• 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!

White House proposed releasing immigrant detainees in sanctuary cities, targeting political foes

B

bubbabgone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
37,044
Reaction score
17,950
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
White House officials have tried to pressure U.S. immigration authorities to release detainees onto the streets of “sanctuary cities” to retaliate against President Trump’s political adversaries, according to Department of Homeland Security officials and email messages reviewed by The Washington Post.

Trump administration officials have proposed transporting detained immigrants to sanctuary cities at least twice in the past six months — once in November, as a migrant caravan approached the U.S. southern border, and again in February, amid a standoff with Democrats over funding for Trump’s border wall.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s district in San Francisco was among those the White House wanted to target, according to DHS officials. The administration also considered releasing detainees in other Democratic strongholds.​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immi..._term=.75a1569af257&wpisrc=nl_politics&wpmm=1

Just the other day I wondered out loud why Trump doesn't do something like that.
I still don't know why not.

I got a kick out of this from the piece ...

Pelosi’s office blasted the plan.
“The extent of this administration’s cynicism and cruelty cannot be overstated,” said Pelosi spokeswoman Ashley Etienne. “Using human beings — including little children — as pawns in their warped game to perpetuate fear and demonize immigrants is despicable.”
​

San Fran is already a sanctuary city and is already a mess so why would would there be fear and demonization to send illegals there?
Is it a NIMBY thing?

Maybe it will be part of the new "tougher" approach.
The article says something about questionable legality and expense and liability issues but doesn't go into detail.
Aren't they already released in different parts of the country?
 
I always see reactions like this as very telling. They want the immigrants in someone else's neighborhoods (specifically, in the traditionally working poor areas where they can usually afford to live). That way they stress other people's infrastructure, go to other people's schools, drive up other people's property taxes through subsidies and expensive ESL programs. They'll hire them as maids and landscapers, or use them as dirt cheap labor in their meat plants and restaurant chains, but that's only with the assurance that their children don't end up going to the same Blue Ribbon Schools as their own. Affluent people living in suburban or rural areas fight new development tooth and nail for this reason; they can barely tolerate the 'undesirables' who have lived in the area for generations; if whole waves of working class people moved into the school district (let alone *gasp* BROWN working class people) these wealthy assholes would have to uproot and buy a McMansion in a different school district. They exist on both side of the aisle; Chamber of Commerce Rebublicans and neoliberal Dems, all of them hypocrites who get frantic when it comes time to put their money where their mouth is.
 
Trump does not have to do this directly. He can tell his people in the field, to confidentially; wink, tell the illegal immigrants, that the laws are about to change. This will make it very hard for them. Their best advice (look around and make sure nobody sees) is for them to find a sanctuary city, ASAP. They can offer them maps to the best places to go. They cannot help them, directly. The Illegals will then migrate on their own, overwhelming these cities.

Trump can then threaten to veto any Democrat attempt, to get the federal government, to pay the extra tab. He can point out, how the Democrats and the sanctuary cities are full of compassionate and rich people. They can increase local taxes, which Democrat always favor. This will cause these cities to revoke sanctuary city status, leading to a power shift in local governments.
 
WOW, so the only way republicans are willing to accept immigrants into American society is if they can get them to wreak havoc in American cities.

Republicans truly are the scum of the earth.
 
Last edited:
bubbabgone said:
Just the other day I wondered out loud why Trump doesn't do something like that.
I still don't know why not.
Click to expand...
Well, it's an incredibly moronic policy, so yes, I don't know why it didn't happen either.

Oh, wait, it didn't happen because it was almost certainly illegal. Even DHS, run by the sycophantic Nielsen, couldn't come up with a legal justification for the policy.

Oh, wait, Trump and Miller don't care about the law. We're back to not knowing why it didn't happen.

By the way, anyone who thinks that sanctuary cities and sanctuary states don't have high numbers of immigrants is, to put it politely, not paying attention. Spend half a day wandering through the Mission District in San Francisco, or wander around Flushing, and make that kind of claim.


San Fran is already a sanctuary city and is already a mess so why would would there be fear and demonization to send illegals there?
Is it a NIMBY thing?
Click to expand...
No, she was objecting to using children as a political weapon, and vilifying families for daring to cross a border to escape violence and crime.
 
$1000 said:
I always see reactions like this as very telling. They want the immigrants in someone else's neighborhoods (specifically, in the traditionally working poor areas where they can usually afford to live).
Click to expand...
Yes, it's not like there are any undocumented immigrants or asylum seekers in California or San Francisco. :roll:
 
Visbek said:
Yes, it's not like there are any undocumented immigrants or asylum seekers in California or San Francisco. :roll:
Click to expand...

There are, but they don't live in the same neighborhoods as affluent people because they are priced out of them. If they start to encroach, the affluent people leave in pursuit of 'good schools'.
 
bubbabgone said:
White House officials have tried to pressure U.S. immigration authorities to release detainees onto the streets of “sanctuary cities” to retaliate against President Trump’s political adversaries, according to Department of Homeland Security officials and email messages reviewed by The Washington Post.

Trump administration officials have proposed transporting detained immigrants to sanctuary cities at least twice in the past six months — once in November, as a migrant caravan approached the U.S. southern border, and again in February, amid a standoff with Democrats over funding for Trump’s border wall.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s district in San Francisco was among those the White House wanted to target, according to DHS officials. The administration also considered releasing detainees in other Democratic strongholds.​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immi..._term=.75a1569af257&wpisrc=nl_politics&wpmm=1

Just the other day I wondered out loud why Trump doesn't do something like that.
I still don't know why not.

I got a kick out of this from the piece ...

Pelosi’s office blasted the plan.
“The extent of this administration’s cynicism and cruelty cannot be overstated,” said Pelosi spokeswoman Ashley Etienne. “Using human beings — including little children — as pawns in their warped game to perpetuate fear and demonize immigrants is despicable.”
​

San Fran is already a sanctuary city and is already a mess so why would would there be fear and demonization to send illegals there?
Is it a NIMBY thing?

Maybe it will be part of the new "tougher" approach.
The article says something about questionable legality and expense and liability issues but doesn't go into detail.
Aren't they already released in different parts of the country?
Click to expand...

I think it's a great idea. But alas, it was shot down over legal issues and bad PR with the illegals that vote.

I think after 2020, assuming Trump wins, we are going to be raiding the snot out of companies that hire illegals until the democrats cooperate on an immigration plan.
 
$1000 said:
There are, but they don't live in the same neighborhoods as affluent people because they are priced out of them. If they start to encroach, the affluent people leave in pursuit of 'good schools'.
Click to expand...
Try again.

• In many cities, poor areas and/or subsidized housing are right next to affluent neighborhoods.

• I'm pretty sure the tentative plan wasn't to dump asylum seekers in Pacific Heights. That wouldn't work anyway.

• It is not 1965, and "white flight" is over. Poor people are not chasing away wealthy people. Wealthy people are buying into poor neighborhoods, gentrifying them, and sometimes making the neighborhoods unaffordable for the previous residents.
 
Visbek said:
Well, it's an incredibly moronic policy, so yes, I don't know why it didn't happen either.

Oh, wait, it didn't happen because it was almost certainly illegal. Even DHS, run by the sycophantic Nielsen, couldn't come up with a legal justification for the policy.

Oh, wait, Trump and Miller don't care about the law. We're back to not knowing why it didn't happen.

By the way, anyone who thinks that sanctuary cities and sanctuary states don't have high numbers of immigrants is, to put it politely, not paying attention. Spend half a day wandering through the Mission District in San Francisco, or wander around Flushing, and make that kind of claim.



No, she was objecting to using children as a political weapon, and vilifying families for daring to cross a border to escape violence and crime.
Click to expand...

What is illegal about releasing them into sanctuary cities since they already get released across the country? Might as well send them to where they'd be welcome.

So Pelosi's spokesperson was using children as an excuse.
 
Seems like a great idea to me. Sanctuary cities want to welcome illegals with open arms, so let them have all the consequences too. When their economy tanks and they have to cut entitlement programs, they'll lose most of their ill-gotten votes.
 
bubbabgone said:
What is illegal about releasing them into sanctuary cities since they already get released across the country?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I don't have access to the DHS's legal department; they are the ones who made the determination, after all. That said, my guess is that Congress hasn't authorized funding for it; and DHS almost certainly needs a more cogent reason than "own duh libz lols".

It is also, as is so often the case with this administration, an inept policy that does not even achieve his own goals. California is not going to stop being a sanctuary state because of a few thousand asylum applicants showing up, and people who are fleeing gang violence in Honduras will not be deterred by a free bus trip to San Francisco. Oh, and guess what? Asylum applicants don't need to stay put, all they have to do is show up for their court dates.

Ultimately, this is just another crass, divisive and partisan example of Trump treating migrants as objects, not human beings. Shame on him, and anyone who thinks this is a good idea.
 
Visbek said:
Yeah, I don't have access to the DHS's legal department; they are the ones who made the determination, after all. That said, my guess is that Congress hasn't authorized funding for it; and DHS almost certainly needs a more cogent reason than "own duh libz lols".

It is also, as is so often the case with this administration, an inept policy that does not even achieve his own goals. California is not going to stop being a sanctuary state because of a few thousand asylum applicants showing up, and people who are fleeing gang violence in Honduras will not be deterred by a free bus trip to San Francisco. Oh, and guess what? Asylum applicants don't need to stay put, all they have to do is show up for their court dates.

Ultimately, this is just another crass, divisive and partisan example of Trump treating migrants as objects, not human beings. Shame on him, and anyone who thinks this is a good idea.
Click to expand...

I'd like to hear what makes it questionably illegal. Wouldn't you?
They're being released into the Country, why not release them to where they'd supposedly be welcome the most.
And there's a bonus to be had by sending them to the districts and States of Representatives and Senators who decline to take any action to prevent the problem.
 
bubbabgone said:
I'd like to hear what makes it questionably illegal. Wouldn't you?
Click to expand...
Sure, I'm curious. In fact, I would love to see their legal reasoning, and I hope the Trump administration releases it. I'm not holding my breath though. Plus....

1) Just the fact that ICE/DHS could not drum up a legal reason is pretty damning.

1a) The fact that the organization run by someone as heartless and sycophantic as Kirstjen Nielsen -- who thought it was a good idea to separate kids from their parents and put them in cages -- regarded this as going too far ought to be a HUGE red flag that there are serious legal issues with this plan.

2) Again, funding is required for this.

3) Another potential issue is that once an asylum applicant passes the initial interview, they are LEGALLY residing in the US until a ruling is made on their application. I'm highly confident that the federal government cannot just grab a legal resident, shove them on a bus against their will, and force them to travel hundreds of miles away, especially when that serves no legitimate purpose whatsoever.

If Congress approved funding for it, DHS/ICE could offer transportation wherever they want. But they can't compel it.

To put it another way: If the government can force a legal resident across the US, they can do it to citizens... including you. Do you really want to grant the government the power to permanently force citizens to reside in Lesage, WV or Enoch, UT purely for partisan political gain?


And there's a bonus to be had by sending them to the districts and States of Representatives and Senators who decline to take any action to prevent the problem.
Click to expand...
Using human beings like they are betting chips is not a "bonus" to anyone. Again, anyone who thinks in such crass and inhumane terms ought to be ashamed.
 
Visbek said:
Try again.

• In many cities, poor areas and/or subsidized housing are right next to affluent neighborhoods.
Click to expand...

In different school districts, or areas with a median age which skews young (and childless)
Visbek said:
• I'm pretty sure the tentative plan wasn't to dump asylum seekers in Pacific Heights. That wouldn't work anyway.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't have to. SF has a huge housing problem; dumping this many people on them would make it almost impossible for current socio-economic boundaries to hold. The homeless problem is already crippling a lot of the city.

Visbek said:
• It is not 1965, and "white flight" is over. Poor people are not chasing away wealthy people. Wealthy people are buying into poor neighborhoods, gentrifying them, and sometimes making the neighborhoods unaffordable for the previous residents.
Click to expand...

'White flight' is far from over; they're just fleeing to the exurbs now. And it's not just white people either, it's an increasingly diverse affluent class. Gentrified neighborhoods are more playgrounds for the young and wealthy, they're not where people go to raise families. It's young white-collar workers who move into these neighborhoods, as they don't have the concern for schools that often motivate those who 'flee'.
 
Visbek said:
Sure, I'm curious. In fact, I would love to see their legal reasoning, and I hope the Trump administration releases it. I'm not holding my breath though. Plus....

1) Just the fact that ICE/DHS could not drum up a legal reason is pretty damning.

1a) The fact that the organization run by someone as heartless and sycophantic as Kirstjen Nielsen -- who thought it was a good idea to separate kids from their parents and put them in cages -- regarded this as going too far ought to be a HUGE red flag that there are serious legal issues with this plan.

2) Again, funding is required for this.

3) Another potential issue is that once an asylum applicant passes the initial interview, they are LEGALLY residing in the US until a ruling is made on their application. I'm highly confident that the federal government cannot just grab a legal resident, shove them on a bus against their will, and force them to travel hundreds of miles away, especially when that serves no legitimate purpose whatsoever.

If Congress approved funding for it, DHS/ICE could offer transportation wherever they want. But they can't compel it.

To put it another way: If the government can force a legal resident across the US, they can do it to citizens... including you. Do you really want to grant the government the power to permanently force citizens to reside in Lesage, WV or Enoch, UT purely for partisan political gain?



Using human beings like they are betting chips is not a "bonus" to anyone. Again, anyone who thinks in such crass and inhumane terms ought to be ashamed.
Click to expand...
They aren't citizens and they already get released. They would just be released to welcoming arms in sanctuary cities.

You're repeating the same reasons without explanation that we both read in the media.
That's why I wanted the explanations that they didn't provide.
 
bubbabgone said:
They aren't citizens and they already get released. They would just be released to welcoming arms in sanctuary cities.
Click to expand...
I didn't say they were citizens. I said they were legal residents. They have rights, they are not under house arrest, the government can't force them to reside somewhere. Whether you realize it or not, you're advocating giving the government enormous power.

And guess what? A lot of those cities are welcoming those migrants, because they don't see their fellow human beings as an existential threat. The mayor of San Jose has already said "We welcome any families willing to endure such extraordinary hardships and to take such tremendous risks to be a part of our great country." London Breed: "In SF we are proud to be a sanctuary city and we’ll continue to stand up for all of our residents." Jim Kennedy: "[Philly] would be prepared to welcome these immigrants just as we have embraced our immigrant communities for decades.” Di Blasio: @realDonaldTrump's racist rhetoric couldn't be more wrong. In New York City, we've got the highest percentage of immigrants than at any time in the last century and we're safer and more prosperous than ever." That's just on the first day.

Oh, and nothing about that welcome changes the fact that it is an utter moral failure to treat human beings like a weapon.


You're repeating the same reasons without explanation that we both read in the media.
That's why I wanted the explanations that they didn't provide.
Click to expand...
Actually, I'm not. I haven't seen a single article pointing out that the government can't force legal residents to travel somewhere.

And if you want to know DHS/ICE's reasoning, go ask your buddy Trump to release the documents.
 
It's a good idea to send them to Sanctuary Cities, because these migrants will be better cared for in Sanctuary Cities.

Also, there will be more employment opportunities for the migrants because labor laws which prohibit hiring illegals are mostly ignored in Sanctuary cities.

Further, when ICE conducts raids, warnings go out before the actual raid so the illegals can "lay low" and evade capture by ICE agents.

This was done a year ago in San Francisco and it proved to be quite effective in thwarting ICE operations.

Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf got word of an impending Immigration and Customs Enforcement raid in the Bay Area, so she tweeted a warning to help potential targets of the operation evade capture:

"I know that Oakland is a city of law-abiding immigrants and families who deserve to live free from the constant threat of arrest and deportation. I believe it is my duty and moral obligation as mayor to give those families fair warning when that threat appears imminent."


Attorney General Jeff Session was furious:

"So here’s my message to Mayor Schaaf: How dare you? How dare you needlessly endanger the lives of law enforcement just to promote a radical open borders agenda?"

ICE says Oakland mayor's warning to illegal immigrants protected convicted criminals
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom