14 years and counting...

PJPOWER said:

Meltdown99 said:

PJPOWER said:

Meltdown99 said:

PJPOWER said:

Meltdown99 said:

PJPOWER said:

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:

Havent read this thread but giving the illegals to sanctuary cities is a genius idea.  Border towns are shitholes, spread the gift to all the places that have been begging for them.  

Why wouldn’t they want to all be sent to sanctuary cities?  They seem more accommodating...then we can build a wall around the sanctuary cities, lol

Sending them to sanctuary cities should show how dumb Trump is.  Those cities are crawling with lawyers who will be willing to take up their cases...

Exactly, they obviously have the resources (lawyers), so let them give them the assistance they need to become legal citizens.  Instead of sanctuary cities, they could be called “Immigrant Processing Hubs”.  Why would they want to go anywhere else?  

In my opinion, they should be processed quickly at processing stations at the border.  The asylum seekers that come through the door who are rejected should be allowed to apply again at some point...if you come in illegally then you should be banned from ever applying again.

Sounds fair enough!

Now I do not know the standards the US uses in there refugee/asylum process...now I have read that you get rejected in Canada if you are an economic migrant/refugee/asylum/illegal seeker...now whether that really happens who knows, and over 90% are rejected and Canda just brought a judge out of retirement to help process claims and he is well known in his rejection of these claims.

He is nicknamed Dr. No

Man nicknamed ‘Dr. No’ because he denied so many refugees, rehired to decide asylum claims
https://globalnews.ca/news/4903246/immigration-refugee-board-dr-no-rehired-asylum-claims/

Wow, Canadians are so fucking insensitive, lol

PJPOWER said:

Meltdown99 said:

PJPOWER said:

Meltdown99 said:

PJPOWER said:

Meltdown99 said:

PJPOWER said:

Meltdown99 said:

PJPOWER said:

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:

Havent read this thread but giving the illegals to sanctuary cities is a genius idea.  Border towns are shitholes, spread the gift to all the places that have been begging for them.  

Why wouldn’t they want to all be sent to sanctuary cities?  They seem more accommodating...then we can build a wall around the sanctuary cities, lol

Sending them to sanctuary cities should show how dumb Trump is.  Those cities are crawling with lawyers who will be willing to take up their cases...

Exactly, they obviously have the resources (lawyers), so let them give them the assistance they need to become legal citizens.  Instead of sanctuary cities, they could be called “Immigrant Processing Hubs”.  Why would they want to go anywhere else?  

In my opinion, they should be processed quickly at processing stations at the border.  The asylum seekers that come through the door who are rejected should be allowed to apply again at some point...if you come in illegally then you should be banned from ever applying again.

Sounds fair enough!

Now I do not know the standards the US uses in there refugee/asylum process...now I have read that you get rejected in Canada if you are an economic migrant/refugee/asylum/illegal seeker...now whether that really happens who knows, and over 90% are rejected and Canda just brought a judge out of retirement to help process claims and he is well known in his rejection of these claims.

He is nicknamed Dr. No

Man nicknamed ‘Dr. No’ because he denied so many refugees, rehired to decide asylum claims
https://globalnews.ca/news/4903246/immigration-refugee-board-dr-no-rehired-asylum-claims/

Wow, Canadians are so fucking insensitive, lol

LOL.  I think most of the refugees are coming up from the US, that is why most are rejected...they were in a safe country at that point.  

Maybe we should build a wall.  LOL

Wait, the US is a safe country again?  Sooooooo confuuuuuuuused

PJPOWER said:

riotgrl said:

PJPOWER said:

riotgrl said:

PJPOWER said:

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:

Havent read this thread but giving the illegals to sanctuary cities is a genius idea.  Border towns are shitholes, spread the gift to all the places that have been begging for them.  

Why wouldn’t they want to all be sent to sanctuary cities?  They seem more accommodating...then we can build a wall around the sanctuary cities, lol

Does that mean that all the sanctuary cities can retain all the tax revenue generated in their cities?  I know that here in Louisville, KY we'd love to keep our money for our local citizens rather than sending it out to the rest of the state that drains all our tax dollars all the while bitching about what happens here.

Yes, as long as it means you use no state or federal tax dollars in your city

Deal.  Louisville alone generates about 70% of all revenue for the ENTIRE state so I'd say the rest of the state is screwed.  You're ok with that, right?

I’m more than fine with that, but then again, I really don’t give a shit about KY, lol. KY does produce some good bourbon and fried chicken, though...and lube...or is that a different “KY”?

Halifax2TheMax said:

Bring them on. Give them a chance to become citizens. Stop living in fear.

President Trump said his administration is strongly considering placing "illegal immigrants" in sanctuary cities on Friday, marking an increase in the extremity of his immigration ideas.

Be smart: Senior White House officials and immigration lawyers have told Axios that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) would not have enough funds for this and there would be major liabilities if anyone got hurt while being transferred. Regardless, Democratic mayors have said their cities would welcome migrants immigrants if Trump's idea came to fruition.

Show less

What they're saying:

Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney: “The city would be prepared to welcome these immigrants just as we have embraced our immigrant communities for decades."
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel: “As a welcoming city, we would welcome these migrants with open arms, just as we welcomed Syrian refugees, just as we welcomed Puerto Ricans displaced by Hurricane Maria and just as we welcome Rohingya refugees fleeing genocide in Myanmar."
Mayor Marc McGovern of Cambridge, Massachusetts: “I am proud that Cambridge is a sanctuary city. ... Trump is a schoolyard bully who tries to intimidate and threaten people. I’m not intimidated and if asylum seekers find their way to Cambridge, we’ll welcome them.”
San Francisco Mayor London Breed: “Like so many issues we are forced to talk about during this presidency, this isn’t a real idea or a real proposal, it’s just another scare tactic."
Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler: “Humans are not pawns. This is not a game. These are people’s lives ... Portland will continue to protect its sanctuary status in accordance with Oregon law and the U.S. Constitution. We strongly denounce the cruel efforts of this administration to retaliate against sanctuary cities.”
Mayor Daniel Drew of Middletown, Connecticut: “It’s a sign of the president’s tremendous weakness as an executive and weakness as a leader, and of the degree to which he pales in comparison to all of his recent predecessors."
New York Mayor Bill de Blasio: “He uses people like pawns ... New York City will always be the ultimate city of immigrants – the President’s empty threats won’t change that.”
Mayor Steven Hernandez of Coachella, California: “We have already been working alongside partners to ensure that recently arrived families, women and children get the services they need to make their successful transition into America."
https://www.axios.com/what-theyre-saying-mayors-sanctuary-cities-welcome-trumps-latest-immigration-idea-1829d5c7-6577-4644-8f40-bb582003da86.html

 Texas

• Austin, TX                Added 2007, Sources: CRS report; 'Freedom city'? Going beyond 'sanctuary,' Austin, Texas, vows to curtail arrestss, By Jaweek Kaleem, LA Times, 6-19-18
• Baytown, TX            (6-13-07 Local reader observation;  12-9-15 Note: The City of Baytown disputes it's listing as a sanctuary. Status is currently under review.)
• Brownsville, TX
• Channelview, TX      (6-13-07 Local reader observation)
• Denton, TX
• Dallas, TX
• Dallas Co., TX         Added 8-2-16, Source: 10-8-14 DHS DDO Report; Dallas County passes resolution welcoming unauthorized immigrants, Dallas News, 2-7-17.
• El Cenizo, TX          (6-13-07 Congressional Research Service)
• Ft. Worth, TX
• Houston, TX            (Congressional Research Service)
• Katy, TX                 (Congressional Research Service)
• Laredo, TX             (Entry added in 2007. Source added 7-25-15   Breitbart.com article by Brandon Darby, 7-6-15, regarding Laredo PD critical of officers calling Border Patrol. )
• Mcallen, TX
• Port Arthur, TX       Added 6-13-07 Reader/resident observation.
• Rockwell, TX          Added 8-22-18, Source: Victim family member testimony as to local enforcement policy.
• Travis Co., TX        Added 10-13-15, Source: 10-8-14 DHS DDO Report; and Houston Chronicle article by Mike Ward, 1-23-17

https://www.cato.org/blog/crime-along-mexican-border-lower-rest-country

josevolution said:

It’s funny to read how the anti immigrants here can’t fathom that there are cities that would take these humans and just treat them like humans , unlike what this administration is doing treating them like dogs !

riotgrl said:

PJPOWER said:

riotgrl said:

PJPOWER said:

riotgrl said:

PJPOWER said:

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:

Havent read this thread but giving the illegals to sanctuary cities is a genius idea.  Border towns are shitholes, spread the gift to all the places that have been begging for them.  

Why wouldn’t they want to all be sent to sanctuary cities?  They seem more accommodating...then we can build a wall around the sanctuary cities, lol

Does that mean that all the sanctuary cities can retain all the tax revenue generated in their cities?  I know that here in Louisville, KY we'd love to keep our money for our local citizens rather than sending it out to the rest of the state that drains all our tax dollars all the while bitching about what happens here.

Yes, as long as it means you use no state or federal tax dollars in your city

Deal.  Louisville alone generates about 70% of all revenue for the ENTIRE state so I'd say the rest of the state is screwed.  You're ok with that, right?

I’m more than fine with that, but then again, I really don’t give a shit about KY, lol. KY does produce some good bourbon and fried chicken, though...and lube...or is that a different “KY”?

Maybe we should apply this to every sanctuary city and their corresponding state.  My comment may be about KY but you can apply similar logic to all the other sanctuary cities throughout the US and the corresponding revenue that would be generated.  I'm more than happy to host migrants here and I'll give up the citizens of the rest of my state and they can be taken care of by others just like them.  But then again, its generally the 'libtard' cities that are taking care of the rest of 'real' America.

Washington (AFP) - President Donald Trump touted an unlikely new ally Monday in his battle with Democrats over illegal immigration -- the pop star and usually fierce critic Cher.

"I finally agree with @cher!" Trump tweeted after the singer posted her concerns that Los Angeles is in no position to look after poor migrants when it already fails to take care of the homeless.

"I Understand Helping struggling Immigrants, but MY CITY (Los Angeles) ISNT TAKING CARE OF ITS OWN," Cher tweeted on Sunday. "If My State Can't Take Care of Its Own(Many Are VETS)How Can it Take Care Of More.

PJPOWER said:

Meltdown99 said:

riotgrl said:

PJPOWER said:

riotgrl said:

PJPOWER said:

riotgrl said:

PJPOWER said:

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:

Havent read this thread but giving the illegals to sanctuary cities is a genius idea.  Border towns are shitholes, spread the gift to all the places that have been begging for them.  

Why wouldn’t they want to all be sent to sanctuary cities?  They seem more accommodating...then we can build a wall around the sanctuary cities, lol

Does that mean that all the sanctuary cities can retain all the tax revenue generated in their cities?  I know that here in Louisville, KY we'd love to keep our money for our local citizens rather than sending it out to the rest of the state that drains all our tax dollars all the while bitching about what happens here.

Yes, as long as it means you use no state or federal tax dollars in your city

Deal.  Louisville alone generates about 70% of all revenue for the ENTIRE state so I'd say the rest of the state is screwed.  You're ok with that, right?

I’m more than fine with that, but then again, I really don’t give a shit about KY, lol. KY does produce some good bourbon and fried chicken, though...and lube...or is that a different “KY”?

Maybe we should apply this to every sanctuary city and their corresponding state.  My comment may be about KY but you can apply similar logic to all the other sanctuary cities throughout the US and the corresponding revenue that would be generated.  I'm more than happy to host migrants here and I'll give up the citizens of the rest of my state and they can be taken care of by others just like them.  But then again, its generally the 'libtard' cities that are taking care of the rest of 'real' America.

What is "real" America?

Here is a pic of San Francisco (sanctuary city) “taking care” of the homeless:

PJPOWER said:

riotgrl said:

PJPOWER said:

riotgrl said:

PJPOWER said:

riotgrl said:

PJPOWER said:

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:

Havent read this thread but giving the illegals to sanctuary cities is a genius idea.  Border towns are shitholes, spread the gift to all the places that have been begging for them.  

Why wouldn’t they want to all be sent to sanctuary cities?  They seem more accommodating...then we can build a wall around the sanctuary cities, lol

Does that mean that all the sanctuary cities can retain all the tax revenue generated in their cities?  I know that here in Louisville, KY we'd love to keep our money for our local citizens rather than sending it out to the rest of the state that drains all our tax dollars all the while bitching about what happens here.

Yes, as long as it means you use no state or federal tax dollars in your city

Deal.  Louisville alone generates about 70% of all revenue for the ENTIRE state so I'd say the rest of the state is screwed.  You're ok with that, right?

I’m more than fine with that, but then again, I really don’t give a shit about KY, lol. KY does produce some good bourbon and fried chicken, though...and lube...or is that a different “KY”?

Maybe we should apply this to every sanctuary city and their corresponding state.  My comment may be about KY but you can apply similar logic to all the other sanctuary cities throughout the US and the corresponding revenue that would be generated.  I'm more than happy to host migrants here and I'll give up the citizens of the rest of my state and they can be taken care of by others just like them.  But then again, its generally the 'libtard' cities that are taking care of the rest of 'real' America.

Wow, such a libertarian you are.  Trying to wrap my head around this.  You are saying that you are cool with everyone fending for themselves except for those that are in your state and other states illegally?  Does that about sum it up?  And everyone seems cool with sanctuary cities carrying the burden, so what are you even complaining about?
I’m thinking a majority of your cities taxes would be gobbled up with free housing and other costs related to the major influx of a homeless population, though...

PJPOWER said:

Meltdown99 said:

PJPOWER said:

Meltdown99 said:

riotgrl said:

PJPOWER said:

riotgrl said:

PJPOWER said:

riotgrl said:

PJPOWER said:

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:

Havent read this thread but giving the illegals to sanctuary cities is a genius idea.  Border towns are shitholes, spread the gift to all the places that have been begging for them.  

Why wouldn’t they want to all be sent to sanctuary cities?  They seem more accommodating...then we can build a wall around the sanctuary cities, lol

Does that mean that all the sanctuary cities can retain all the tax revenue generated in their cities?  I know that here in Louisville, KY we'd love to keep our money for our local citizens rather than sending it out to the rest of the state that drains all our tax dollars all the while bitching about what happens here.

Yes, as long as it means you use no state or federal tax dollars in your city

Deal.  Louisville alone generates about 70% of all revenue for the ENTIRE state so I'd say the rest of the state is screwed.  You're ok with that, right?

I’m more than fine with that, but then again, I really don’t give a shit about KY, lol. KY does produce some good bourbon and fried chicken, though...and lube...or is that a different “KY”?

Maybe we should apply this to every sanctuary city and their corresponding state.  My comment may be about KY but you can apply similar logic to all the other sanctuary cities throughout the US and the corresponding revenue that would be generated.  I'm more than happy to host migrants here and I'll give up the citizens of the rest of my state and they can be taken care of by others just like them.  But then again, its generally the 'libtard' cities that are taking care of the rest of 'real' America.

What is "real" America?

Here is a pic of San Francisco (sanctuary city) “taking care” of the homeless:

Jeesh...that's just terrible.  The same shit happening here, Canada spends hundreds of millions processing refugees from the US instead of turning them back, and we have a growing homelessness problem and opioid crisis that needs correcting.

You know what will help with that homeless population and opioid epidemic?  Just invite a couple thousand more homeless in by telling them they are coming to a sanctuary.