Isn’t this fun? Donald Trump has demanded that illegal immigrants- what today will be called asylum seekers no doubt – caught by the Federal authorities should be sent to those places which have declared themselves to be Sanctuary Cities. You know, if you’ve said that you’re willing to take in immigrants then you live up to your word and take in immigrants. Seems fair, doesn’t it?
And do note that below the political buffoonery, if that’s what you want to call it, there’s a serious point too. Talk is cheap, we only ever find out if people really want something when they actually do it.
Just out: The USA has the absolute legal right to have apprehended illegal immigrants transferred to Sanctuary Cities. We hereby demand that they be taken care of at the highest level, especially by the State of California, which is well known or its poor management & high taxes!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 14, 2019
Or as it is put:
White House spokesman Hogan Gidley on Saturday told Fox News shortly before the announcement that the administration was working with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to try to send undocumented immigrants to sanctuary cities. “They have said they wanted all of these illegal aliens into their communities,” Gidley said on Fox News’s “Justice with Judge Jeanine.” “We’re working with DHS, we’re working with ICE, to try and make sure that happens because, after all, it’s what they want. They should not say, ‘This is retribution politically.’ They should say, ‘This is an olive branch,'” he continued.
It’s worth understanding a bit here. Federal policy is that such illegal immigrants are, well, illegal. In so far as we think we actually have democracy then that’s a democratic decision. The majority of those currently inside the USA think that not everyone should be able to turn up and be in the USA. Thus that’s what Federal policy is.
Sure, in some locales that view might be different. And in some locales the local politicians at least claim that it is. Their designation of their ‘burb as a sanctuary city is justified by the manner in which the majority of those living there think that the policy they’d like to see followed. Certainly, none of the local politicians are claiming that their peeps are against it but they’re doing it anyway.
So, we’ve a difference between the democratic outcome over the whole of the nation and in fractions of it. Not unusual of course, this happens with all sorts of policies. To which the correct answer is to allow different locales to follow their own wishes. New York State – and NYC more so – levies higher taxes upon incomes than Texas. There’s absolutely nothing at all we can see in any political result in either place to tell us that this isn’t what those populations desire. So, local democracy for local things.
If certain areas are just cool with illegal immigrants and others aren’t then we should indeed be sending the illegals to the sanctuary cities.
The Washington Post first reported that the White House proposed sending the detainees to sanctuary cities, including Pelosi’s district, twice in the last six months. The proposal was first floated in November amid reports of a large migrant caravan from Central America making its way to the southern border. The idea was again considered in February, amid the standoff with Congress over a border wall. “The extent of this Administration’s cynicism and cruelty cannot be overstated,” Pelosi spokeswoman Ashley Etienne said in a statement Friday. “Using human beings—including little children—as pawns in their warped game to perpetuate fear and demonize immigrants is despicable, and in some cases, criminal.”
Well, yes. Except is it Trump who is using them as pawns? Or that other side. Sure, open the borders, just don’t send them to me? You know, is the sanctuary city movement more of an all hat no cattle sorta thing? Or to be cruder about it, fur coat and no knickers?
The more screaming there is about this idea the more we might think that to be true, eh?