The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums:
Politics

Sanctuary Cities

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Leon On June 24, 2019




San Diego, California
#1New Post! Apr 16, 2019 @ 16:47:59
San Diego and Los Angeles are sanctuary cities. The rest of the 30 or so are spread out around the US away far from the border, mostly major metropolitan areas.

Migrants begin at the border, but most end up in these cities anyways, especially the ones in SoCal. They go where family and/or their comrades are.

What Trump will be doing largely will be speeding up this process with taxpayer money (and maybe even shrinking the numbers in SoCal). And thereby confirming the legitimacy of illegal immigration. If he truly believed the migrants consist of rapists and murderers, then this act could not possibly be viewed as anything other than sadistic revenge. But nobody takes him seriously now anyways, so it’s doubtful that is the true viewpoint of anyone.

Owning the libs? Hardly. More like owning yourself. Reminds me of the corporate maven who had Papa John Pizza delivered at his wedding to “own the libs”. No, you didn’t own the libs, you just ruined your wedding is all.
chaski On about 6 hours ago
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#2New Post! Apr 16, 2019 @ 19:12:57
@Leon Said


What Trump will be doing largely will be.....confirming the legitimacy of illegal immigration.





Yes. It would most likely establish a legal argument for every illegal immigrant released into any city within the boundaries of the USA (including sanctuary cities), that they had essentially been given legal authority to live in the USA and had been given defacto immunity from prosecution and deportation by the President of the USA.

In addition, it would likely establish a legal basis to challenge his emergency declaration and ultimately kill his wall building plans.

If Trump were a writer for say SNL, it might be a sort of funny.

However, as the president of the USA it demonstrates that he is an idiot.
Leon On June 24, 2019




San Diego, California
#3New Post! Apr 16, 2019 @ 20:36:22
@chaski Said




Yes. It would most likely establish a legal argument for every illegal immigrant released into any city within the boundaries of the USA (including sanctuary cities), that they had essentially been given legal authority to live in the USA and had been given defacto immunity from prosecution and deportation by the President of the USA.

In addition, it would likely establish a legal basis to challenge his emergency declaration and ultimately kill his wall building plans.

If Trump were a writer for say SNL, it might be a sort of funny.

However, as the president of the USA it demonstrates that he is an idiot.


Good points.

Also, we are paying them for the travel they otherwise would have had to scrounge up themselves.
DiscordTiger On June 24, 2019
The Queen of Random

Administrator




Emerald City, United States (g
#4New Post! Apr 16, 2019 @ 21:16:14
Making the trump presidency the first open border presidency. Never thought the “base” would go for it. But alas, they are eating this s*** up.
chaski On about 6 hours ago
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#5New Post! Apr 16, 2019 @ 21:20:33
@Leon Said

Good points.

Also, we are paying them for the travel they otherwise would have had to scrounge up themselves.



I suppose if "it" was done "right"...

The illegal immigrants could be:
> processed...
> given legal paperwork setting court dates for their asylum adjudication...
> the courts & court dates could be set in the specific sanctuary cities that Trump wants to target...
> then maybe the asylum seekers could be legally bused to the sanctuary cites
> and then released.

This scenario would probably either require that they are not released but instead housed in some facility. Since Trump would be telling U.S. immigration officials to do this the facilities would have to be either Federal, State & reimbursed by the Federal Government, or there would have to be some private contractors who could take them in under federal contract.

or

If released, the asylum seekers could be given temporary work permits and paperwork to allow them to obtain housing legally for the period pending their court hearing.

or

Perhaps some could be allowed to live with relatives or friends in the various sanctuary cities.

Minors could be put into foster homes or detention facilities in the sanctuary cities.

...then, maybe it would be a legitimate move on Trump's part.

However, the cost alone would probably be monumental. In addition, a likely result would be that a significant number of the asylum seekers would more or less disappear into the proverbial woodwork... and a percentage of the asylum seekers who are minors would end up in street gangs (which Trump has told us he doesn't like).

Even then, there would likely be legal cause to argue (all the way to the Supreme Court) that Trump's actions had essentially validated the claims of asylum seekers and/or put an undue burden on them and/or provided what amounts to a defacto immunity/amnesty/pardon... the court cases would probably last years... even a decade or more.

In addition: Would this be a one time transfer of people to the asylum cities? Or would there be multiple and recurring transfers of people?

And this whole thing starting a year before the 2020 presidential election.

Quite frankly, IMO, Democrats should publicly call Trump's bluff; go ahead Mr. President, if you think you have the legal justification for this, by all means do it.

mrmhead 5 minutes ago




NE, Ohio
#6New Post! Apr 16, 2019 @ 23:05:19
@chaski Said

I suppose if "it" was done "right"...

The illegal immigrants could be:
> processed...
> given legal paperwork setting court dates for their asylum adjudication...
> the courts & court dates could be set in the specific sanctuary cities that Trump wants to target...
> then maybe the asylum seekers could be legally bused to the sanctuary cites
> and then released.

This scenario would probably either require that they are not released but instead housed in some facility. Since Trump would be telling U.S. immigration officials to do this the facilities would have to be either Federal, State & reimbursed by the Federal Government, or there would have to be some private contractors who could take them in under federal contract.

or

If released, the asylum seekers could be given temporary work permits and paperwork to allow them to obtain housing legally for the period pending their court hearing.

or

Perhaps some could be allowed to live with relatives or friends in the various sanctuary cities.

Minors could be put into foster homes or detention facilities in the sanctuary cities.

...then, maybe it would be a legitimate move on Trump's part.

However, the cost alone would probably be monumental. In addition, a likely result would be that a significant number of the asylum seekers would more or less disappear into the proverbial woodwork... and a percentage of the asylum seekers who are minors would end up in street gangs (which Trump has told us he doesn't like).

Even then, there would likely be legal cause to argue (all the way to the Supreme Court) that Trump's actions had essentially validated the claims of asylum seekers and/or put an undue burden on them and/or provided what amounts to a defacto immunity/amnesty/pardon... the court cases would probably last years... even a decade or more.

In addition: Would this be a one time transfer of people to the asylum cities? Or would there be multiple and recurring transfers of people?

And this whole thing starting a year before the 2020 presidential election.

Quite frankly, IMO, Democrats should publicly call Trump's bluff; go ahead Mr. President, if you think you have the legal justification for this, by all means do it.



It'd be nice if the illegal immigrants/asylum seekers got to choose what city.


... and I thought all the kids were already members of MS-13 ... according to Trump.
chaski On about 6 hours ago
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#7New Post! Apr 16, 2019 @ 23:41:49
@mrmhead Said


... and I thought all the kids were already members of MS-13 ... according to Trump.


Well.... I'm sure that at least one or two are members of ISIS.
MarkAnthony On May 02, 2019




Dublin, Ireland
#8New Post! Apr 17, 2019 @ 07:33:33
I think its probably wrong to ascribe any sort of strategy to Trumps statements. The main problem with him is that even though he is in a position to be literally the most informed person on the planet due to his access to the insights of every intelligence agency and scores of experts in every field.... He really doesn't know any more and is just as wrong headed as your average conservative chatter online.

He thinks immigrants are bad and is just saying what they frequently say "If you want immigrants why don't you let them all stay in your house!"

Its idiotic, and ridiculous but his idiotic and ridiculous little base will cheer it. That's all the motivation he needs.
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Politics Forum - Some Rudeness Allowed

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   Random
Mon Mar 19, 2007 @ 20:16
7 410
New posts   Random
Fri Jan 04, 2008 @ 12:26
17 627
New posts   Poetry
Tue Sep 18, 2007 @ 06:58
0 285
New posts   History
Tue Jul 10, 2007 @ 22:54
3 1102
New posts   Gaming
Tue Apr 18, 2006 @ 15:43
2 357