Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
susieice

Trump Wanted To Put Migrants In Sanctuary Cit

213 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Jerry Gallo
1 hour ago, Tatetopa said:

Not to pretend to mindread all Democrats, but I think they let emotions get the better of them.  They might have been  thinking  "Here are these people living in our community.  They work with us, they shop with us their kids go to school with us.  We have known them for years.  Now the Federal government wants to round them up and deport them.  We have to let ICE do their job,  but we don't have to rat out our neighbors so we will not cooperate by turning people in or holding them unless they have committed a city or state crime.."

They might not have been planning  for such a massive influx of undocumented immigrants under the current President.

But of course their philosophy is wrong isn't it?  As any good conservative knows, there is no excuse for letting personal loyalties, or feelings, or state, or city,laws get in the way of a strong federal  enforcement,  even if it requires tanks and the National Guard.  Federal Laws must be obeyed.   People that hold those beliefs to the contrary should be ridiculed and punished shouldn't they?

You know, it's an odd phenomenon. A lot of people claim they are neither right or left, Conservative or Liberal, R or D. Most of them usually find the most innocent explanation for a Democrat while insulting a Conservative in the same discussion. Strange! 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
South Alabam
2 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Not to pretend to mindread all Democrats, but I think they let emotions get the better of them.  They might have been  thinking  "Here are these people living in our community.  They work with us, they shop with us their kids go to school with us.  We have known them for years.  Now the Federal government wants to round them up and deport them.  We have to let ICE do their job,  but we don't have to rat out our neighbors so we will not cooperate by turning people in or holding them unless they have committed a city or state crime.."

They might not have been planning  for such a massive influx of undocumented immigrants under the current President.

But of course their philosophy is wrong isn't it?  As any good conservative knows, there is no excuse for letting personal loyalties, or feelings, or state, or city,laws get in the way of a strong federal  enforcement,  even if it requires tanks and the National Guard.  Federal Laws must be obeyed.   People that hold those beliefs to the contrary should be ridiculed and punished shouldn't they?

I said " Trump is offering them a safe sanctuary rather than deportation.  Isn't this what the Democrats envisioned when creating these sanctuary cities?"

These sanctuary cities are a safe haven for them free from ICE, because it will be most likely ICE placing them there. That is a better alternative than deportation isn't it? And why did you see ridicule in what I wrote?

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor

Eh, now they are talking about indefinitely imprisoning them instead of putting them in sanctuary cities.  Kinda makes the argument moot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
17 minutes ago, South Alabam said:

I said " Trump is offering them a safe sanctuary rather than deportation.  Isn't this what the Democrats envisioned when creating these sanctuary cities?"

These sanctuary cities are a safe haven for them free from ICE, because it will be most likely ICE placing them there. That is a better alternative than deportation isn't it? And why did you see ridicule in what I wrote?

The ridicule comes from all the comments about this will teach them or they asked for it.  Maybe they didn't ask for 50000 extra people to be dumped at their doorstep.  But we will see how it goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Jim
8 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

The ridicule comes from all the comments about this will teach them or they asked for it.  Maybe they didn't ask for 50000 extra people to be dumped at their doorstep.  But we will see how it goes.

On the other hand, what did they expect?  When you protect something you tend to get more of it.  Isn't that the whole point?  The fact that they didn't want any more of what they were claiming to protect is proof that it was merely a political ploy.  The Democrat run cities wanted to appear to be lenient and understanding of illegals in order to win their votes.  When Trump called their bluff they turned into NIMBYs real quick, showing their true colors.  I hope all of the illegals and other immigrants living in these cities realize they've been being used and revolt against the Democrats.  We also can't discount the lure of sanctuary cities in contributing to the problem of mass migration.  Who wouldn't want to go to a place where all your sins were forgiven?  The Democrats, in part, caused the problem and now they want no part of it.  They've been exposed in one brilliant move by Trump.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
57 minutes ago, Jerry Gallo said:

You know, it's an odd phenomenon. A lot of people claim they are neither right or left, Conservative or Liberal, R or D. Most of them usually find the most innocent explanation for a Democrat while insulting a Conservative in the same discussion. Strange! 

Why would a conservative find this offensive?  Are conservatives not irritated by these sanctuary cities defying federal law?  Don't  conservatives believe that personal feelings do not matter, that what matters is that the illegal immigrants broke the law and should be rounded up and deported?  Have you not been making cracks about sanctuary cities and saying , "Now we will see how they handle it.?"  Do you not consider it wrong to have a sanctuary city and  feel they should be eliminated by cutting off their federal funding, or an influx of thousands of people onto their social system? 

Conservatives could fix the problem as quickly and  with as little pain as possible.   There are a lot of states speaking out now saying  "We are not full. We need labor"  Conservatives could fix that if they so desired by setting up temporary permits and getting people to where employers need them. They could  speed up immigration courts by getting more judges.  They could bring the whole situation into legal compliance.  They could reformulate immigration policy starting with the President and the Senate.  If the priority is to fix the situation and improve border security,  then how about lets get on it.

I would just love some consistency from both sides. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
46 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

On the other hand, what did they expect?  When you protect something you tend to get more of it.  Isn't that the whole point?  The fact that they didn't want any more of what they were claiming to protect is proof that it was merely a political ploy.  The Democrat run cities wanted to appear to be lenient and understanding of illegals in order to win their votes.  When Trump called their bluff they turned into NIMBYs real quick, showing their true colors.  I hope all of the illegals and other immigrants living in these cities realize they've been being used and revolt against the Democrats.  We also can't discount the lure of sanctuary cities in contributing to the problem of mass migration.  Who wouldn't want to go to a place where all your sins were forgiven?  The Democrats, in part, caused the problem and now they want no part of it.  They've been exposed in one brilliant move by Trump.

OK, I will be honest, I haven't been keeping up on responses by sanctuary cities.  Here are a few I found this afternoon.

https://www.wamc.org/post/northeast-cities-react-trump-suggestion-hes-moving-sanctuary-plan-forward

Albany appears on the Center for Immigration Studies map of sanctuary cities. If President Trump wants to bring hardworking immigrants seeking greater opportunities to our city,  who are willing to contribute to and help grow our local economy then we welcome them to the our city."

Burlington, Vermont is also on the sanctuary list. Mayor Miro Weinberger says he's paying close attention to what's coming out of the White House. Burlington has long experience with people relocating to Burlington from around the world."

Svante Myrick is mayor of the sanctuary city of Ithaca in New York's Finger Lakes region. When the president says 'look, we're gonna resettle immigrants in sanctuary cities, cities which are, by the way, on average safer, and have better employment rates than non-sanctuary cities, I say 'well sure, yeah, of course."

Seattle’s Mayor Had the Perfect Response to Trump’s Threat to Send Immigrants to Sanctuary Cities:  So if this president wants to send immigrants and refugees to Seattle and other welcoming cities, let me be clear: We will do what we have always done, and we will be stronger for it. And it will only strengthen our commitment to fighting for the dignity of every person. We will not allow any administration to use the power of America to destroy the promise of America.

Maybe you can find some more from sanctuary cities saying No they don't wan t to accept more immigrants.  So which ones turned into NIMBY's?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MWoo7
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

You know, it's an odd phenomenon. A lot of people claim they are neither right or left, Conservative or Liberal, R or D. Most of them usually find the most innocent explanation for a Democrat while insulting a Conservative in the same discussion. Strange! 

      Its even stranger to hear people talk like that, like two opposite things in the same breath/sentence. I've heard that kind of talk from lawyers and a doctor friend of mine.  As far as forums- well the net , this one is pretty good I have to admit. Here for the most part they let people actually talk.  Most sites one can't say much at all or the comment is NOT ALLOWED, or it just simply disappears; yeah that's great if its obvious troll tripe but sometimes it was the best part !

I can't be the only one that posts something quickly typed, but then- I GO BACK grrrrr , because I know better
... have to come back and delete that page, and just pop in something simplified like this: [just an example to be clear] Well you know not everyone will take that red pill sitting down, have to have grape Kool-Aid on hand or no its strawberry with the red pill my mistake.  Another option of course! can be administered simply by the subtle, tried and true methods through the FOX news subliminals eh?!?!?!?! On the other hand some don't even try to be clever and just chatter away like MSN/MSNBC for one.



  So, by now ? maybe its clear that some cities are saying they will take migrants to appease and keep the Fed. funds flowing?  I'll just have to keep checking the news no reply necessary.

Edited by MWoo7
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Jim
2 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

OK, I will be honest, I haven't been keeping up on responses by sanctuary cities.  Here are a few I found this afternoon.

https://www.wamc.org/post/northeast-cities-react-trump-suggestion-hes-moving-sanctuary-plan-forward

Albany appears on the Center for Immigration Studies map of sanctuary cities. If President Trump wants to bring hardworking immigrants seeking greater opportunities to our city,  who are willing to contribute to and help grow our local economy then we welcome them to the our city."

Burlington, Vermont is also on the sanctuary list. Mayor Miro Weinberger says he's paying close attention to what's coming out of the White House. Burlington has long experience with people relocating to Burlington from around the world."

Svante Myrick is mayor of the sanctuary city of Ithaca in New York's Finger Lakes region. When the president says 'look, we're gonna resettle immigrants in sanctuary cities, cities which are, by the way, on average safer, and have better employment rates than non-sanctuary cities, I say 'well sure, yeah, of course."

Seattle’s Mayor Had the Perfect Response to Trump’s Threat to Send Immigrants to Sanctuary Cities:  So if this president wants to send immigrants and refugees to Seattle and other welcoming cities, let me be clear: We will do what we have always done, and we will be stronger for it. And it will only strengthen our commitment to fighting for the dignity of every person. We will not allow any administration to use the power of America to destroy the promise of America.

Maybe you can find some more from sanctuary cities saying No they don't wan t to accept more immigrants.  So which ones turned into NIMBY's?

 

 

 

 

The negative reactions I heard were mainly from California.

Only a couple responses had quotable parts but they all seem to share the same sentiment.  I especially like the optimism embodied in Albany's statement.  Curiously, none of them are specifically welcoming lawless hordes of needy people, gang members and human traffickers.  I would dare say that none of the people recently crossing the border illegally could find Burlington on a map and therefore it's safe to assume they had no intention of relocating there.  "Relocating" sounds like something out of a travel pamphlet, not at all the first word that comes to mind when I see videos of caravans marching northward with the intention of overwhelming the border with sheer numbers for the purpose of breaching it.  I think their statements are just more politics, trying to out bluff Trump and that none of these cities would benefit from thousands of needy, uneducated, language impaired welfare cases suddenly appearing on their doorstep needing services.  Even if they were "hardworking...seeking opportunities", first they need to be fed, housed, clothed and treated for diseases.  Which of these cities are so free of homeless people that that they have all these services just waiting for someone to need them?

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
Posted (edited)
On 4/12/2019 at 1:19 AM, susieice said:

I'm a little confused here. Aren't Sanctuary Cities intended to be safe havens for undocumented immigrants? Why are people calling this punishment and complaining? 

Nope they're intended to make local government work efficiently.  People are calling it punishment because the POTUS was stupid enough to think that sending them there would be punishment for the cities. Regardless of the actual outcome the thought processing from the highest office in the land is disturbing as hell.

Edited by Farmer77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Jim
1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

Nope they're intended to make local government work efficiently.  People are calling it punishment because the POTUS was stupid enough to think that sending them there would be punishment for the cities. Regardless of the actual outcome the thought processing from the highest office in the land is disturbing as hell.

There is an alternative view.  Trump threatened to send the illegals to sanctuary cities to get their reaction and withdrew it as soon as they protested.  Now no matter what the Dems complain about regarding the handling of illegals, whether they're detained or deported, Trump can say he offered to let them handle it first and they refused.  That's political carte blanche.  It also sends a message to all immigrants, legal or otherwise, that the Dems really don't care, they're just using them by making false promises.

  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
1 minute ago, Big Jim said:

There is an alternative view

There always is, and almost always it involves some idiotic conspiracy that makes Trump look like a genius to his faithful

1 minute ago, Big Jim said:

Trump threatened to send the illegals to sanctuary cities to get their reaction and withdrew it as soon as they protested.  Now no matter what the Dems complain about regarding the handling of illegals, whether they're detained or deported, Trump can say he offered to let them handle it first and they refused.  That's political carte blanche.  It also sends a message to all immigrants, legal or otherwise, that the Dems really don't care, they're just using them by making false promises.

And theres the conspiracy. The problem is none of what you wrote is how it went down. Trump didnt "offer" anyone anything. The story came out because like so many other stories its so freaking absurd that one of his staffers leaked it. Sure theyre trying hard to spin it now because A. the idea of a POTUS being so vindictive should be terrifying to anyone and B. the idea that a POTUS is so stupid as to think sending immigrants to a sanctuary city is "punishment" for said city should be terrifying to anyone.

The fact that their other techniques to attack "blue states" are coming to light probably also makes whomever is closest to a grown up in the WH somewhat leery of such blatant partisanship from the office. Of course that could also explain the recent shakeups with DHS and immigration officials.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Jim
21 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

There always is, and almost always it involves some idiotic conspiracy that makes Trump look like a genius to his faithful

And theres the conspiracy. The problem is none of what you wrote is how it went down. Trump didnt "offer" anyone anything. The story came out because like so many other stories its so freaking absurd that one of his staffers leaked it. Sure theyre trying hard to spin it now because A. the idea of a POTUS being so vindictive should be terrifying to anyone and B. the idea that a POTUS is so stupid as to think sending immigrants to a sanctuary city is "punishment" for said city should be terrifying to anyone.

The fact that their other techniques to attack "blue states" are coming to light probably also makes whomever is closest to a grown up in the WH somewhat leery of such blatant partisanship from the office. Of course that could also explain the recent shakeups with DHS and immigration officials.

 

So we should all be terrified while Trump is President?  Do you live in a bunker?

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
Just now, Big Jim said:

So we should all be terrified while Trump is President?  Do you live in a bunker?

Sigh......I do appreciate the attempt but damn what a sad response. Thats all you can come up with? Not "oh I guess I didnt know the whole story" or at least "thats not what i heard on fox" (or even more absurd maybe actually seeing a flaw in the dear leader) ?  Just pick out a single sentence and twist that into an attack.

IDK why im perpetually surprised. Trump was right (as long as he's mean to the right people) he could shoot someone on 5th avenue and not lose any supporters.

I had typed up the below before giving up on it. I had intended to erase it because its become clear at this point that ignorance is a badge of honor for Trumpians but for normal folks - including republicans - it may ring true so ill leave it.

 

Yes anytime a semi-literate individual with a well established decades' long history of publicly lying and skirting the law has become untethered by 1 of the checks and balances built into the constitution we should all be worried. I know I know semi-literate is mildly hyperbolic but the man has demonstrated at every turn not only a striking ignorance of American government but an absolutely insulting, at least for anyone with a scintilla of patriotism in their body, disinterest in actually learning about our government its history and how it is supposed to work. Given that willful ignorance yes we should be terrified that an individual with the septic cocktail of greed and self interest displayed by Trump during his 40 plus years of public life has become the most powerful man in the world.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
5 hours ago, Big Jim said:

Only a couple responses had quotable parts but they all seem to share the same sentiment.  I especially like the optimism embodied in Albany's statement.  Curiously, none of them are specifically welcoming lawless hordes of needy people, gang members and human traffickers

I will also admit I was falling into the 5th grade playground paradigm of tit for tat,

We should have strong borders, we should not have gang bangers or human traffickers  crossing our borders  unchallenged.   We do have an issue with a stream people crossing the border without any sort of vetting.  We also have a problem with lack of available labor in some parts of the country, most notably not in big cities.

These seem like the sort of problems adults could solve if we worked together  logically.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

Oregon is a sanctuary state, I think. I wonder if thousands are sent here where they will live. There is already an apartment shortage all the way up to 2500 a month. And mainly new 400k homes are being built, not new apartments.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles

Just keep them out of Indiana.   We already have too many.   We already have our own poor uneducated people to deal with.  More won't help.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles

 

 

Here is something good:

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/apr/17/hud-moves-cancel-illegal-immigrants-public-housing/

The Trump administration is proposing a new rule to try to block some 32,000 illegal immigrant-led families from claiming public housing assistance, saying it’s unfair to hundreds of thousands of Americans who are stuck on waiting lists.

Housing and Urban Development notified Congress Wednesday of the new rule, kicking off a schedule of publication and notice and comment that could have the plan finalized later this summer.

 

The plan would scrap Clinton-era regulations that allowed illegal immigrants to sign up for assistance without having to disclose their status.

Under the new Trump rules, not only would the leaseholder using public housing have to be an eligible U.S. person, but the government would verify all applicants through the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database, a federal system that’s used to weed illegal immigrants out of other welfare programs.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jerry Gallo
10 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Why would a conservative find this offensive?  Are conservatives not irritated by these sanctuary cities defying federal law?  Don't  conservatives believe that personal feelings do not matter, that what matters is that the illegal immigrants broke the law and should be rounded up and deported?  Have you not been making cracks about sanctuary cities and saying , "Now we will see how they handle it.?"  Do you not consider it wrong to have a sanctuary city and  feel they should be eliminated by cutting off their federal funding, or an influx of thousands of people onto their social system? 

Conservatives could fix the problem as quickly and  with as little pain as possible.   There are a lot of states speaking out now saying  "We are not full. We need labor"  Conservatives could fix that if they so desired by setting up temporary permits and getting people to where employers need them. They could  speed up immigration courts by getting more judges.  They could bring the whole situation into legal compliance.  They could reformulate immigration policy starting with the President and the Senate.  If the priority is to fix the situation and improve border security,  then how about lets get on it.

I would just love some consistency from both sides. 

What is offensive is virtue signaling, portraying one side in the most pleasant and warm way possible, while also suggesting that anyone in favor of tightening immigration enforcement can only be doing so out of insensitivity or lack of concern for visitors and/or to ridicule and punish anyone who disagrees. So, to address your post...

Yes, I personally am irritated by the constant defiance of federal law. The left applauds the violation, cheers for our courts to endorse the violation. On this point, how am I the bad guy of the two sides, to an independent? Even if you hate the law, you change it, not break it with callous disregard, yes?

Yes, I believe personal feelings are a bad precedent for federal policy creation or enforcement. I am not without emotion; I too care about humanity. My intellect guides my emotion, realizing there are finite resources and that the laws we have are designed to support and protect OUR people. I feel far worse for the people of Africa enduring lawless dictators. They have far fewer option to flee, far fewer sanctuaries. I feel bad for countries that lack knowledge and innovation, stuck in the 10th Century. But the US is not the world's salve, especially when it cannot even treat its own wounds. So, you prioritize your emotions with intellect.

I don't know that rounding up and deporting pro-actively is realistically feasible, but I 100% endorse deporting those caught by police for committing crimes or violating terms of their status here. But let's not move the goal posts here, were not talking about the tens of millions that have been here a decade right now. We're talking about preventing that number from doubling until we can find a solution. I've seen you recently support my side on border security, just want to acknowledge that.

I personally have not said "now we will see how they handle it", but if I must answer for all on my side, I am sure it's been said. Statements like that are a rhetorical mechanism to illustrate a singular point that the left denies every time. And the middle gives them a free pass. Walls, guns, tax law, welfare, immigration...in fact almost every liberal policy is great until or unless it affects them personally. Then there is back tracking. Then there are the excuses. Schumer and Pelosi once crusaded for border security, now they oppose it. They are for sanctuary when that notion can be weaponized against opposition, against it when sanctuary becomes their personal burden. I expect the left to ignore that hypocrisy. I expect them to make excuses like "maybe they've learned, maybe they've changed their minds". The middle, the indies, never call that out with animus. But if the right were to exhibit that, here comes the wisecracks.

Federal funding is a whole other can of worms, much deeper than using it generally as a talking point. For example, if someone on my side said, "let's punish SF, let's take away their federal immigrant dollars and show them who's boss", my first question would be "do we know that those dollars are going to immigrants" or perhaps "can we ensure they won't simply take funds from other programs to continue funding immigrant issues?".

My point is, independent's support for my side, when it happens, is clinical, understated, and certainly without animosity towards the left. But when they support the left, the support is adamant, vocal, and full of personally critical comments about the right. I simply wonder if that means that many more people lean Democrat and just don't realize it or want to admit it.

Conservatives might be able to fix this, maybe even quickly, but certainly not without pain. That last part depends on perspective. Trump's first steps to a "fix" are a non-negotiable full stop on the border to at least plug the bleeding hole, ending the visa lottery program (it's outdated and impractical with overflows of people streaming in), and reforming chain migration (loophole in immigration law). His compromise is on DACA, which a lot of Conservatives oppose. But it's the left who is stalling the fix. It's the left blocking judges. I agree the Republicans should be more pro-active on this, but you didn't mention one word of leftist obstruction or activism that has been a roadblock since the day Trump got into office. So here again, you put most of the blame on Conservatives. If you ask me, I think things like immigration reform will happen properly when the indies of the country demand the left stands down and do it someone else's way.

The Republicans are crooks no less than the Democrats. But they are far more consistent, the most valid of insults point that out with their unwillingness to progress. The left is all over the place with myriad examples of "trust us, we'll make good later" and then they never make good. So, I don't feel the right should have to apologize or endure insults from the middle for drawing a long overdue line in the sand. Hopefully I've adequately articulated why I support drawing that line (I apologize for being overly wordy in my attempt) and you comprehend a reasonable, intellectual logic behind it, even as you may disagree. If indies really want honest and real conversation, I am willing. But allowing themselves to participate in the traditional leftist hubris, even if only occasionally, is what caused my question in the post you quoted.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles

Well said Gallo.  

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
12 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

OK, I will be honest, I haven't been keeping up on responses by sanctuary cities.  Here are a few I found this afternoon.

https://www.wamc.org/post/northeast-cities-react-trump-suggestion-hes-moving-sanctuary-plan-forward

Albany appears on the Center for Immigration Studies map of sanctuary cities. If President Trump wants to bring hardworking immigrants seeking greater opportunities to our city,  who are willing to contribute to and help grow our local economy then we welcome them to the our city."

Burlington, Vermont is also on the sanctuary list. Mayor Miro Weinberger says he's paying close attention to what's coming out of the White House. Burlington has long experience with people relocating to Burlington from around the world."

Svante Myrick is mayor of the sanctuary city of Ithaca in New York's Finger Lakes region. When the president says 'look, we're gonna resettle immigrants in sanctuary cities, cities which are, by the way, on average safer, and have better employment rates than non-sanctuary cities, I say 'well sure, yeah, of course."

Seattle’s Mayor Had the Perfect Response to Trump’s Threat to Send Immigrants to Sanctuary Cities:  So if this president wants to send immigrants and refugees to Seattle and other welcoming cities, let me be clear: We will do what we have always done, and we will be stronger for it. And it will only strengthen our commitment to fighting for the dignity of every person. We will not allow any administration to use the power of America to destroy the promise of America.

Maybe you can find some more from sanctuary cities saying No they don't wan t to accept more immigrants.  So which ones turned into NIMBY's?

It’ll be curious to see if the attitudes of these Mayors remain the same a few months after this is implemented?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
3 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

My point is, independent's support for my side, when it happens, is clinical, understated, and certainly without animosity towards the left. But when they support the left, the support is adamant, vocal, and full of personally critical comments about the right. I simply wonder if that means that many more people lean Democrat and just don't realize it or want to admit it.

It is a valid point, and a thought provoking one. I will strive to keep it in mind.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
2 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

It’ll be curious to see if the attitudes of these Mayors remain the same a few months after this is implemented?

Yes it will.

As we can predict, any city inundated with 10,000 people with no jobs, no shelter, and no money will certainly be a strain.  Most cities already have a population of homeless citizens that don't all seem amenable to help.  

The question becomes, how to make the best of it?  Will they fail or will they be able to coordinate with employers who need labor?  Part of that question will depend on immigrant status.  Are they out pending a hearing and can work with temporary work permits or not?   Does somebody reanimate the concept of a poor farm from the early 1900's, where people live and work?  I am only assuming, but it may be that some of the farmers and rural business owners that need help are conservatives and Trump supporters.  They also might have a big stake in working this out. Will liberals and conservatives somehow come together on this and solve it or will we sit back in our trenches and watch warily?

Either way,  we need a secure border.  How we figure out what to do with the people already here remains to be seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles

Can't we just pull a Mexico and help them travel north to the next border?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.