This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I think either you or I have the wrong interpretation of sanctuary city. My interpretation is in line with what the article defines: "we're not going to help the feds detain these people". That doesn't mean they won't still be living under a bridge. It just means local cops won't be picking them up or holding onto them for the feds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_city
I am guessing he doesn't fully understand the policy. Which is reasonable as there is a ton of misinformation out there.
I don't want to argue over the definitions as there are many that have been created...none of which doesn't boil down to simply not doing the federal government's job for them by seeking out and catching illegal immigrants. That's ICE's job. I pay federal taxes and the funding of those types of tasks should come out of that money, not my local/state taxes.
What is the issue? These people are the salt of the earth, not coming here with any ill will and besides there aren’t that many of them. What city would not want them to be living there? Seems like a logical landing spot to me.
"Officer I am not an accomplice, I just drove them to the bank. They were going to end up there anyway. Why is this my fault?"
I am being genuine in my questions...work with me here. How about this. How is this so much different than the current catch/release process? Maybe it's not fair to ask you to justify Tim's apparent outrage. If you don't share that position, I get that. I can wait for him to answer.
Give me a break on the moral outrage about political stunts. It’s 2019. That is all we get these days from everyone.
"How about instead of releasing immigrants where we picked them up so they can easily join their families wherever they may be or find their way to less populated areas where they can find work, we dump large numbers of them on the cities we don't like so that they have 10 times as many immigrants as they're able to absorb?"
You are moving a person from locations based off of your political desire to punish a community for not having the same view as you. This results in a community having a higher burden of responsibility than they otherwise would have just because they choose to not accept the financial burden of the federal government. Do you not see how this is different?
No they are just less accepting of carrying the financial burden for the federal government on enforcing their immigration policy.
I agree. If I lived in one of those cities I’d be happy to have them. I think they will be an overall benefit to wherever they go. That is not the basis of my outrage.
All I have heard for the last few years is that these people are not a financial burden, in fact they pay more in taxes than they take out. Why is this a problem?
Again what is the punishment. They’re not being shuffled around like cattle, they’re being placed in cities that are already more excepting of them. I truly don’t understand what the issue is?
Woz and his wife (at least I think that's who it was, my notebook is out of date) opened their house to a troubled child, to try and give that child a chance at a better life. They didn't view it as a burden, but as an opportunity to do good. So, let's round up as many troubled children as we can find around the country and send them all to live with Woz. They’re not being shuffled around like cattle, they’re being placed in a home that is already more excepting of them. I truly don’t understand what the issue is?
Nope. Not according to Tim. Not according to a vast majority of people I’ve heard from
The answer is that they are a financial benefit long term. Nobody has ever made the argument that they are a short term financial benefit; like all poor and destitute people, they cost a lot more than they produce initially. Eventually they don’t. The 10-15 million undocumented immigrants who live in this country are not a financial burden overall, but most of them have been here for quite some time. (As much of a positive as they are, they would be far more if we simply gave them citizenship.)
Is this comparison supposed to be some kind of gotcha? It isn’t. Because it’s s really bad comparison
I disagree, generally speaking everyone (rich included) end up taking more from society then they add.
Well, putting aside the fact that if you were correct economic growth would be impossible, your point isn’t really relevant to this topic.
Oh thank you the the ultimate evaluator of this discussion, once again you show yourself to be way too into your opinion to have a discussion that might not go exactly as you determine it should...
It is if you want to make an argument that this is actually a punishment to a sanctuary city. Dropping these people in and adding to a financial burden would be a punishment. However this goes completely against arguments that I’ve heard you make time and again that there is not a financial burden to accepting as many people as possible. It isn’t relevant to your argument, because it’s in opposition to your argument. You can’t have it both ways.
I’ve stipulated it countless times. I’ve also made the point that, while undocumented immigrants are a financial benefit overall, they are not necessarily a benefit for the border states that are most burdened with them.
No, it's supposed to be a desperate attempt to make someone who doesn't want to acknowledge reality do it. "These people want to be humane? Let's drown them in it."
It has nothing to do with whether or not it is a punishment to a sanctuary city. It has everything to do with it being a punishment to people seeking asylum. It has everything to do with the motive for this action.
There is no plan. This was a “gotcha!” by President Trump. Frustrated that he has no idea what to do, he wants to punish his political enemies.
It seems like if they can get from Honduras to the United States they can probably get from one U.S. city to another. I'm not sure I understand the asylum part, would they be losing their opportunity to seek asylum if they did this?
So we shouldn't detain, deport, split up families and while Trumps motives might suck, at the end of the day it makes the most sense. Seriously... what's the better option?
There is no standard “catch/release”. It’s a conservative meme used to describe the practice by which we by law were unable to detain minors for too long a time because we refused to have enough judges process their claims for asylum- so we released them from custody.
Well if you are going to let them go then just let them go, don't play games and bring them to areas where you have political weakness.
They have to get back to the border where they sought asylum in time for the hearing, wherever that is. We’ve now shipped them thousands of miles away.
So if the two options are keep them detained or let them live in sanctuary cities... the reply is #### trump???
Hire enough judges to process these people. Treat them humanely in the meantime. Feed them rather than put them in cages. None of this is hard at all.
In 2010, AARP estimated that undocumented workers contributed $12 billion to SS through payroll taxes paid by them or their employers. Many will never benefit from SS. Yes, if we gave them a pathway to legality, young immigrants would contribute even more to SS and the economy in general. Trump failed to lead the country to a solution on immigration. It could've been a game changer for the GOP. His strategy now is to try to punish and create chaos and blame the democrats. I don't think it will help him politically.
That's not quite right. The hearings are usually scheduled close to where the asylum-seeker's sponsor is located. When they get dropped off, they have ten days to get to that location.
So this is starting to make more sense. I can buy the argument of "maybe they don't want to go to city X", but are they being forced to stay there? Again...genuine question, it didn't make mention of that in the link Tim posted and stupid questions like this have to be asked because logic has completely escaped this administration so I can't really assume anything.
They'd be sending them to places that allegedly want them correct? Do they have to stay there? Do the people get a say in where they are going?
Ok...picture is getting clearer. I sort of assumed that all those large cities that proudly profess being "sanctuary cities" had networks built to help these people. So when I saw this, my initial thought that while Trump and company were trying to "stick it" to these areas it would most likely backfire because they can handle these folks and that the net result would be these people being taken care of better than just being dumped at a local bus station like they are now.
Moving them to a city that is vocally supportive of more immigration, has more job opportunities, a better way of life (presumably), most likely a built-in community of similar ethnicity and the added bonus of not aiding any deportation if they decide not to show up at their asylum hearing four years from now is punishment? What are you talking about?
Keep in mind Trump thinks most of these immigrants are rapists, murderers, gang members, and pillagers (although he assumes some are good people). He'd be teaching them a lesson.
