Trump: Oakland is trying to delay our asylee sanctuary resettlement plan | Oakland: Come on, send em

Singularity

Former Staff
Oct 2009
31,818
25,379
Kansas
#51
Incorrect. The federal government didn't invite them in for sanctuary, the liberal sanctuary cities did.
The idea Trump is proposing would result in more asylees — who actually need no "sanctuary," in this context, since they're following federal law — being admitted and settled in the United States. It's not clear that he realizes this, and if he does he'll probably back off of it. If he realizes it.
 
Apr 2018
10,204
2,550
oregon
#52
I agree with you, then. If a mechanism can be found so city and state dollars are used to move these folks, it should be employed.

I think you'll find that if the federal government gets out of the way, many communities will take refugees and asylees sight unseen.

It remains relevant that at the moment, Trump is proposing to use federal dollars to move them. Oakland, at least, says he should.
Even if the feds have to pay, I'd be okay with it. If the liberals sue to get the courts to stop the illegals from immediately being tossed back into the country they've entered from, they need to be taken somewhere. Why not where they're welcome?
 
Apr 2018
10,204
2,550
oregon
#53
The idea Trump is proposing would result in more asylees —.
Why? They are going to apply regardless of where they're sent. The illegals need to be dealt with as well, correct?
who actually need no "sanctuary,"
They need to be somewhere while their cases wind their way through the system. Why not cities that have stated they are welcome? Same with illegals.
in this context, since they're following federal law — being admitted and settled in the United States.
Federal law does not stipulate a specific place for them to be while they are being processed. Again, why not in cities and states that claim to be safe havens for them?
It's not clear that he realizes this, and if he does he'll probably back off of it. If he realizes it
Realizes what? People are coming across our southern border, both seeking asylum and just plain illegally. If we can't immediately deport them, they need to be somewhere. Are the border states responsible for that? Why? And why wouldn't sanctuary cities/states want them?
 

Singularity

Former Staff
Oct 2009
31,818
25,379
Kansas
#54
Why? They are going to apply regardless of where they're sent.
And now they will know they will get a plane ticket (or at least a bus ride) to a community that likes them.

You don't think news of that will get around? Exactly how do you think the caravans became a thing?

Either way, it doesn't bother me. I will take all the asylees in my neighborhood that we can house or build housing for.

The illegals need to be dealt with as well, correct?
So far as I know, nobody is suggesting this happen with illegals, only those who have lawfully applied for asylum.

Straight up illegals, people who cross and seek to hide in the interior, shouldn't benefit from this.

That said, we need more detention facilities to hold those people pending deportation proceedings.

Federal law does not stipulate a specific place for them to be while they are being processed.

Again, why not in cities and states that claim to be safe havens for them?
Wow. Cognitive dissonance.

I have repeatedly stated to you that the cities and states in question SHOULD take them, and apparently WANT them.

Hello, orangecat, hablas ingles?
 
Mar 2019
4,225
1,495
California
#55
Poor baby, those imaginary figments getting you down again?
Even if the feds have to pay, I'd be okay with it. If the liberals sue to get the courts to stop the illegals from immediately being tossed back into the country they've entered from, they need to be taken somewhere. Why not where they're welcome?
Seems Gavin Newsome has a case of NIMBY Syndrome. (Not In My Back Yard)
 
Apr 2018
10,204
2,550
oregon
#56
And now they will know they will get a plane ticket (or at least a bus ride) to a community that likes them.

You don't think news of that will get around? Exactly how do you think the caravans became a thing?

Either way, it doesn't bother me. I will take all the asylees in my neighborhood that we can house or build housing for.


So far as I know, nobody is suggesting this happen with illegals, only those who have lawfully applied for asylum.

Straight up illegals, people who cross and seek to hide in the interior, shouldn't benefit from this.

That said, we need more detention facilities to hold those people pending deportation proceedings.


Wow. Cognitive dissonance.

I have repeatedly stated to you that the cities and states in question SHOULD take them, and apparently WANT them.

Hello, orangecat, hablas ingles?
Fair enough. Personally, I draw a distinction between three groups attempting entry:
1. Those who come to a port of entry and apply for asylum. Good people to be treated with respect.
2. Those who get caught crossing illegally and then claim asylum. Not buying it. You're the same as group 3.
3. Those who sneak in illegally because they can't be bothered to follow our laws. No pity. Get in line and wait your turn.
 
Likes: spyydrr

Singularity

Former Staff
Oct 2009
31,818
25,379
Kansas
#57
Fair enough. Personally, I draw a distinction between three groups attempting entry:
1. Those who come to a port of entry and apply for asylum. Good people to be treated with respect.
2. Those who get caught crossing illegally and then claim asylum. Not buying it. You're the same as group 3.
3. Those who sneak in illegally because they can't be bothered to follow our laws. No pity. Get in line and wait your turn.
There is ambiguity because people don't necessarily know the system and so what they've done is cross the border and start wandering around, looking for the Border Patrol.

Otherwise, this is generally fair. I don't have much sympathy for bona fide border jumpers. Much of the time, those people are traffickers of either drugs or humans. Bad people.
 
Apr 2018
10,204
2,550
oregon
#58
There is ambiguity because people don't necessarily know the system.
Ignorance of the law is not justification for breaking it. People know they're attempting to enter a country illegally. That's exactly why the go to remote areas.
and so what they've done is cross the border and start wandering around, looking for the Border Patrol.
I'm sorry, but I just don't buy that. They do that because they don't want to wait in line and can cut to the front by illegally crossing the border. It's an insult to those who follow the rules.
Otherwise, this is generally fair. I don't have much sympathy for bona fide border jumpers. Much of the time, those people are traffickers of either drugs or humans. Bad people
Agreed.
 
Likes: WolfHulk

Singularity

Former Staff
Oct 2009
31,818
25,379
Kansas
#59
Ignorance of the law is not justification for breaking it. People know they're attempting to enter a country illegally. That's exactly why the go to remote areas.

I'm sorry, but I just don't buy that. They do that because they don't want to wait in line and can cut to the front by illegally crossing the border. It's an insult to those who follow the rules.
Agreed.
It's just as well. The "surge" we've seen in recent months is almost 100 percent people going to ports of entry and claiming asylum.

Most of them are not justifiable asylum cases and will ultimately be rejected. For now, though, gotta do something with them.
 

Singularity

Former Staff
Oct 2009
31,818
25,379
Kansas
#60
I do think ignorance is a factor here. These societies in the Central American Triangle are in full collapse. Education and awareness of the outside world is not really a thing. They are coming here because they've heard from word of mouth that they will be at least processed here in relative safety and with basic needs looked after.

Even so, yes, ignorance of the law is not a defense for violators.
 

Similar Discussions