Bay Area Mayor Reacts to Trump's Proposal to Dump Illegals in Sanctuary Cities

Jul 2013
38,923
25,001
On a happy trail
Flores v Reno was decided during the Clinton administration. Since then , every administration has found a way to comply with the ruling - until Trump. Our asylum laws already designate a specified number of applicants per year . That number takes economic impact into consideration. The Trump DHS study concluded that refugees : “‘contributed an estimated $269.1 billion in revenues to all levels of government’ between 2005 and 2014 through the payment of federal, state and local taxes. ‘Overall, this report estimated that the net fiscal impact of refugees was positive over the 10-year period, at $63 billion.’” https://www.upwardlyglobal.org/wp-c...te_StrategiesforSkilledRefugeeIntegration.pdf

I mean , since you brought it up.
Funny how the argument is either they are costing the gov too much or that they are giving businesses in certain areas an unfair advantage because they will work for peanuts. Meanwhile they manage to buy NEW cars and trucks and in some cases homes.
 
Apr 2018
10,204
2,550
oregon
Funny how the argument is either they are costing the gov too much or that they are giving businesses in certain areas an unfair advantage because they will work for peanuts. Meanwhile they manage to buy NEW cars and trucks and in some cases homes.
It makes no difference either way. They entered the country illegally. There is a legal pathway into the country. Follow it and you're a welcome addition. Skirt it and you're subject to legal consequences.
 

the watchman

Former Staff
Jul 2011
91,227
56,529
becoming more and more
Funny how the argument is either they are costing the gov too much or that they are giving businesses in certain areas an unfair advantage because they will work for peanuts. Meanwhile they manage to buy NEW cars and trucks and in some cases homes.
We now know what white nationalist refugee resettlement policy looks like.
 

the watchman

Former Staff
Jul 2011
91,227
56,529
becoming more and more
It makes no difference either way. They entered the country illegally. There is a legal pathway into the country. Follow it and you're a welcome addition. Skirt it and you're subject to legal consequences.
We were talking about refugees who have already gone through the legal process .
 
Last edited:
Jan 2012
804
260
SoCal
Matthew Albence, ICE’s acting deputy director, questioned the proposal in an email to the White House in November after it was first raised as a possibility, saying that arranging for transportation would strain the department and weaken its enforcement efforts.

“As a result of the influx at the border and the record number of aliens in detention, we have already had to decrease our interior operational footprint to manage these cases, resulting in less officers out on the streets making arrests of criminal aliens, public safety threats, fugitives, and other immigration violators,” Albence wrote in an email reviewed by The Washington Post. “Not sure how paying to transport aliens to another location to release them — when they can be released on the spot — is a justified expenditure.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immi...d3ed7eb3957_story.html?utm_term=.b29ad4fbb76b
I'm wondering why the mere act of questioning the matter makes it settled that it can't be done in your eyes. It's sort of an interesting double standard. If this were a Supreme Court decision the cry would be to stack the court. If it were an election then time to harass electors or destroy the electoral college. If it were the Trump AG questioning spying or redacting a report then you don't accept it. If it is the Trump treasury secretary in a discussion on tax returns you fail to accept it.

Yet one questioning quote and you just expect everyone to drop the subject. Why does that semi-appeal to authority only work in one direction?

I don't believe the President ever had any intentions of sending illegals to sanctuary cities.

It's not even like it could legally be done.

I think he is intentionally punking the Left on this one.
He could be punking them or at a minimum just exposing them for the lying hypocrites they happen to be in this area.

It seems that most posters here have a problem of understanding english. I believe what was said is that rumputin is wanting to use people as political thunder. Now i am going to post a picture. View attachment 23101
You are welcome to show how any of the people in question are subject to a set of Nuremberg type laws that are specifically setting them on a path toward genocide.

Flores v Reno was decided during the Clinton administration. Since then , every administration has found a way to comply with the ruling - until Trump. Our asylum laws already designate a specified number of applicants per year . That number takes economic impact into consideration. The Trump DHS study concluded that refugees : “‘contributed an estimated $269.1 billion in revenues to all levels of government’ between 2005 and 2014 through the payment of federal, state and local taxes. ‘Overall, this report estimated that the net fiscal impact of refugees was positive over the 10-year period, at $63 billion.’” https://www.upwardlyglobal.org/wp-c...te_StrategiesforSkilledRefugeeIntegration.pdf

I mean , since you brought it up.
Then Trump is basically sending seeds that will generate unprocedented wealth and prosperity. They should be advocating specifically to have these folks sent to their cities, counties and states. I mean if someone is a proven economic positive and you don't want them, then you are probably a racist.
 
Likes: John T Ford

HayJenn

Moderator
Jul 2014
66,556
55,208
CA
I'm wondering why the mere act of questioning the matter makes it settled that it can't be done in your eyes. It's sort of an interesting double standard. If this were a Supreme Court decision the cry would be to stack the court. If it were an election then time to harass electors or destroy the electoral college. If it were the Trump AG questioning spying or redacting a report then you don't accept it. If it is the Trump treasury secretary in a discussion on tax returns you fail to accept it.

That literally makes no sense. Talking about how much money it would cost, and the logistics of implementing this "policy"

From the ICE director no less.
 
Sep 2012
3,819
3,726
California
You mean the program that deports people who are not legally citizens of the United States? I’m sorry. Why is that a Pogrom?
Its the same thing as a pogrom. We round up the undesirables using the police and vigilante citizens, treat them like dirt, cage them, deny them due process, scapegoat them, vilify them and then destroy their entire world without caring one bit about them as human beings worthy of fair and honest treatment. Yes, it is a pogrom without the bloodletting, at least not yet.