Didn’t Obama do the same thing? Oh, right. It’s ok when the light-bringer does it!
"So what do you think would happen the first time the Trump administration detains some actual criminals, has them in custody, then decides to transport them to a "democratic" city and release them?"
I've already challenged the commenter on this hypothetical, but we do have an example of an actual policy every bit as intentionally cynical as imagined above. Operation fast and furious bought guns in the US to deliver to Mexican drug cartels with the intention of sowing death and violence along the border; thereby hoping to increase public demand for further gun control.
Note to Ms. Pelosi: now there's your case of using actual human beings as pawns in a warped political game if indeed you were seriously looking for one.
Why shouldn’t the sanctuary cities pick up the tab on this?
Minneapolis wanted to pay for the Somali refugees. They wanted the higher crime rates.
This is federalism. It’s not the job of the federal government to pay for this. It’s not national defense or interstate highways.
Let the locals who want them take care of them.
Henry: Trump claims that a border wall is necessary to prevent criminals from crossing the border (among other things). But his proposal supposes that the government should take the the illegal aliens apprehended -- people Trump contends include violent criminals --, transport them across the United States, and release them in specific cities.
Really? Thanks for explaining the joke for us, Henry. Otherwise we would have missed it.
"If a serious proposal it is both appalling on its face..."
"Appalling!" Lol.
...and it goes against Trump's own arguments.
"And"? So, just to be clear, the proposal is "appalling" in itself, and not just awful because of the inconsistency and hypocrisy you're imputing to Trump here, right? So, outside of being "appalling on its face", it's exactly like how the caterwauling about this (alleged) proposal goes against the caterwaulers' own arguments, as far as inconsistency and hypocrisy go. OK.
So tell me, have you also been sitting around being "appalled" by the lawless proclamation and maintenance of sanctuary cities? Because they share a great many "appalling" features for which you could condemn this proposal.
Sanctuary cities may be run by Trump opponents, but they are populated by U.S. citizens of all types. If Trump's stated rationale for his policy is to protect U.S. citizens, then he needs to stick to the policy of protecting U.S. citizens.
But the opponents of the policy of protecting U.S. citizens won't let him do that. They sure as hell aren't interested in protecting U.S. citizens "of all types". (Haven't noticed you getting in a dudgeon about that before, but of course you're just pointing out Trump's lack of consistency with his own stated beliefs, right?) Seems to me that the alleged policy would just redistribute the alleged danger with no net change in overall lack of "protection", so why so appalled?
If not, then there's zero reason to take the defense of his policy seriously.
But judging by your anxious reaction ("appalling!"), you appear to be aware that there is *something* here that does indeed need to be taken seriously. A danger posed by illegal immigration, even. From which a government is obligated to protect its citizens. Good for you, Henry. Maybe you've (albeit haltingly) started down the path from vapid "anti-anti-illegal immigration" cant to serious thinking about the problem.
It's out of consideration for the illegals. They won't have to worry they won't be welcomed there. Everybody else doesn't seem to want them.
How about this one:
Trump Maximizes Aid to Displaced Refugees President Donald Trump is urging Customs and Border Patrol to preferentially release undocumented citizens seeking asylum into so called [God I love that phrase] "Sanctuary Cities." The newly released guidance will place these persons awaiting adjudication of their cases into jurisdictions where existing residents have expressed the highest degree of interest in receiving them, and where there exist state and local programs, public and privately funded, especially created for their care and support.
Feedback from these "Sanctuary" communities has been uniformly positive, with many local residents expressing gratitude and thanks to the President.
Yet another case of Progressives being able to avoid the natural consequences of their own policies and foisting them off on some one else.
Nancy Pelosi and her family absolutely should feel the direct effects of this.
Send these kids to the fancy private schools with her grandkids.
Let them shit on her lawn.
IOW, the liberal lawyers didn't like it and found some Legal BS to call it "illegal". Why would releasing illegals in certain cities be "illegal"? BTW, all with Trump on putting illlegals in sanctuary cities and states, you want 'em - you got 'em. And how can the liberal Dem's disagree? They LOVE illegal aliens.
Trump needs to release some illegals in Schumer and Pelosi's neighborhood. They LOVE illegal aliens.
Henry said...
Who are you going to blame for the consequences?
It's odd someone who claims there are no consequences wants to blame someone for those nonexistent consequences.
The federal government should use eminent domain to buy two forms at each Ivy League school to house these asylum seekers.
The starting point of any REAL news analysis - which we never get - would be to tell us exactly what the current law states regarding releasing illegals into the population. I doubt its written anywhere that they need to be released in specific places. And I'm talking LAW not Agency regulations. Then having giving us that set of facts, tell us why SPECIFICALLY the lawyers thought it was "illegal".
And I never understood why Trump appointed the woman to head HS in the first place. She was a buddy of General Kelly, but never seemed to be a hard-liner or a Trump supporter. Trump always seems to be an exec who gives his subordinates a chance, which is nice, but as shown by Comey it often turns out badly.
Of course, as someone noted above, this CNN, Certainly not News, so the chances of this being correct are 50%
I ignore everything that comes from an unnamed source.
A story this big would have been known to a lot of people, yet CNN could not get a named source to confirm it, and decided to run it anyway.
This is what shitty journalism looks like.
These people need sanctuary from ICE and the Trump administration, so of course they should go to where they get that. Sending them elsewhere is just cruel. If you had stray cats you needed to release, would you send them to a cat sanctuary or just release them on the street? Where are these Democrats' hearts?
Trump shows compassion, and the Dems show us Fen's Law.
"DHS lawyers refused to produce legal guidance that would make the plan viable, saying the proposal would likely be illegal."
Can we at least give them a map?
do you really think a random murderer in a big city is going to target his victims based on their voting record? Of course not
Your sympathy for law breakers seems a bit in conflict with your sympathy for their victims. Their "voting record" is why the illegals are there. Also, I thought all these illegals were law abiding. Don't you guys allege that they commit less crime than citizens ? More illegals would mean more safety for you leftist voters. Replace all those citizens with illegal immigrants and bask in the safety.
Leave it to the MSM to put a negative spin on a good idea.
Based on case load and current law, these people are going to be released into the population.
It seems to me to be rather humane to release them in areas where people have expressed interest in receiving them and avoid the possible negative impact of being released into areas where they wouldn't receive the same welcome.
“I think it is an excellent idea. Nancy and Gavin want lots of illegals and will "resist" attempts to send them home. What better place than California, especially as I don't live there anymore.”
I think that there is a lot of self selecting anyway. They want more than their share of illegals, and are getting them thanks to their policies. Easiest way for other jurisdictions to handle their own illegal immigrant problem is to cooperate fully with ICE, while not providing any tax payer paid benefits to them, except maybe a free bus ticket to at least a sanctuary state, and hopefully sanctuary city therein. Trump doesn’t have to do much of anything.
“Maybe those "U.S. citizens of all types" will figure out that voting for the left is not as good an idea when you have to pay a price,.”
Or, they can just leave their feces behind, as they move to adjoining state, already seeming to have flipped CO, with AZ seeming likely to follow.
Minneapolis wanted to pay for the Somali refugees. They wanted the higher crime rates.
And the suitcases of cash leaving via Minneapolis airport.
I don't get it.
Progs say we shouldn't be mean to illegals. We can't just arrest and deport. They must be released somehow. Then why not pick the most humane form of release--in places where they are most welcome and most safe? Clearly that would be best for the illegals, no?
Or are progs saying that releasing illegals in sanctuary cities might actually, you know, pose problems for those cities?
Roll Call at ICE facility:
"Anyone with relatives in San Francisco take one step forward"
"Nielsen resisted and the DHS legal team eventually produced an analysis that killed the plan ..."
Good thing he fired her. He should have fired here then and there. And the idiots who produced the "analysis" along with her.
There is disconnect to some extent between the sanctuary city movement and the larger goals of the Democratic Party. The last time we all seemed to be on the same page about illegal immigratiion was in the late 90s, following Barbara Jordan’s report on the subject, Bill Clinton’s SOTU exhortation (I believe that was 1994), and the 1996 legislation that is still largely on the books. In the early 2000s, following publication of Teixeira/Judis’s “Emerging Democratic Majority,” it became accepted wisdom on the left that increasing minority populations in the US would sweep the Democrats to long-term electoral dominanace. The Democratic Party understandably adopted a policy of hastening the demographic trends described in the book, and that program took on added urgency when John Kerry unaccountably lost the 2004 presidential election. The Dems began a national campaign in support of rights for people who were then known as illegal aliens, with the aim of realizing the promise of “Emerging.” The campaign naturally met with greatest success in areas that were already Dem strongholds, leading to the sanctuary cities movement and other phenomena. But the Dems can’t secure electoral dominance nationally simply by increasing popular vote margins in their existing strongholds. They must also abolish or evade the electoral college (outright or by compact) or else flip some red or swing states to reliably blue. That probably explains why the organized Democrats are both (1) pursuing the popular vote compact and (2) opposing the movement of more illegal immigrants to sanctuary citiies, regardless of whether the immigrants would be happier or better off in the sanctuary cities, and regardless of whether the inhabitants of the sanctuary cities would welcome the immigrants.
Sounds fair to me. If the sanctuary jurisdictions (cities or states) won't work with the Feds, then they are the perfect landing spots for the illegals. Let Pelosi be their Merkel, and see how long the sanctuary jurisdictions remain sanctuary jurisdictions.
Here is the thing- by court order you have to release them somewhere. How is it cruel to release them into a sanctuary city- a city that is by proclamation, welcoming to them? Isn't it more cruel to release them in, let's say, North Dakota?
The illegal immigrants commit fewer crimes than the average citizen.
Illegal immigration is an economic plus (if not an imperative).
I've been hearing this a LOT from the left.
Which would lead one to think they left would say, "Oh please, Mr. President, send me those law loving, economics boosting people to me FIRST.
What changed?
This story is yet another indication of the panic that is starting to form on the Left about the immigration issue. If they were truly unworried about it, the story would be slanted much differently- it would mocking the Trump Administration for thinking the sanctuary cities wouldn't want them. In short, the story is attempting to shore up the support of the Left itself.
Cognitive dissonance is a hell of thing, and just hilarious to watch happen in your opponents.
Similar to the idea that Obama had to give the middle finger to Jeff Sessions https://www.al.com/news/mobile/2016/06/alabama_bucks_as_white_house_c.html
This story is yet another indication of the panic that is starting to form on the Left about the immigration issue.
I strongly suspect that the story is MSM/DNC coordinated to take the focus off AG Barr's investigation. That is where the panic really exists.
It is greater than the fear of losing the 2020 election. It's the fear of going to jail.
Some of the people who want a lot of new restrictions on immigration are convinced the Jared Kushner--or the couple, Javanka--are pushing hard for a big amnesty and probably other things that the "Washington swamp" wants. There are very few hardliners on immigration in the Administration, and Miller is one, so it makes sense that Javanka are leaking against him.
Henry - I don't think crimes committed by illegals is an insignificant number though you may disagree.
From a Texas Dept of Public Safet Report:
"From October 2008 to April 2014, Texas identified a total 177,588 unique criminal alien defendants booked into Texas county jails. These individuals have been identified through the Secure Communities initiative, in which Texas has participated since October 2008.
A review of these 177,588 defendants shows that they are responsible for at least 611,234 individual criminal charges over their criminal careers, including 2,993 homicides and 7,695 sexual assaults."
Why do you propagate lies? Fix your headline
POTUS tweets confirming story.
WSJ just reported Trump is “seriously considering “ this policy.
Limousine liberals. They want open borders as long as they do not have to suffer the consequences. Screw them, put the illegals smack dab in sanctuary cities.
Um . . . immigrants want to go to cities because that’s where the jobs are. Cities in America are universally Democratic. If the Trump administration proposed sending immigrants to rural areas, they’d be accused of spite.
It is amazing how things have changed in just two months time. In February, we were being inundated with multiple stories each and every day that there was no crisis at the border by all the liberal media outlets- that Trump was making up stuff to justify his emergency declaration.
Trump is preparing the country for a border closing, and he has managed the amazing feat of enlisting CNN and the NYTimes in the effort. Just watch what the Left is now advocating- you can't make the asylum seekers wait in Mexico, and you can't make them wait in San Francisco. The next step will be stop catch and release altogether and declare an emergency to build the facilities to detain hundreds of thousands of them- what will the Left do then? They are being boxed in politically.
Blogger Henry said...Henry, part of protecting the citizens of this country is to drag the open border democrats kicking and screaming to take this invasion seriously. The only thing ( besides graft ) politicians respond to are threats to being re-elected. This would help that effort.
You want to know what is prompting this- it is that the asylum seekers are already congregating in the sanctuary cities by choice, especially those jurisdictions in California. The leaders in that state can see the hundreds of thousands that are coming in waves right now and are wondering how they can blame this on someone not themselves.
The Dems began a national campaign in support of rights for people who were then known as illegal aliens, with the aim of realizing the promise of “Emerging.”
It was either that or get better ideas. To Dems that's no choice at all.
There is a concept called "skin in the game" that Nassim Taleb has recently highlighted with his latest book. It is what happening with illegal immigration- the Democrats are finding that they can't keep their skin out of the game, and that is why you have seen the sudden change in how the story is being reported. It is easy to support any policies that have no effect on you, but when you have skin in the game, you are forced to priortize differently.
The illegal immigrants commit fewer crimes than the average citizen.
Not true, according to figures I have seen. (Trying to find the link. It may have been taken down, for obvious reasons.) Immigrants as a whole are more law-aiding than the average citizen, but when legal immigrants are separated from the illegals, then they are less law-abiding than the average citizen.
No doubt one of their crimes is digging up streets because they've been told that the streets up here are paved with gold.
If this plan would have “upset and offended a lot of people”, doesn’t that suggest that illegal immigration is, indeed, a bad thing?
"Actually, I think it is a great idea for the virtue signallers to feel impact of their crazy ideas."
That's your idea, and you would feel the impact of it.
Fair enough. If I present an idea and the idea generates negative results I SHOULD feel the impact. Then I might, just might, dig a bit deeper the next time I get a solution-to-all-bad-things.
Too often the negative impacts of the feelz gud donut ideas of the left fall on the middle to lower class citizens or on the people that the concept was intended to help.
Did anyone ask any of the illegal immigrants where they'd prefer to be transported? I'd guess they would choose go to a sanctuary city where they would not have to worry about ICE or relocating after their asylum claims are rejected. Also sanctuary cities already have lots of Spanish speakers and social services staffed with Spanish speakers. It's actually a toss up to consider that policy as punitive. Sending thousands of illegal immigrants to places where there are less resources might be considered more punitive to those communities. And that might increase anti-immigrant sentiment. Maybe that's the conclusion the analysis produced.
I just emailed President Trump to urge him to follow through with this plan. It's perfect.
Sock it to 'em! Give 'em what they want, good and hard.
Donald Trump...you magnificent bastard!
"The proposal is another example of Trump's willingness to enact hardline immigration policies to deliver on border security."
How is that a 'hard line immigration policy'? This occurs after, not attendant to. illegal immigration.
Isn't this the whole purpose of sanctuary cities?
What's the problem?
Making things more interesting, Rush suggested 20 minutes before Trump’s tweets that Palsi, Feinstein, and the other SF Dems have repeatedly announced how important illegals are. Supposedly Speaker Palsi has called them bundles of love. So, sending the illegals where they are wanted, and not where they are not, is win/win. And then one of his callers asked if Trump listened to Rush. And Rush ended by asking if some guy in a golf shirt in Palm Beach was running the country. Quite humorous.
I live in a Sanctuary STATE. I'm with Trump. If they want it(and they do)...give it to them.
Oh dear, Henry has the vapors! Someone get him a cold beverage.. loosen his blouse... get him into the shade!
Last I'd heard Vermont has had a lot of Somalis, even a machete attack on meals on wheels volunteer,
70+ old woman attacked.
Let the Games Begin!
Lotsa juicy blondes in Pelosiland.
Best part for me in California is that as thousands illegals are dropped off in SF bay area, the leftists get fed up and move out of state .
Then, as illegals get jobs and citizenship and pay taxes, they become Republicans.
Eventually republicans outnumber dems again.California
@FullMoon, you may be onto something!
Dump every single smelly illegal right into 'Sanctuary cities'. San Fran, Los Angeles, San Antonio, etc... every single one that has to wait to be deported. Then watch and if any start to leave the city... stop them and do it all over again.
Full Moon @ 1:46: I like it!
They are having to release them by law anyway, as they await adjudication of their asylum claim. If the government can't detain them and must release, why shouldn't they be shipped to areas that support open borders and sanctuary laws? Trump is brilliantly putting this in the lap of all of the open borders supporters (and there are too many). He is effectively saying "you think this is great policy, so please put your money where your mouth is".
I live in one of these areas. I'm convinced we have to bring this to a boil before people realize what a disaster our immigration policy is and who is responsible for keeping it that way.
Yelp reviews of illegal landing sites:
San Francisco:
5 stars! Great benefits, no waiting in bathroom lines. Best of all ICE free.
Houston:
1 star. These guys want you to work. Break the law and the bastards call ICE.
Of course it was never punitive when the Obama administration dumped thousands of illegal alien children and adults (mostly young, unemployed men) into areas of the country without gaining permission to do so by their citizens. Suck it up, the citizens were told.
IIRC, Idaho [not a sanctuary state] was one of Obama's targets.
This is a smart political play even if Trump doesn't actually follow through. It forces Dems to say NIMBY and shows their hypocrisy and dishonesty when they claim illegal immigration is a net positive.
This is a smart political play even if Trump doesn't actually follow through. It forces Dems to say NIMBY and shows their hypocrisy and dishonesty when they claim illegal immigration is a net positive.
Just in time for the Sunday talk shows.
Then watch and if any start to leave the city... stop them and do it all over again.
If the government can restrict them to a prison cell, it should be able to restrict them to a zip code.
Oh my...Trump has really presented the fake news media/weekend shows with a dilemma (dare I say trap?). Do they parade a scrum of expert "spying" deniers or a gaggle of Dem Pols protesting the housing of illegals awaiting asylum hearings in sanctuary cities?
Or will the media pivot to the Stanley Cup playoffs?
BUWHAHAHAHA!
Is this a great country or what?
mockturtle said...
Many of us suggested this months ago. It would be the perfect solution. So long as they make sure the immigrants are placed in the UMC & wealthy white liberals' neighborhoods.
4/12/19, 8:39 AM
Right next door to Vicki in Pasadena! Since she's a proud lib, I'm positive she'll be delighted to cook them all a big pot of chili and invite them in for dinner.
Charity begins at home, Vicki.
"an illegal immigrant will murder someone"
Will? Illegals already have murdered quite a few Americans.
If you haven't heard of those murders, it's because the media doesn't dwell on them for very long. They are "isolated incidents" and have nothing to do with illegal immigrants as a whole, who are, we are constantly told, sterling characters and better Americans than we are.
The New York legislature has voted down legislation to provide free Collage tuition to members of Gold Star Families.
The legislature did pass the legislation to provide free collage tuition to illegal aliens.
"Trump and his supporters make a big deal out of the small number of illegal aliens that commit murders and rapes." The number should be fucking 0, DIPSHIT.
I took a look at that often quoted Texas study which claims that immigrants, including illegal aliens, have lower crime rates than natives. The conclusion is based on prosecution and conviction rates -- Duh, we know that most violent crime takes place among people who know each other and that people here illegally do not report crimes to the police. They are even less likely to act as witnesses. If a murder or robbery case is not solved then it is not counted in that study. IOW, the study proves nada.
"Ann Althouse said...
"Actually, I think it is a great idea for the virtue signallers to feel impact of their crazy ideas."
That's your idea, and you would feel the impact of it."
Lower taxes* and less congestion are good things.
Thank you Althouse for the encouragement of conservative ideas based on results, not bullshit fantasy feel-good fascism slightly disguised as altruistic spiritualism.
Although some may not feel it in their bones, others can see the progress that is being made towards equality of results when equally guilty or equally innocent cases are viewed equally and not specially unguilty or specially guilty based on race or sex.
I take the credit.
*of course not initially, but over time taxes seemingly wouldn't have to rise as much as they will on the current course the open borders zealots have successfully implemented across the entire U.S.A.
Look I flipped out, here, at the Althouse blog, on potUS over immigration and within days "Cursed Jen" Nielson is fired and this story is out. And mind you I have an affinity for *******
Someone gonna Seth Rich me now?
So be it. That I cannot control.
God bless Donald J. Trump.
"Actually, I think it is a great idea for the virtue signallers to feel impact of their crazy ideas."
That's your idea, and you would feel the impact of it."
Would? Causal then. Well, I suppose impact is a fickle enough term you can get away with it.
But why hasn't he felt the impact of his idea then? Are we talking about some implementation of ideas and not ideas in and of themselves now? When did that happen and why? Can't we now in theory have ideas that virtue signalers ought to feel the impact of their crazy ideas? Why not?
Untouchable are the virtue signalers then? Any impact, even a butterfly in Africa, that impacts anyone could/would be assigned blame based on the rankness of their partisanship and any event, mostly current but not always, that could be used toolwise.
The Utopic idea that one feels the impacts of one's thoughts in a causal manner regarding a singular political position (in time) intertwined amongst many others that might have impacts notable or remarkable seems off.
This is not cognitive dissonance, it is pure hypocrisy. I guess the residents of Pacific Heights feel they have more than enough sparks of divinity among present residents. Trump truly is the master manipulator, how can the Dem leadership hold up their heads when they are exposed as "Illegals for thou but none for me" ignoramuses? Answer, they are shameless. They are thus openly exposed but don't even know it. Is there a Constitutional case to be made that the current citizens of the US must be equally and proportionately exposed to illegal immigrants? If so we need distribution boards to implement.
Kim Foxx is right that Chicago is full of racists.
I am glad she has the voice to say so louder and louder.
Racists should just leave that city, because Kim Foxx won't allow their racism any more.
Lightfoot is named after people swiftly of foot.
So Chicago must demand all immigrants detained as illegal aliens must live there.
Surely that will help move out the white racists and help the Blacks in Chicago, because we all know, for a fact, it is 100% white racism that has held Chicago back from beating New York as the Greatest City in the World.
Duh.
What you been reading Sailer or something???
Most important (2) is we feel Iowahawk's pain when he pays Chicago to elect Barack Obama to the potUS.
He didn't want to or nothing, but Chicago has so much so that is so worth it.
Obama was worth it, because Chicago is so fucking great. The architecture and shit. Worth it.
And hey I don't vote anyway so my Chicago/IL taxes and Austin taxes are like totally worth it man.
And voting is for rubes dude. Totally. Just move to Austin.
IOWAHAWK SMOKED SHIT WEED BY THE POUND
We need a national petition demanding that Central American immigrants seeking 'asylum' be sent to sanctuary cities, states and counties.
Chicago's mayo-elect says she welcomes them with open arms. And what harm could it possibly do to Chicago?
Welp that didn't take long...Trump suggests sending illegals to sanctuary cities and the Ninth Circuit (!!!) rules in his favor. Asylum seekers will wait in Mexico for their hearings.
Mayor-elect, that is. Hold the mayo.
BJM reports: Trump suggests sending illegals to sanctuary cities and the Ninth Circuit (!!!) rules in his favor.
Really? You're not shitting us, are you? The Ninth Circuit Court??? Wow! Let's act now, before they change their mind.
This is Trump at his best. They want to give 'em "asylum" and "sanctuary," make it easy and send 'em right there.
San Fran Nan, Senator Chuck, and Saigon D*ck will have their way.
Don Willet might have had a say, if Iowahawk didn't torpedo his chances.
Sad.
Great, is What Might Have Been.
Opportunity Has Never Costedly had it been,
Less.
I've lived in a Sanctuary City (Somerville, MA, US) for about 20 years now. Three weeks ago was the first attempt at a break-in ever. Oddly enough, the perp was a Citizen (African American / White.) Even more Interesting was my being called a "traitor" because of my hair by the perp.
He's isolating civil and human rights violations, and responsibility, to rogue regimes. That said, emigration reform to mitigate the progress of collateral damage at both ends of the bridge and throughout.
if diversity is strength, illegals commit fewer crimes, take jobs Americans wont, and all the other benefits from illegal immigration, why was the response from Pelosi and other Dems not an enthusiastic, YES , send them to us!!!
Isn't this the meaning of Sanctuary City?
Isn't NYC proud of their statue with the lines from our Constitution? Diversity is their strength.
NEW YORK CITY is perfect for them
DiBlabio gave illegals free health care.
AOC says all Latinos are indigenous people and have the right to be here.
Therefore, drop 100K/month illegal Central American peasants, street scum, and MS 13 members off at AOC's non-functioning office.
"Paging Snake Plissken..."
Bezos has a hard-on for big media
NYC was gonna land Amazon
Till they shit on him...
Post a Comment