• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump Considering Releasing Migrant Detainees in Sanctuary Cities

Deuce said:
Wait, now you're saying they're not illegal? Doesn't that just overturn your previous objection?
Click to expand...

Previous objection to what? Or are you confusing posters?
 
uptower said:
Yes the Hatch act - can't use federal agencies for political purposes. Also getting funding looks like a problem. Then as with everything he'll be up against immigration courts. Forced relocation is so 1930s...

Trump's plan to send migrants to sanctuary cities faces legal hurdles

“It’s incredibly telling that the DHS attorneys themselves flagged the concerns,”

Smarter and better informed people than you or I have raised concerns: I'll go with them.

The point is, as with everything he does it always comes up against the law and in over 90% of cases, his executive orders have been overturned.
Click to expand...

They are being released now in the SW USA, please prove that releasing them into cities that are welcoming them, is a political purpose,

Good luck to that.

The Reason that DHS flagged it, is the LIABILITY OF what if something happens, EN ROUTE
 
sjmay said:
If it's EXACTLY what most of you want, why the FAUX outrage then?
Click to expand...

The outrage is at child Trump's notion of treating human beings as if they were his little toy soldiers he can move around his playpen for political purposes. But don't worry, we'll do the right thing even if Trump can't be bothered.
 
Nickyjo said:
The outrage is child Trump's notion of treating human beings as if they were his little toy soldiers he can move around his playpen. Don't worry, we'll do the right thing even if Trump can't be bothered.
Click to expand...

Ok, so let me get this straight, you are outrage is that Trump believes he can put people, who are waiting for hearings, into cities, that want them......THAT's the outrage?

Of all the things to be outraged about, THAT is what you are outraged,

OMG, how dare he think he can move these people to cities were there is actual food and people who can take care of them, how dare he....

Seriously?
 
uptower said:
Trump made it clear it was. Go listen again.
Click to expand...

No, he didn't make it clear...

This is what he said,

"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,” Trump tweeted Friday. He added that, “The Radical Left always seems to have an Open Borders, Open Arms policy – so this should make them very happy"

So, what POLITICAL PURPOSE, did he espouse there, to make Democrats happy??

Good luck arguing that in court.
 
sjmay said:
Ok, so let me get this straight, you are outrage is that Trump believes he can put people, who are waiting for hearings, into cities, that want them......THAT's the outrage?

Of all the things to be outraged about, THAT is what you are outraged,

OMG, how dare he think he can move these people to cities were there is actual food and people who can take care of them, how dare he....

Seriously?
Click to expand...

Actually, if he pays for their transportation and provides resources, no problem. He might be doing us all a favor, especially if venue for their hearings changes and he provides the asylum officers or immigration judges needed. It's his attitude. He looks on the migrants not as a problem to be dealt with as efficiently and fairly as possible under the law and treaty obligations (you know, like a law-abiding grown up would) but people whose situation he can exploit for political advantage or payback, irrespective of what the law says. Check his record; he's been doing this stuff for years.
 
Nickyjo said:
Actually, if he pays for their transportation and provides resources, no problem. He might be doing us all a favor, especially if venue for their hearings changes and he provides the asylum officers or immigration judges needed. It's his attitude. He looks on the migrants not as a problem to be dealt with as efficiently and fairly as possible under the law and treaty obligations (you know, like a law-abiding grown up would) but people whose situation he can exploit for political advantage or payback, irrespective of what the law says. Check his record; he's been doing this stuff for years.
Click to expand...

Who the hell cares about attitude, if the right results are met?

You talk about being petty, but here he is proposing to do something right (albeit completely unintentionally) and people are pissed because it's an asshole's idea, instead of going, hey, that makes a lot of sense and can work, let's figure out how to get it done....

Amazing that people care more about who came up with the idea, rather than the idea itself,

Wouldn't be a helluva move for the Democrats to go....you know what, you are right, put the money together, and THEY solve the crisis on the border....but they will never do that because WHOSE IDEA it was....

Freaking idiotic.

And still no one can say what law it's breaking...other than, OMG its illegal.
 
Deuce said:
"Immigration still happens" does not refute the fact that Trump and the GOP are fighting tooth and nail to make that harder.
Click to expand...
Not sure anyone is arguing that. Question is: why shouldn't immigration be challenging and thorough?
 
sjmay said:
No, he didn't make it clear...

This is what he said,

"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,” Trump tweeted Friday. He added that, “The Radical Left always seems to have an Open Borders, Open Arms policy – so this should make them very happy"

So, what POLITICAL PURPOSE, did he espouse there, to make Democrats happy??

Good luck arguing that in court.
Click to expand...

This isn't going to court because the plan is already dead in the water.

If it did any reasonable federal judge would see what the rest of us see: the very quote posted makes it clear he's doing it as a 'so there' piece of 'revenge' (in his addled mind) for being 'unwilling to change'. Nobody believes for a second he actually wants to 'make them very happy'. Listen to the tape, the way he says it, he's throwing a childish fit.

In fact the whole reason it isn't going as far as the courts is probably because Trump showed his hand when he announced it, scuttling any credibility for the proposal. A lot of migrants will find their way to sanctuary cities anyway and he'll bitch about that as he did before.
 
uptower said:
This isn't going to court because the plan is already dead in the water.

If it did any reasonable federal judge would see what the rest of us see: the very quote posted makes it clear he's doing it as a 'so there' piece of 'revenge' (in his addled mind) for being 'unwilling to change'. Nobody believes for a second he actually wants to 'make them very happy'. Listen to the tape, the way he says it, he's throwing a childish fit.

In fact the whole reason it isn't going as far as the courts is probably because Trump showed his hand when he announced it, scuttling any credibility for the proposal. A lot of migrants will find their way to sanctuary cities anyway and he'll bitch about that as he did before.
Click to expand...

No, the whole reason DHS shut it down, is because the LIABILITY assumed, if it would happen.....nothing against the law.....he's releasing them now in the SW USA, if that's not against the law, then your problem becomes WHERE he is releasing them...not THAT he is releasing them.
 
mike2810 said:
Help me understand why a local government would want to pronounce themselves a sanctuary city? Some sanctuary cities came into existence before Trump. It seems to me that sanctuary cities are snubbing their noses at the federal government. Would it not be better if all levels of government work together on the solution of illegal immigration?
Click to expand...

The problems with cooperation are mostly due to the fact that the federal government expects localities to detain the undocumented indefinitely until they can get around to gathering them up for deportation. That was often a matter of weeks or more. One: it's not legal to hold someone indefinitely under most circumstances and two: it's expensive, and ICE was not offering compensation. Here are even more reasons:

Sanctuary city - Wikipedia
 
Sure it is a workable plan at 30 to 50 people per quarter to 125 different sanctuary cities/counties in 30 States (numbers ballpark). Yeah it's a stupid political taunt and stunt by Pres but I find the notion perfect to defer some of the current ever-mounting border log-jamb. The important thing is you readers ought know that the definition of what a sanctuary city/county is in reality can be various and is likely not what you might think. At a bare minimum, illegals are never ever threatened with deportation if they are needed as witnesses in a criminal prosecution. Sure, put those cities out a bit, yawohl.
 
Chomsky said:
My grandparents did the same, fleeing Hitler's Europe. But they even did one better; they insisted their sons march-off to Korea, to give-back to America what they received curing the previous war! Yep, they insisted on sending their sons off to war, and their newly Americanized sons gladly exercised their patriotic duty to their new country.

There are very few of the greatest generation left, but we need them and their strength & values so badly.
Click to expand...
My grandparents were a generation earlier. My maternal grandfather was a Scottish coal minor and member of the Black Watch regiment in WW I. Mom's mother and two brothers migrated to Canada after he passed away. My Dad's parent came to Canada before WW I.
 
sjmay said:
No, the whole reason DHS shut it down, is because the LIABILITY assumed, if it would happen.....nothing against the law.....he's releasing them now in the SW USA, if that's not against the law, then your problem becomes WHERE he is releasing them...not THAT he is releasing them.
Click to expand...

Releasing people is fine; saying they are to be foisted upon this municipality or that based on whether those districts support his policies is playing politics. As it stands I think sanctuary cities are the best place for many migrants for many reasons. Unfortunately Trump thinks migrants are horrible (he says it all the time); that no place is good for them (America's 'full' like Nazi Germany was); and therefore cities that oppose him should be punished by having to deal with the problem, as he sees it. That was clear from the very passage you quoted him in.
 
uptower said:
Releasing people is fine; saying they are to be foisted upon this municipality or that based on whether those districts support his policies is playing politics. As it stands I think sanctuary cities are the best place for many migrants for many reasons. Unfortunately Trump thinks migrants are horrible (he says it all the time); that no place is good for them (America's 'full' like Nazi Germany was); and therefore cities that oppose him should be punished by having to deal with the problem, as he sees it. That was clear from the very passage you quoted him in.
Click to expand...

Please show me where he said that......
 
kitsune said:
What I think about border security is irrelevant here. The question is what Trump thinks about it. He has claimed from the beginning that it is lax, and he has promised to tighten it up. This was a constant theme in his campaign rhetoric and he has harped on it all through his presidency. I'm simply trying to understand his reasons for thinking that releasing illegal aliens into major cities from coast to coast will deter people from entering the country illegally. It seems like it would have the opposite effect.
Click to expand...

If you can't separate "family units" and you can't hold minors more than 20 days then what would you suggest as an alternative?
 
Bullseye said:
My grandparents were a generation earlier. My maternal grandfather was a Scottish coal minor and member of the Black Watch regiment in WW I. Mom's mother and two brothers migrated to Canada after he passed away. My Dad's parent came to Canada before WW I.
Click to expand...
I hope you got to spend time with your grandparents.

I was fortunate that we all settled into one ethnic neighborhood, literally in the same parish, and we all lived in near-to-each-other family owned two-flats; all walkable, only a block or two away from each other. This meant that I was taken care of during the day and after school by my grandparents, and spent close time with them all of the years they were alive, even as I entered young adulthood.

If you lived in my parents' house, you were expected to "spend some time with your grandparents" at least every week. Didn't matter your age. And their sidewalks better NEVER be left unshoveled! There's something special about those grandparent-grandchild relationships.

I very badly miss the toughness & strength of that WW-II generation. But most of all, I miss their conviction to always do the right thing. They just seemed to always immediately chose to do the right thing, no matter how hard or how dangerous, without a second's thought or the bat of an eye. They did it instinctively and from rote behaviour, it seems. They also were patriotic as hell, and really loved America. Why wouldn't they? America saved them and their lives and the lives of their loved ones back in Europe, when Hitler was grabbing them up.
 
Chomsky said:
I hope you got to spend time with your grandparents.
Click to expand...
Sadly, no. I only knew my paternal grandmother.

Chomsky said:
I was fortunate that we all settled into one ethnic neighborhood, literally in the same parish, and we all lived in near-to-each-other family owned two-flats; all walkable, only a block or two away from each other. This meant that I was taken care of during the day and after school by my grandparents, and spent close time with them all of the years they were alive, even as I entered young adulthood.

If you lived in my parents' house, you were expected to "spend some time with your grandparents" at least every week. Didn't matter your age. And their sidewalks better NEVER be left unshoveled! There's something special about those grandparent-grandchild relationships.

I very badly miss the toughness & strength of that WW-II generation. But most of all, I miss their conviction to always do the right thing. They just seemed to always immediately chose to do the right thing, no matter how hard or how dangerous, without a second's thought or the bat of an eye. They did it instinctively and from rote behaviour, it seems. They also were patriotic as hell, and really loved America. Why wouldn't they? America saved them and their lives and the lives of their loved ones back in Europe, when Hitler was grabbing them up.
Click to expand...
Sounds great.
 
Last edited:
Bullseye said:
Sadly, no. I only knew my paternal grandmother.
Click to expand...
Ah, well good for that then!

Sounds great.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I can't imagine a more supportive environment to raise a child. When as a kid you feel like you've got the whole neighborhood behind you, you soon exude confidence because you feel protected.

But most important is seeing the different ages - knowing and loving people of different ages. It's great perspective, and I think it's maturing for a kid.

And I'm proud to say we bring our elderly home to die. Yeah, it's a morbid subject. But no one in our family dies in a hospital or institution; you die at home in our arms. I almost lost my job, a very good job, helping take care of my father in his last weeks that became very drawn out. But I didn't give a damn; I had more important business. Work saw I was damn serious about it, so they had to back-off or know they would lose me. I saw my Dad do it for my grandparents, and my time had come for me to stand-up. I still feel good about it, until today.

I probably bored you with all this ...
 
sjmay said:
Please show me where he said that......
Click to expand...

You've already posted how he said it. That was his obvious intent. Claiming he has to use exactly those words is a semantic game: we all know what he meant:

"We'll give them more people. We can give them a lot. We can give them an unlimited supply, and let's see if they're so happy."

"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...."

There's no other sensible way to parse that. It is abundantly clear he thinks it's a kind of punishment...

"If not, Sanctuary Cities must immediately act to take care of the Illegal Immigrants,"

...and a threat.
 
Idiometer said:
The problems with cooperation are mostly due to the fact that the federal government expects localities to detain the undocumented indefinitely until they can get around to gathering them up for deportation. That was often a matter of weeks or more. One: it's not legal to hold someone indefinitely under most circumstances and two: it's expensive, and ICE was not offering compensation. Here are even more reasons:

Sanctuary city - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

I understand immigration is a federal responsibility. Many laws enforcement actions are. As a tax payer I expect all levels of governments including law enforcement to work together. Sanctuary cities makes no sense to me. Why make the feds job harder. Why should a city ignore federal laws (immigration laws)?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
If you can't separate "family units" and you can't hold minors more than 20 days then what would you suggest as an alternative?
Click to expand...

Again, I'm just curious about how the Trump plan is supposed to improve border security.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom