• 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 pressured Nielsen to release detained immigrants into so-called sanctuary cities

sjmay said:
This would absolutely make sense, but the problem is partisanship, no one is interested in fixing the problem because both sides think they are right...

But the choice we have in front of us right now, is, keep them locked up and seperated, or catch and release.... Trump tried locked up and separated and people lost their ****, so he shifted to catch and release, and people lost their ****...

The issue isn't catch and release, it's that Trump wants to do it now....

Where does everyone think that catch and release migrants that came through during Obama's administration went to, they went to cities that are now calling themselves sanctuary cities!
Click to expand...

"The greatest leader is not necessarily the one who does the greatest things. He is the one that gets the people to do the greatest things." --Ronald Reagan
 
sjmay said:
You realize their are immigration judges all around right? You didn't did you
Click to expand...

Someone is going to pay the price if Trump makes any attempt to use these people as political weapons. That's all I have to say about this.
 
Chomsky said:
Unfortunately many of them were simply released into the public, though the mix more accurately reflected legit asylum seekers.

Unless the laws get changed, our only hope may be to greatly increase the judges and get those cases more quickly adjudicated. All we're doing now is building larger detention areas, or releasing a 20/80 refugee-to-illegal mix into the public; that's not a great ratio.

If we could get case adjudication down to several months, I think that might be workable. But we can't keep refugee seekers detained for years, nor is it practical for America to have to accept an 20/80 mix being released to the public.
Click to expand...

Right, they were released into the public, where they gravitated towards.....wait for it, it's gonna get good...

Sanctuary cities, either because they had family there, or heard of it, etc, now of course that doesn't mean all of them...but sanctuary cities came about because they have LARGE population of illegals,
 
bubbabgone said:
Who cares about the reason, it's a good thing isn't it?
Don't look at it as retaliation.
Look at it as giving you what you want.

What's illegal about it?
Click to expand...

Political retaliation is what dictators and do, not United States presidents. They're supposed to be leaders and set good examples not set an example of what a vindictive out of control, power mongering despot does.

You want to know the legal issues? I'll spell them out for you right now, so take notes.

One week ago today, he told border agents to block asylum seekers from entering the U.S. which is contrary to U.S. law. He then went even further by telling the then CBP head, Kevin McAleenan, that he would pardon him if he went to jail for denying entry to migrants. Apparently, Trump has a lack of any commitment to staying within the bounds of immigration law isn't anything new. Administration lawyers told Trump months ago that there would be serious legal consequences for doing such a thing. The rationale must be justified such as migrants requiring medical care, or overcrowding at a facility, but that rationale does not include political retribution or trying to make a political point.

Transporting any undocumented immigrant to a place where she or he has no ties could increase the chances that individual would become a flight risk and skip deportation proceedings. (and end up in your town) Another warning from the general counsel was that if he did this, there would be lots of lawsuits because this would violate the due process rights of the migrants, or at least that would be the charge.
 
Last edited:
HumblePi said:
Political retaliation is what dictators and do, not United States presidents. They're supposed to be leaders and set good examples not set an example of what a vindictive out of control, power mongering despot does.
Click to expand...

So you'd be ok with it, if the cities, said, you know what,send them here?

So the only reason you are behind it, is a PERCEIVED notion of retaliation....
 
HumblePi said:
Someone is going to pay the price if Trump makes any attempt to use these people as political weapons. That's all I have to say about this.
Click to expand...
Wait jawing illegal aliens as political weapons is exactly what the Dems are doing now. Remember when Obama
, Clinton Bill and Hillary And Schumer And Pelosi ALL wanted to control illegal immigration now Trump is against it and they are for it. They are using illegals politically against Trump now.
 
Fletch said:
So you have no problem with it then
Click to expand...

Nope - Trump's properties can probably handle several hundred immigrants no problem. I'm fine with that. Dairy farms too - they can use the extra hands. Ask Nunes where his is located to make sure he gets the right allotment.
 
JasperL said:
Nope - Trump's properties can probably handle several hundred immigrants no problem. I'm fine with that. Dairy farms too - they can use the extra hands. Ask Nunes where his is located to make sure he gets the right allotment.
Click to expand...

Question, are the other 90K ok to go to cities?
 
Hypothetical said:
I'm sorry no, I can't understand the syntax of that sentence fully... it's somewhat messed up... but it appears to me you are saying there may be a downside to illegal immigration.
Click to expand...

Then that is your handicap. In life, there is a downside to most things, immigration among them. That is what I meant when I referred to short term costs versus long term societal gain.

But then you know that are are excusing a criminal in the name of your personal politics. And that is lower than shameful.
 
Fletch said:
NO, you are dodging my question because you cant answer it honestly.
Click to expand...

My question answers your question. Do you not understand the Socratic Method and how it is used?
 
Fletch said:
I think people have been trying to get answers to those questions throughout this entire thread. The truth is, liberals hate the idea because Trump came up with it and it exposes them as hypocrites.
Click to expand...

That's a good one. The lying hypocrite on illegal immigration (Trump) came up with it, and is exposing the left as hypocrites on immigration, which is why the left hates the idea!

:lamo
 
sjmay said:
Read your own link,

"It was not clear if the comment was a joke; the official was not given any further context on the exchange."
Click to expand...

In the last hour the NY Times confirmed the offer and is treating it seriously. At least the main reporter who was on WASHINGTON TODAY on MSNBC at 4 PM today indicated it was being taken seriously and all the panelists treated it seriously.
 
haymarket said:
In the last hour the NY Times confirmed the offer and is treating it seriously. At least the main reporter who was on WASHINGTON TODAY on MSNBC at 4 PM today indicated it was being taken seriously and all the panelists treated it seriously.
Click to expand...

Of course they do, if they took it as a joke, there wouldn't be anything to talk about.....

Are you this naive in real life?
 
sjmay said:
Of course they do, if they took it as a joke, there wouldn't be anything to talk about.....

Are you this naive in real life?
Click to expand...

Trump gets a bad case of diarrhea of the mouth and then wants us all to pretend its fine Swiss chocolate dribbling off his lips instead of the more foul substance it is.

Among the Trump "jokes" were

Trump was "just joking" about killing people in broad daylight and it not hurting his popularity

Trump was "just joking " when he invited the Russians into the election to help him and then they did just that

Trump was "just joking" about grabbing women by the vagina and how he could not help himself from doing it

Trump was "just joking" about peeping in on minors half undressed at beauty pageants because he had the power to do it since it was his pageant

Trump was "just joking" about punching protesters at his rallies and having them carried out on stretchers like the old days

Trump was "just joking" about congressmen being guilty of treason for not clapping loud enough reminiscent of the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany

Trump was “just joking” when he said that police should rough up arrested suspects instead of respecting their constitutional rights

Trump was “just joking: when he said he challenged Sec of State Rex Tillerson to an IQ test to show he was smarter

Trump was “just joking” he accused Obama of being a founder of ISIS

Trump was “just joking” when he suggested a Second Amendment solution to dealing with Hillary Clinton

Trump was "just joking" with his stupid bowling ball in Japan nonsense.

The guy seems to be one living breathing joke - and a bad one at that. Sadly, that is a joke on the American people.
 
Last edited:
trouble13 said:
Im not really following the complaint by the left here either.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The left? The Department of Homeland Security legal tem squashed the suggestion. Are you calling DHS 'the left'?
 
haymarket said:
Which sanctuary city has asked for to be a political dumping ground for people seeking asylum in large numbers?
Click to expand...

All of them. Haven't you been paying attention? What do you think sanctuary means?
 
smallvoice said:
All of them. Haven't you been paying attention? What do you think sanctuary means?
Click to expand...

Provide the evidence of just one of them previously asking for large numbers of poor immigrants to be sent to them.
 
haymarket said:
In the last hour the NY Times confirmed the offer and is treating it seriously. At least the main reporter who was on WASHINGTON TODAY on MSNBC at 4 PM today indicated it was being taken seriously and all the panelists treated it seriously.
Click to expand...
:lol: the NY Times and MSNBC have zero credibility. Pick a so with no bias.
 
SLC said:
:lol: the NY Times and MSNBC have zero credibility. Pick a so with no bias.
Click to expand...

Only with Trumpkins and right wingers. The rest of the world gives them Pulitzer Prizes and awards for journalistic excellence.
 
SLC said:
:lol: the NY Times and MSNBC have zero credibility. Pick a so with no bias.
Click to expand...

How do you compare the credibility of different media?

And another question:

Can you actually read the NYT (since it requires subscription) or is it that you just repeat what you have heard from others?
 
haymarket said:
Provide the evidence of just one of them previously asking for large numbers of poor immigrants to be sent to them.
Click to expand...

They say it loud and clear every time they refuse to cooperate with ICE when they release a miscreant. What else could it possibly mean?
 
smallvoice said:
All of them. Haven't you been paying attention? What do you think sanctuary means?
Click to expand...

Similarly, with the War on Drugs, what do you think "war" means if not killing the enemies? Also, war on poverty means we're going to bomb the **** out of poverty and kill it mercilessly!

Slightly less sarcastically, a "sanctuary city" is one where local police and others don't cooperate with ICE on some matters, such as holding someone in jail solely for an immigration violation, but that varies by jurisdiction. It's a nickname, that's all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom