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

[Ikari]

Asked and answered.

Why do you support the release of murderers and terrorists?

It's just a hyperpartisan political game for them. If they can get back at the Democrats, then any action is OK.

 

[Ikari]

lol its so easy to have an unsubstantiated opinion.

As you have shown, yes.

Trump is specifically trying to target his Democrat opponents with this move, which is a policy that has been resisted by ICE due to costs, liabilities, and dubious legal standing. But since it's Trump against the Democrats, it must be OK.

 

[sjmay]

It's just a hyperpartisan political game for them. If they can get back at the Democrats, then any action is OK.

Sure,

Tell me why you want to keep them locked up and separated again?

 

[akyron]

lol its so easy to have an unsubstantiated opinion.

Why would any of this activity be "getting back" and anyone anyway?

Lets go to the tape....

"But there’s a reason sanctuary city laws are so popular, with more than 200 state and local jurisdictions refusing to honor ICE detention requests. Evidence suggests that these laws don’t just make cities safer for illegal immigrants; they make them safer for everyone.

Take San Francisco. If the GOP candidates are to be believed, then we should have seen a rise in San Francisco’s murder rate in the 26 years since it enacted its sanctuary law, and a further spike since 2013, when the city amended the law to cover even repeat felons such as Lopez-Sanchez. Instead, the city’s murder rate has fallen to its lowest level in decades:"

We have been told over and over....illegal aliens are MUCH better to have around than smelly American citizens....

According to the sanctuary city mantra more illegal is WAY better....and WAY safer.

This is ringing the dinner bell and being shocked when guests show up.

 

[akyron]

Yes, it actually did happen. It was rejected, but it was taken up as a suggestion.

Please try and reality better.

Nothing was "Taken up" except by political operative Jim Acosta.

 

[JasperL]

Sure,

Choice remains the same,

You can A. keep them locked up until their hearing, separating familes,

You can B. send them to sanctuary cities until their hearings...

You seem to be ok with choosing A.

Those aren't the only choices. I gave you one - send them to sanctuary employers like TRUMP until their hearings. Send them to red state cities that welcome illegals who work for their donor class businesses, but then turn around and pretend that they're opposed to illegal aliens except for those making their resident donors lots of money, and they get to stay unmolested because that's how it works.

This whole debate is just dishonest. The GOP House considered and killed proposals to put significant burdens on employers to verify citizenship. Why did they do that? Once you grasp that, you'll see why the problem isn't "sanctuary cities" but thousands of employers who allow illegals to live and prosper here, people like TRUMP.

What you're not getting is the problem with sanctuary cities is they're not being lying, sack of **** hypocrites on the issue. They recognize that 'illegals' are part of the community and shouldn't be targeted for deportation minus serious crimes. Red states and red cities, and of course the GOP employers there who hire low wage labor, make the same recognition, but they're too cowardly to say it out loud and pretend otherwise - they lie in other words.

 

[WillyPete]

Alabama didn't agree with him, who do you think would have ended up paying for the upkeep and care of those kids?

Who do you think pays for upkeep and care of kids held in federal custody?

It's shockingly uncomplicated.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Nothing was "Taken up" except by political operative Jim Acosta.

Wrong, but I understand your need to be so laughably dishonest about it and project your fantasy onto this.

Have a great weekend!

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Who do you think pays for upkeep and care of kids held in federal custody?

It's shockingly uncomplicated.

One cannot bring reason to True Believers.

 

[JasperL]

if you want to pass a bill hurting employers of illegal aliens I'll get behind it but until someone gets their asses in gear and does something about the situation I will support sending them to places that are outspoken about wanting them.

Great, send them to Trump properties and employers of illegals on, say, dairy farms like the Nunes family. I agree! I'll bet you the towns in Iowa with all kinds of illegals working the dairy farms want them, because the illegals are what keep the farms afloat. So let's send them there!

Oh, right, Trump and Nunes and lots of right wingers want illegals to do work for THEM cheaply and reliably, but are lying hypocrites on the issue and pretend otherwise, or only want some OTHER people punished, not the ones making them or their residents and constituents lots of money!!! I see the distinction. By all means, let's punish those who are honest about the role of illegals in our society.

 

[haymarket]

Toobin is a tool, if that's what you are putting your stock in, you would get better mileage out of Jodie Foster for christ sake....


So it's an issue separating families because he won't catch and release.....so he says ok, I will do catch and release, and THAT's an issue?

Curious, would it make you feel better if he caught and released them in the middle of the desert? Sounds like it might....

Your issue isn't that he's catching them and releasing them, (you thought it was good for Obama) your issue is WHERE he is releasing him,

That's just brutal.

The issue is Trump being Machiavellian politically and paying back his political enemies with his immigration policy. That is the total opposite of good policy.

 

[haymarket]

Why exactly should communities accept your admitted burden they bring if they dont want them there?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

I think I understand what you are asking ---- I would answer that people have a right to live where they want to live. But that is assuming people make their own decisions. Trump was making this decision for them as political revenge. And that is simply bad policy.

 

[Chomsky]

Sure,

Tell me why you want to keep them locked up and separated again?

You know, the easier solution is to do what Obama did in '14 when faced with the same growing problem. Among other things, Obama hired more judges to clear the judicial backlog quicker. The faster their cases are adjudicated, the faster they are legalized or deported, as the case may be.

 

[JasperL]

Sure,

Tell me why you want to keep them locked up and separated again?

Tell me why you insist on presenting false choices again?

 

[haymarket]

but the city WANTS illegal immigrants,.. supposedly due to the positives undocumented workers bring, they will make all that money back easily... I see no problem.

Do you understand the difference between the short term and the long term and how the expenses of caring for the immigrants are what is felt in the short term and their may not be a long term as there is with other immigrants?

Or is the problem that you willfully blind yourself to seeing there is a difference and it has nothing to do with ones liberalism or conservatism?

 

[haymarket]

But, but, I thought you people said that immigrant enrich the communities they inhabit? How is that "punishment "???

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Do you understand the difference between short term costs versus long term gains as it applies to immigration?

 

[haymarket]

So, there IS a crisis at the border?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

If there is, it has been caused by Trump himself intentionally.

 

[haymarket]

Actually, Obama was trying to punish Alabama by doing the same thing...

Obama angling to house illegal alien minors at Alabama military base - Yellowhammer News |
Yellowhammer News

Of course Obama was smart enough not to come right out and say why he chose Alabama(it was well known at the time that Senator Jeff Sessions was one of the biggest critics of Obama's policy on illegals) but it sure wasn't very hard to figure out what the motivation was.

Trump reason for wanted to this was political payback against his perceived enemies. And that is rarely a good maker of public policy.

 

[akyron]

Wrong, but I understand your need to be so laughably dishonest about it and project your fantasy onto this.

Have a great weekend!

So someone "talked" about this issue and it was not taken seriously and led to a total of zero proposals or actions?

We should all be quite familiar with that experience around here.

“Be careful what you wish for, lest it come true.”

 

[HumblePi]

Ok, I will say this, I was wrong about Clinton starting it, I thought he did, I was wrong...

But what you espoused here, doesn't change the fact that what Trump wanted to do, essentially, was a catch and release? Is that an incorrect assessment? We know he wants to catch and deport right away....that's not the argument....he wants to catch......and release them into cities.... is that correct?

Trump wants to catch and detain them all in detention centers until their case comes up for review in front of an immigration judge, then deport them if they don't meet the criteria for obtaining legal entry and a visa. There are four major categories of immigrant visas: family reunification, long-term workers, special immigrants and refugee admissions. There's just no amount of detention centers that could possibly hold these many immigrants for months at a time.

Let's look at what's been done so far. Trump tried to prosecute all adults crossing the border illegally, and had to abandon it in the (understandable) firestorm over the resulting family separations. He’s tried to jawbone Mexico into helping, with some success, although migrants are still traveling through Mexico in large numbers. He’s tried to tighten up asylum policy, but been blocked in the courts. He’s tried to get Congress to fix the rules for dealing with migrants, to no avail. And, of course, he’s tried to build a wall.

It's way overdo, but the U.S. really needs to start at square one. In my opinion, this should be a dual-pronged approach. The first is to deal with the immediate crisis of course. Add more border patrol, increase the number of immigration judges at the borders in order to speed up the process, and run those courts on a 24 hr/7 day a week status until the backlog of immigrants waiting in detention has been lessened. I worked 12 hour shifts, why shouldn't a handful of judges at each border city do the same for the time being anyway? They need to get the masses of people processed quickly and given either a temporary visa or a bus ticket back south.

The other prong is the more intensive but in the long run will result in less people seeking asylum. I would create a consortium, a 'think-tank' so to speak. In addition to experts in Latin America politics like John Coatsworth from Colombia University who is an expert in Latin American political and economic history, or James Mahon from Williams College-another expert in Latin American political economics. I'd put several corporate business owners on that committee and former and current Ambassadors from El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala PLUS the Ambassadors from those countries to the U.S. Then add some people that represent human rights organizations like NISGUA in Guatemala a non-profit organization that offers support for the oppressed people in Guatemala.

You get the idea. Convening a commission on Central America immigration and bringing this think tank together to sit there until solutions are worked out will address the root causes of the problems these people are facing that are forcing them to leave their homes. The problem of illegal immigration has been a ball that's been kicked down the road by the past six presidents. For some reason they're afraid to look the problems square in the face and address them. If a dictatorial and corrupt government is stealing everything from the people - then the U.S. has to be the boss and force them to change their ways, clean up their countries' crimes and work on job creation and create more economic stability for the people in their own country. The longer the U.S. procrastinates and focuses on only stomping out the immediate fires created by massive immigration, the longer it will take to address and fix the root causes of these problems in order to put an end to it by finding solutions that work for everyone.

 

[haymarket]

It's exactly what sanctuary cities ask for.

Which sanctuary city has asked for to be a political dumping ground for people seeking asylum in large numbers?

 

[haymarket]

Who cares what Jeffrey Toobin says. Lets hear what haymarket has to say. Why is it a bad idea to send illegal immigrants to those states and cities that want them?

Do you understand the difference between high short term costs and much later long term financial benefits?

 

[JasperL]

if you want to pass a bill hurting employers of illegal aliens I'll get behind it but until someone gets their asses in gear and does something about the situation I will support sending them to places that are outspoken about wanting them.

I'll be more serious here, but addressing employers is sort of step one about "doing something about the situation." If you don't do that, address employment and employers in a serious way, you don't care about solving the "problem" because in reality it's a non-problem for those who matter, the donor class. Illegal labor is in fact a desirable feature, a money making part of, our immigration system.

It's really that simple. I've talked with local dairy farms, who are all on a razor's edge anyway, and they hire illegals because they need them. And no one in those deep red cities and counties will target the illegals for deportation because it would be economic suicide for the region. And yet no doubt the residents there supported Trump by 3-1 or so. I've seen interviews of these people in other regions and they're honest about the disconnect, the hypocrisy. They want to be tough everywhere but at their farms, which they rationalize as necessary for their survival, which is likely true. That's fine, but I don't have to ignore their "rules for thee, not for me" stance or pretend it's not irrational.

That's my problem with this whole narrative about sanctuary cities. Their problem is in being honest about illegals.

 

[haymarket]

Yeah I get how this Obama nice guy card trick works.
Like the way it was HIS IRS that was denying Conservative groups 501{c}{3}
status.While making sure to have Unamerican radical sites like the Southern Poverty
Law Center and Media Matters plus Podesta's site { Center for American Progress } keep theirs.
Even a Billygoat can sense how unfair and naughty that be.
Obama dint wear his ticked-off side but he shore implemented it.Like Big Time.

If Obama did wrong in your eyes, why them does wrong motivation make Trump right?

 

[Buzz62]

It's political RETALIATION, what's so difficult to understand? As one DHS official said, "these are human beings, not game pieces". Kristjen Nielson KNEW it was ILLEGAL and refused to do it, why do you think she was fired??

And Donald J Trump is POTUS! Not some common gansga!
You Libbies...you sure like to dish it out, but you can't take your own medicine...can ya.
I too say, NY, California, Oregon and Washington...open wide, here comes.
Now you all can absolutely wallow in the beauty and moral righteousness that is...cultural diversity.
You can take in all the 'families with kids' and all those wonderful, highly skilled people.
And hey...with that you also get the side-benefit of attracting all the terminal welfare cases, who will quickly turn your streets and parks into toilet facilities and junkie dens. Aren't y'all lucky?

Addition: And after about 5 years of that...y'all can start planning...to move to the "fly-over states".