What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Sanctuary Seekers to Sanctuary Cities. Why not? (1 Viewer)

Opie

Footballguy
It sounds like a plan to me.

The communities who've labeled themselves "sanctuary cities", obviously want to harbor those seeking sanctuary.
The Illegal immigrants are seeking "sanctuary and these communities have offered it."
According to the courts, they have to go somewhere, they can't be turned away.

It certainly sounds like a plan to me
It'll never happen...but it sounds like a plan.

So, why are all those Democrats who've been pushing for sanctuary cities, opposed to the idea?

 

SaintsInDome2006

Footballguy
It sounds like a plan to me.

The communities who've labeled themselves "sanctuary cities", obviously want to harbor those seeking sanctuary.
The Illegal immigrants are seeking "sanctuary and these communities have offered it."
According to the courts, they have to go somewhere, they can't be turned away.

It certainly sounds like a plan to me
It'll never happen...but it sounds like a plan.

So, why are all those Democrats who've been pushing for sanctuary cities, opposed to the idea?
Democrats and Republicans alike are in favor of enforcing the law. The law does not permit the President to use human beings, foreign nationals or anyone, as a means to exact costs and political retribution. He’s in violation of his Oath, no decent Republican or Democrat would support that.

 

Opie

Footballguy
Democrats and Republicans alike are in favor of enforcing the law. The law does not permit the President to use human beings, foreign nationals or anyone, as a means to exact costs and political retribution. He’s in violation of his Oath, no decent Republican or Democrat would support that.
It's not retribution.

How could it be retribution when the Democrats have made it very clear that's what they want ?
How could it be retribution when the asylum seekers are seeking sanctuary and these Democratic controlled communities are offering it?

Sounds to me that those Democrats don't really want it.

Sounds to me that those Democrat controlled communities have been using human beings and foreign nationals to exact political retribution for President Trump trying to send illegal immigrants (those who are here illegally) back to their countries of origin.

 

[scooter]

Footballguy
It sounds like a plan to me.

The communities who've labeled themselves "sanctuary cities", obviously want to harbor those seeking sanctuary.
The Illegal immigrants are seeking "sanctuary and these communities have offered it."
According to the courts, they have to go somewhere, they can't be turned away.

It certainly sounds like a plan to me
It'll never happen...but it sounds like a plan.

So, why are all those Democrats who've been pushing for sanctuary cities, opposed to the idea?
Well, the first thing we need to do is clarify what Trump means.

He used the word "illegal immigrant", but it seemed like he was actually referring to refugees and asylum-seekers.

If Trump means "illegals", then he's promoting catch-and-release, which would be an amazing flip-flop for him.

If Trump means "refugees and asylum-seekers", then he is misapplying the concept of a "sanctuary" city, since refugees and asylum seekers do not need to be protected from the federal government (they are already protected).

 

SaintsInDome2006

Footballguy
It's not retribution.

How could it be retribution when the Democrats have made it very clear that's what they want ?
How could it be retribution when the asylum seekers are seeking sanctuary and these Democratic controlled communities are offering it?

Sounds to me that those Democrats don't really want it.

Sounds to me that those Democrat controlled communities have been using human beings and foreign nationals to exact political retribution for President Trump trying to send illegal immigrants (those who are here illegally) back to their countries of origin.
Opie it’s obviously retribution because Dems oppose Trump on the policy and that’s his reason for choosing them. Retribution is about motive.

I don’t mind saying I oppose sanctuary cities as policy, but I think you should support states and local governments as a conservative as its strictly a matter of states’ rights. It’s not part of a president’s job or even within his sole power to treat states differently depending on whether they support him. It’s against the principles of our union. A Republican - whose party was founded on Union - would respect that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

[scooter]

Footballguy
Democrats and Republicans alike are in favor of enforcing the law. The law does not permit the President to use human beings, foreign nationals or anyone, as a means to exact costs and political retribution. He’s in violation of his Oath, no decent Republican or Democrat would support that.
It's not retribution.

How could it be retribution when the Democrats have made it very clear that's what they want ?
How could it be retribution when the asylum seekers are seeking sanctuary and these Democratic controlled communities are offering it?

Sounds to me that those Democrats don't really want it.
I think you need to provide quotes from actual Democrats who represent sanctuary cities (and not Fox News talking heads) before making this accusation.

The mayor of Chicago is in favor of Trump's suggestion.

 

Opie

Footballguy
How is it a plan if it will never happen?
Lots of plans never happen.

...obviously.

Hillary planned on being POTUS...not only planned it...she expected it....as did a lot of people here.
The Left planned to undo the results of the 2016 election....hasn't happened....yet.  Still working on it though.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mile High

Footballguy
I think you need to provide quotes from actual Democrats who represent sanctuary cities (and not Fox News talking heads) before making this accusation.

The mayor of Chicago is in favor of Trump's suggestion.
How about the mayor of Seattle. 

Jenny A. Durkan, a Democrat, is mayor of Seattle.

Here’s a message to President Trump: Seattle is not afraid of immigrants and refugees. In fact, we have always welcomed people who have faced tremendous hardships around the world. Immigrants and refugees are part of Seattle’s heritage, and they will continue to make us the city of the future.

 

[scooter]

Footballguy
I think you need to provide quotes from actual Democrats who represent sanctuary cities (and not Fox News talking heads) before making this accusation.

The mayor of Chicago is in favor of Trump's suggestion.
How about the mayor of Seattle. 

Jenny A. Durkan, a Democrat, is mayor of Seattle.

Here’s a message to President Trump: Seattle is not afraid of immigrants and refugees. In fact, we have always welcomed people who have faced tremendous hardships around the world. Immigrants and refugees are part of Seattle’s heritage, and they will continue to make us the city of the future.
Sounds like the whole "gotcha" moment is backfiring. Don't be surprised if Trump tucks his tail between his legs and abandons this "plan", then pretends that he never floated it in the first place.

 

Mile High

Footballguy
The mayor of Denver.

Though they don’t have an exact plan to handle the president’s unprecedented proposal, Denver officials say there are emergency procedures in place that would allow them to respond appropriately. Mayor Michael Hancock accused Trump of using immigrants as pawns.

“We need to separate fact from the president’s fiction,” Hancock told The Denver Post on Friday.

 

Mile High

Footballguy
LA Times.

Can Trump send us some of the immigrants he wants to dump on ‘sanctuary’ cities?

By SCOTT MARTELLE

President Trump confirmed Friday that he is considering a new policyof “placing Illegal Immigrants in Sanctuary Cities only,” as he wrote in a tweet. “The Radical Left always seems to have an Open Borders, Open Arms policy — so this should make them very happy!”

There are three main responses to that. The first is that the president is likely trolling to get a rise out of liberals and to elicit some fist pumps from his base, but it’s fundamentally impractical. How would the president move thousands of migrants from, say, El Paso, to San Francisco? And conservatives would be OK with that kind of spending? Plus, migrants don’t have to remain in the jurisdiction into which the government releases them.

The second is that if Trump truly believes the people crossing the U.S.-Mexico border to seek asylum are dangerous threats to American neighborhoods, to concentrate them in areas where his political opponents hold sway is an egregious abuse of power. No president should intentionally undermine the public safety of communities, especially for political reasons.

The third is: Bring ’em on.

 

Mile High

Footballguy
U.S. mayors decry Trump sanctuary city threat, 'prepared to welcome' migrants

(Reuters) - Democratic U.S. mayors said on Friday their cities would welcome illegal immigrants, dismissing President Donald Trump's threats to transport people detained at the border to "sanctuary cities" as illustrating the White House's callous approach to the issue.

Trump confirmed on Twitter that he wanted to transport people detained in his immigration crackdown at the U.S.-Mexico border to sanctuary cities, an informal designation for localities that refrain from assisting federal immigration authorities in detaining people living in the country illegally.

Mayors from across the country were quick to respond to Trump's latest portrayal of immigrants and sanctuary cities as threats.

n New York City, where nearly 40 percent of the population are immigrants, Mayor Bill de Blasio said Trump's immigration policy was rooted in cruelty.

"He uses people like pawns," de Blasio said in a statement. "New York City will always be the ultimate city of immigrants – the President's empty threats won't change that."

In Philadelphia, known as the city of brotherly love, Mayor Jim Kenney said in a statement that his city "would be prepared to welcome these immigrants just as we have embraced our immigrant communities for decades." He said the White House was demonstrating "the utter contempt that the Trump Administration has for basic human dignity."

 

SaintsInDome2006

Footballguy
Congress alone has the power  "To establish a uniform rule of naturalization... throughout the United States..."

- US Constitution.

@OpieI'd really like to hear a good Republican, conservative argument why the President has the power under the Constitution to usurp Congress' authority in this and then to employ a non-uniform policy of naturalizing foreign asylum seekers within the US.

Go.

 

Mile High

Footballguy
Trump Wants to Bus Migrants to Sanctuary Cities. The Mayors There Are Fine With It.

President Donald Trump may have assumed that his proposal to release undocumented immigrants into so-called “sanctuary cities” would back Democrats into a corner on the issue of immigration. But the local officials in those cities he’s targeting don’t seem to actually find the prospect all that foreboding.

Instead, when asked about the plan—which would entail busing migrants apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border to be released in cities that do not cooperate with federal law enforcement to arrest undocumented immigrants—mayors of major cities, regional capitals and medium-sized towns told The Daily Beast said that they would welcome those currently being detained.

“The city would be prepared to welcome these immigrants just as we have embraced our immigrant communities for decades,” Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney told The Daily Beast in a statement. “This White House plan demonstrates the utter contempt that the Trump administration has for basic human dignity and the core values on which this nation was founded.”

“As a welcoming city, we would welcome these migrants with open arms, just as we welcomed Syrian refugees, just as we welcomed Puerto Ricans displaced by Hurricane Maria and just as we welcome Rohingya refugees fleeing genocide in Myanmar,” said Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel in a statement.

“I am proud that Cambridge is a sanctuary city,” Mayor Marc McGovern of Cambridge, Massachusetts, told The Daily Beast. “Trump is a schoolyard bully who tries to intimidate and threaten people. I’m not intimidated and if asylum seekers find their way to Cambridge, we’ll welcome them.”

 

timschochet

Footballguy
Really proud of these mayors. But it doesn’t change the fact that what Trump is proposing is a terrible manipulation of destitute people. 

 

Mile High

Footballguy
Two Connecticut mayors and activists blasted President Donald Trump’s suggestion Friday that federal officials are considering sending immigrant detainees to sanctuary cities across the country when they are released.

Mayors Luke Bronin and Toni Harp said they would welcome more immigrants to Hartford and New Haven, both of which are so-called sanctuary cities, and slammed the president’s new proposal.

 

Mile High

Footballguy
Sam Liccardo

@sliccardo

·

8h⁦

@realDonaldTrump

⁩ plans to release detained immigrants to ⁦

@CityofSanJose

⁩? We welcome any families willing to endure such extraordinary hardships and to take such tremendous risks to be a part of our great country. #VamosSanJose #WeAreSanJose

 

Mile High

Footballguy
London Breed

@LondonBreed

This is just another in a long line of scare tactics and half-baked ideas that are just about chasing headlines and distracting people from real issues. In SF we are proud to be a sanctuary city and we’ll continue to stand up for all of our residents.

 

Dickies

Footballguy
LA Times.

Can Trump send us some of the immigrants he wants to dump on ‘sanctuary’ cities?

By SCOTT MARTELLE

President Trump confirmed Friday that he is considering a new policyof “placing Illegal Immigrants in Sanctuary Cities only,” as he wrote in a tweet. “The Radical Left always seems to have an Open Borders, Open Arms policy — so this should make them very happy!”

There are three main responses to that. The first is that the president is likely trolling to get a rise out of liberals and to elicit some fist pumps from his base, but it’s fundamentally impractical. How would the president move thousands of migrants from, say, El Paso, to San Francisco? And conservatives would be OK with that kind of spending? Plus, migrants don’t have to remain in the jurisdiction into which the government releases them.

The second is that if Trump truly believes the people crossing the U.S.-Mexico border to seek asylum are dangerous threats to American neighborhoods, to concentrate them in areas where his political opponents hold sway is an egregious abuse of power. No president should intentionally undermine the public safety of communities, especially for political reasons.

The third is: Bring ’em on.
This article conflates illegal immigrants with asylum seekers.  I'm seeing a lot of this from both sides, but from what I've seen Trump is just saying "illegal immigrants".

 

Da Guru

Fair & Balanced
How about the mayor of Seattle. 

Jenny A. Durkan, a Democrat, is mayor of Seattle.

Here’s a message to President Trump: Seattle is not afraid of immigrants and refugees. In fact, we have always welcomed people who have faced tremendous hardships around the world. Immigrants and refugees are part of Seattle’s heritage, and they will continue to make us the city of the future.
Have you been to Seattle lately? They have their hands full with their homeless population.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

tonydead

Footballguy
Have you been to Seattle lately? They have their hands full with their homeless population.
Seriously, whats she going to do make the immigrants double up in the tents with every homeless person in the tent cities? Install some tent bunk beds?  No immigrant can afford to live in Seattle unless its on the street. HFS.  :lmao:   :lmao:

 

[scooter]

Footballguy
This article conflates illegal immigrants with asylum seekers.  I'm seeing a lot of this from both sides, but from what I've seen Trump is just saying "illegal immigrants".
Trump said "illegals" but it seems like he meant "refugees" and/or "asylum-seekers".

Because we don't have very many illegals in custody who could be transported to sanctuary cities. (Most get deported unless they've been accused of a more serious crime.)

 

[scooter]

Footballguy
Have you been to Seattle lately? They have their hands full with their homeless population.
Seriously, whats she going to do make the immigrants double up in the tents with every homeless person in the tent cities? Install some tent bunk beds?  No immigrant can afford to live in Seattle unless its on the street. HFS.  :lmao:   :lmao:
Whole lotta ignorance in this post.

One of the reasons that Seattle has a larger-than-average homeless population is because the people of the city tend to be wealthy and generous.

There are many charities and faith-based organizations which would be quite capable of stepping up to the plate to expand already-existing transitional programs.

 

Da Guru

Fair & Balanced
Whole lotta ignorance in this post.

One of the reasons that Seattle has a larger-than-average homeless population is because the people of the city tend to be wealthy and generous.

There are many charities and faith-based organizations which would be quite capable of stepping up to the plate to expand already-existing transitional programs.
Do you live their?   Have you been there recently?   If you have been there and feel that way it is a whole lotta ignorance on your part.  My wife's sister lives there, the open drug use, crapping in the streets and trash have the locals disgusted with city leadership.

Seattle is under siege. Over the past five years, the Emerald City has seen an explosion of homelessness, crime, and addiction. In its 2017 point-in-time count of the homeless, King County social-services agency All Home found 11,643 people sleeping in tents, cars, and emergency shelters. Property crime has risen to a rate two and a half times higher than Los Angeles’s and four times higher than New York City’s. Cleanup crews pick up tens of thousands of dirty needles from city streets and parks every year. Human fecal matter and waste are picked up off the streets daily.

At the same time, according to the Puget Sound Business Journal, the Seattle metro area spends more than $1 billion fighting homelessness every year. That’s nearly $100,000 for every homeless man, woman, and child in King County, yet the crisis seems only to have deepened, with more addiction, more crime, and more tent encampments seeping into in residential neighborhoods. By any measure, the city’s efforts are not working.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

tonydead

Footballguy
Whole lotta ignorance in this post.

One of the reasons that Seattle has a larger-than-average homeless population is because the people of the city tend to be wealthy and generous.

There are many charities and faith-based organizations which would be quite capable of stepping up to the plate to expand already-existing transitional programs.
You should educated yourself on a subject before you insult people and make a fool of yourself. Here let me help:  Seattle is Dying

 

Dickies

Footballguy
Trump said "illegals" but it seems like he meant "refugees" and/or "asylum-seekers".

Because we don't have very many illegals in custody who could be transported to sanctuary cities. (Most get deported unless they've been accused of a more serious crime.)
Until he says refugees or asylum seekers I'm going to take his words at face value.

 

[scooter]

Footballguy
Whole lotta ignorance in this post.

One of the reasons that Seattle has a larger-than-average homeless population is because the people of the city tend to be wealthy and generous.

There are many charities and faith-based organizations which would be quite capable of stepping up to the plate to expand already-existing transitional programs.
Do you live their?   Have you been there recently?   If you have there is no ignorance at all.  My wife's sister lives there, the open drug use, crapping in the streets and trash have the locals disgusted with city leadership.
I work there. I cross paths with the homeless every day. Yes, the homeless problem is bad. And part of the reason why it's bad is because Seattle is a wealthy city. And that wealth is part of the reason why Seattle would be able to accommodate asylum seekers.

But you're making a mistake if you conflate "the homeless" with "asylum seekers". History has shown that asylum seekers tend to be thankful, well-behaved, and hard-working (when given the chance).

It would be a burden to take them in, but not one that is chronic and ineffective.

 

[scooter]

Footballguy
Whole lotta ignorance in this post.

One of the reasons that Seattle has a larger-than-average homeless population is because the people of the city tend to be wealthy and generous.

There are many charities and faith-based organizations which would be quite capable of stepping up to the plate to expand already-existing transitional programs.
You should educated yourself on a subject before you insult people and make a fool of yourself. Here let me help:  Seattle is Dying
I did educated myself. I know Seattle quite well. You're ignorant if you think the homeless are anything like asylum seekers.

 

[scooter]

Footballguy
Who's going to pay for everything for these people?

These mayors?
Trump is referring to people who are already here. So whatever money is funding them right now (in border states) will just be transferred to the sanctuary cities.

The plan won't cost any more money than it already costs. (Unless you count the extra cost of transporting them thousands of miles from where they're currently being housed.)

 

tonydead

Footballguy
I did educated myself. I know Seattle quite well. You're ignorant if you think the homeless are anything like asylum seekers.
No one said that. I just thought it was funny stupid that Durkin thinks she has places for them when the homeless problem is out of control. You want to dispute any part of that video though, because it points out dozens of reasons for the influx of homeless and none have to do with rich generous people. In fact the rich generous people are fed up with it. 

 

Da Guru

Fair & Balanced
I work there. I cross paths with the homeless every day. Yes, the homeless problem is bad. And part of the reason why it's bad is because Seattle is a wealthy city. And that wealth is part of the reason why Seattle would be able to accommodate asylum seekers.

But you're making a mistake if you conflate "the homeless" with "asylum seekers". History has shown that asylum seekers tend to be thankful, well-behaved, and hard-working (when given the chance).

It would be a burden to take them in, but not one that is chronic and ineffective.
I was there last fall..seriously I wish you well because from viewing what I saw the city has more than it can handle already.

 

tonydead

Footballguy
The "rich and generous" people.  :lmao: .  Amazon is moving people out of Seattle to Bellevue because of their idiocy. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bozeman Bruiser

Footballguy
Democrats and Republicans alike are in favor of enforcing the law. The law does not permit the President to use human beings, foreign nationals or anyone, as a means to exact costs and political retribution. He’s in violation of his Oath, no decent Republican or Democrat would support that.
How do you feel about the mayors, governors, and local law enforcement who have used human beings, particularly illegals including criminals, as a means to exact cost and retribution?

Do they get a free pass because you agree with their motives?

 

adonis

Footballguy
Another actual real life POTUS discussion brought to you from the guy sitting at the end of the bar who has had one too many drinks and who has an idea on what those folks in Washington should do.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top