Bussing migrants to sanctuary cities

[BlueTex]

No. They're not citizens, and by coming here illegally, even if they may be applying for asylum, they have no say in the way in which the local authorities house or transport them, though obviously the authorities must not violate explicit American laws.

But this is irrelevant if the immigrants were indeed asked for their input, as the OP states.

Too bad.. they can choose to live where ever the hell they want and there isn't shit the GQP can do to stop them

 

[forn]

It certainly isn't fair to the border states to make them absorb all the illegal aliens.

 

[Lord of Planar]

It certainly isn't fair to the border states to make them absorb all the illegal aliens.

Yep.

If the border state doesn't want them, I believe they should ship them off to a sanctuary city.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

No. They're not citizens, and by coming here illegally, even if they may be applying for asylum, they have no say in the way in which the local authorities house or transport them, though obviously the authorities must not violate explicit American laws.

But this is irrelevant if the immigrants were indeed asked for their input, as the OP states.

Absolutely false, they have full protective rights of the constitution and state law, no one can be transported against their will unless under arrest. Florida and TX authorities made sure to get the migrants to sign off on their transports. Many did not understand what they were signing.
You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth, following up with "they must not violate "american" laws......whatever the hell that means. Is that south, central, and Canadian laws too?

 

[Ouroboros]

Too bad.. they can choose to live where ever the hell they want and there isn't shit the GQP can do to stop them

You mean there's nothing that can be done while there's a virtue signaling Dem Prez in the WH, who's so desperate to be "anti-racist" that he'll let illegals move in to the country, at least temporarily. That situation will inevitably change, and it may not even be a GOP candidate who reverses Biden's demented agenda. We might get another deporter-in-chief like You Know Who if sanity returns to the donkeys.

 

[Ouroboros]

Absolutely false, they have full protective rights of the constitution and state law, no one can be transported against their will unless under arrest. Florida and TX authorities made sure to get the migrants to sign off on their transports. Many did not understand what they were signing.
You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth, following up with "they must not violate "american" laws......whatever the hell that means. Is that south, central, and Canadian laws too?

Again you go out of your way to demonstrate your laughable lack of reading skills. The civil authorities in America only have to obey American laws. Or didn't you realize that that part of the sentence clearly referenced the authorities, not the immigrants?

Every state can determine where they choose to locate persons applying for asylum, and the immigrants have no specific choice as to where they're housed. A lot of Mad Libs don't want the immigrants to go to sanctuary cities so they make up phony excuses about the illegals not understanding things. The real agenda is not to take care of these poor lost waifs (some of whom travel through 2 or 3 other countries to get here) but to punish Red States economically.

 

[BlueTex]

You mean there's nothing that can be done while there's a virtue signaling Dem Prez in the WH, who's so desperate to be "anti-racist" that he'll let illegals move in to the country, at least temporarily. That situation will inevitably change, and it may not even be a GOP candidate who reverses Biden's demented agenda. We might get another deporter-in-chief like You Know Who if sanity returns to the donkeys.

LOL… The right to live where they want is a constitutional right…

 

[Big Brother]

LOL… The right to live where they want is a constitutional right…

Whatever happened to the bleeding heart liberals? These poor souls are trying to escape their leftist shitholes for our leftist paradise and you don't want them in your leftist paradise sanctuary cities, you want them to remain in conservative areas where they will be subject to all the evils of MAGA on a daily basis? At least let them get into a santuary city where they can learn the language, learn some skills that will benefit them in the labor market, and apply for citizenship. And over those years they will also learn that there really is no leftist paradise here and America will soon become a shithole just like their old country and their first time they can legally vote you can be damn sure they will all vote MAGA. But until then, have a heart you cruel selfish liberals. Party of the people, the minorities and the disenfranchised my ass.

 

[Ouroboros]

LOL… The right to live where they want is a constitutional right…

Not till they're actual citizens.

 

[BlueTex]

Not till they're actual citizens.

Bullshit.. Trump University Law graduate?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Again you go out of your way to demonstrate your laughable lack of reading skills. The civil authorities in America only have to obey American laws. Or didn't you realize that that part of the sentence clearly referenced the authorities, not the immigrants?

Every state can determine where they choose to locate persons applying for asylum, and the immigrants have no specific choice as to where they're housed. A lot of Mad Libs don't want the immigrants to go to sanctuary cities so they make up phony excuses about the illegals not understanding things. The real agenda is not to take care of these poor lost waifs (some of whom travel through 2 or 3 other countries to get here) but to punish Red States economically.

The liberals want them for mowing their yards and other cheap labor, but then complain about the minimum wage being too low.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Whatever happened to the bleeding heart liberals? These poor souls are trying to escape their leftist shitholes for our leftist paradise and you don't want them in your leftist paradise sanctuary cities, you want them to remain in conservative areas where they will be subject to all the evils of MAGA on a daily basis? At least let them get into a santuary city where they can learn the language, learn some skills that will benefit them in the labor market, and apply for citizenship. And over those years they will also learn that there really is no leftist paradise here and America will soon become a shithole just like their old country and their first time they can legally vote you can be damn sure they will all vote MAGA. But until then, have a heart you cruel selfish liberals. Party of the people, the minorities and the disenfranchised my ass.

We cannot take everyone in whom wants to come here. You don't comprehend logistics. Do you?

 

[Big Brother]

We cannot take everyone in whom wants to come here. You don't comprehend logistics. Do you?

I completely understand, but that is not stopping the democrats from letting them pour through the border by the thousands every day. So, if they are going to be welcomed into the country by the democrats, they should at least go to democrat run cities designated as sanctuary cities. Sooner or later, probably much later, the democrats will learn the very valuable lesson of "Don't piss into the wind."

Edit: I should add that I think every illegal immigrant who has entered in the last two years should be accommodated in D.C. and its suburbs.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I completely understand, but that is not stopping the democrats from letting them pour through the border by the thousands every day.

The democrats are convincing me more and more as time passes that they want to destroy this nation.

So, if they are going to be welcomed into the country by the democrats, they should at least go to democrat run cities designated as sanctuary cities. Sooner or later, probably much later, the democrats will learn the very valuable lesson of "Don't piss into the wind."

Absolutely.

Edit: I should add that I think every illegal immigrant who has entered in the last two years should be accommodated in D.C. and its suburbs.

I will agree with that too.

 

[Nickyjo]

No. They're not citizens, and by coming here illegally, even if they may be applying for asylum, they have no say in the way in which the local authorities house or transport them, though obviously the authorities must not violate explicit American laws.

But this is irrelevant if the immigrants were indeed asked for their input, as the OP states.

My assumption is that if they are paroled into the US, that unless instructed otherwise their obligation is to show up for their hearing or other procedure as told, not to reside in one place or another. When I was volunteering on the border, persons examined and screened in were given a date and place to report, then most often headed to places where relatives or friends were, papers in hand.

 

[ClaraD]

A group of migrants volunteer to be taken to a sanctuary city.

A bus is provided to take them. They are given any food, water, clothing that they need for the trip.

Coordination with migrant charities and organizations in that city are contacted beforehand so they will be ready.

The bus drops the migrants off at these shelters were volunteers are ready to give them shelter, food, clothing, etc.

Is anything above cruel? Please vote and explain.

Note: We're not talking about political moves like dropping them at politician's houses. The above migrants are taken directly to shelters.

That depends on if all of the situation is up front and clear to them...and if they have other family they should be sent to where that family is and not some other place that is half way across the country.
Also, immigration needs to have their court date changed to that location before they ever leave.

 

[Rogue Valley]

The Southern Povery Law Center are made up of Mad Lib sellouts , and has no credibility, except with other Mad Libs.

Jesus. Such shit belongs on 4chan or in a QAnon meeting.

 

[Rogue Valley]

I'm amazed at the number of Debate Politics "liberals" and "independents" who believe it is okay for DeSantis and Abbott to engage in human trafficking for political purposes.

 

[Ouroboros]

Bullshit.. Trump University Law graduate?

Cite your own bullshit or get off the pot.

 

[Ouroboros]

My assumption is that if they are paroled into the US, that unless instructed otherwise their obligation is to show up for their hearing or other procedure as told, not to reside in one place or another. When I was volunteering on the border, persons examined and screened in were given a date and place to report, then most often headed to places where relatives or friends were, papers in hand.

That's a very reasonable position, in contrast to earlier statements by other posters on this thread. But if there was any sort of federal statute that bound all member states into keeping illegals applying for parole in the state where the illegals arrive, that statute would have been cited a thousand times by the MSM. Instead we get Newsome trying to put across the idea of "kidnapping." If the authorities within a state (particularly a sanctuary state) choose to keep illegals in their states while the illegals petition for a court date, then yes, those states don't have the right to tell the illegals where to live while waiting for a court date, though I think the expectation would be that the illegals ought not to be crossing into other states. What we're talking about, though, is whether a non-sanctuary state is bound to keep uninvited illegals within those state boundaries. Why not send them to the sanctuary states that *say* they want all comers?

 

[Ouroboros]

I'm amazed at the number of Debate Politics "liberals" and "independents" who believe it is okay for DeSantis and Abbott to engage in human trafficking for political purposes.

It's an insult to the actual victims of human trafficking to use the term for parole applicants being given their dream to travel to alleged sanctuary domains.

 

[Rogue Valley]

It's an insult to the actual victims of human trafficking to use the term for parole applicants being given their dream to travel to alleged sanctuary domains.

Lol. Your asinine words, not theirs.

 

[Ouroboros]

Lol. Your asinine words, not theirs.

Oh, you mean that the illegals PREFER to be in places where they're not wanted, as opposed to being in places where the authorities CLAIM to want them?

I confess I didn't imagine them having that rather perverse dream. But do you have direct testimony from these illegals you're championing? Nope, because you're just posting on autopilot and not examining your own claims with any rigor.

 

[Nickyjo]

That's a very reasonable position, in contrast to earlier statements by other posters on this thread. But if there was any sort of federal statute that bound all member states into keeping illegals applying for parole in the state where the illegals arrive, that statute would have been cited a thousand times by the MSM. Instead we get Newsome trying to put across the idea of "kidnapping." If the authorities within a state (particularly a sanctuary state) choose to keep illegals in their states while the illegals petition for a court date, then yes, those states don't have the right to tell the illegals where to live while waiting for a court date, though I think the expectation would be that the illegals ought not to be crossing into other states. What we're talking about, though, is whether a non-sanctuary state is bound to keep uninvited illegals within those state boundaries. Why not send them to the sanctuary states that *say* they want all comers?

A I repeat what I understand about sanctuary cities and states, that their commitment is not to shelter illegals, but to refrain from calling the immigration authorities if say, the come forward as witnesses in cases, are accused of crimes, are reporting crimes by smugglers, etc. They don’t “say they want all comers.” If there are some locales that say different, can anyone quote from the relevant declarations?

 

[Ouroboros]

A I repeat what I understand about sanctuary cities and states, that their commitment is not to shelter illegals, but to refrain from calling the immigration authorities if say, the come forward as witnesses in cases, are accused of crimes, are reporting crimes by smugglers, etc. They don’t “say they want all comers.” If there are some locales that say different, can anyone quote from the relevant declarations?

I know what sanctuary advocates claim they want to accomplish with their non-cooperation policies. Some of them may mean the professed ideals; others may have covert motives. In any case, the EFFECT is that "all comers" among the illegals will seek out sanctuary cities on the chance that they can function on the margins of society without serious opposition.

Going back to the original argument, I've stated that there's no federal law requiring a given state to keep non-citizens applying for sanctuary within the borders of that state, just because that's where the non-citizen entered the country. Apparently Florida and Texas have not as yet sent any illegals to states that have not permitted their entry, so Newsome's kidnapping charge remains nonsense.