Democrats are okay with illegal immigrants flooding the Border. But they don't want them flooding their Sanctuary Cities. That too is a Wall.
Their Wall will be made of Lawyers, Federal Injunctions, and Political Leverage... but it is still a Wall.
And unlike the Smart (Emperor's New) Wall they propose for the Southern Border, their federal injunctions and such like will prevent the illegal immigrants from crossing into their back yard.
Perhaps the "Sanctuaries" will allow some of the illegal immigrants into the open embrace of their asylum... but still, limiting the numbers thereof affords them a privilege that the Border States are not given.
At best what the Sanctuary Cities propose is a Gate... and if in fact they are in favor of a Gate... why not put one in the Wall along the border... and then you can let as many people through as you want to.
It's called Sovereignty, bitchez.
17
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
3 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.Even NBC News reported that in the month of March the Border Patrol reported 103,000 illegal immigrants crossing into the US.
That's a problem. But apparently some of our leaders in Congress don't care about it... because it's not their problem.
Perhaps it's not the best way... but one way to get this resolved is to make it their problem.
An_Ominous
Level 7
Apr 15, 2019
0
Have any Democrats said that they don't want undocumented immigrants to be taken to sanctuary cities? I haven't seen that. I am under the impression that the objection to Trump's plan is on the matter of the logistics of the situation. For example, if ICE buses 100,000 immigrants to San Francisco and lets them loose, Democrats would rightfully be upset at Trump. If immigrants are taken in reasonably-sized waves to cities all over the country, and they are given adequate living quarters, I don't think that would necessarily be a problem. I guess if Trump wanted to detain them for longer periods of time than previously or under inhumane conditions then that would be a problem.
michell
Level 3
Apr 14, 2019
0
As I understand matters... which is no doubt imperfectly, over 100K illegals crossed the border last month. The projection for this month is one hundred thirty thousand.
The border states cannot deal with these kind of numbers. They have far outstripped the ability of the Border Patrol to deal with them. There aren't any more beds or other facilities to deal with them.
Without busing them in waves or what have you to evenly distribute them geographically they constitute an undue burden on the border states.
So if San Francisco would be understandably upset with an influx of 100K illegal immigrants then the border states are likewise understandably upset.
The numbers are mind boggling... and unsustainable. The logistics, the health concerns (most of these people are not vaccinated), the sheer chaos... it is a crisis.
Pelosi said that Trump's plan to ship illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities is "disrespectful" of the challenges we face as a nation.
So that's not an outright refusal... but it sure isn't "open arms" either.
With that said I think Oakland and Chicago have offered to take them.
Immediately after Trump floated his "plan" multiple news sources questioned whether it would be legal.
That also doesn't sound like unconditional acceptance. Also... since when does the word "legal" have anything to do with this? The immigrants cross the border illegally, sanctuary cities are defying federal law... so suddenly we're concerned with legality?
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.