Wanting to retaliate against Democrats critical of President Trump and his border wall, the White House tried twice to push U.S. immigration authorities into releasing migrant detainees in "sanctuary cities," The Washington Post reports.The so-called "whistleblower" is, in my opinion, either Miller himself or a DHS sockpuppet. Because getting this vindictive plan out in public suits Miller to a T. It gets it all over the news and it's great fodder for the anacephalics and neo-Nazis on Fox New's commentary shows. Then Trump will see it and a plan that the professionals have talked him down on now will gain traction.
Sanctuary cities are places where local authorities have said they won't turn over most undocumented immigrants for deportation. The Post spoke with Department of Homeland Security officials and obtained emails discussing the plan, which included targeting the district of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). According to a congressional investigator who spoke with a DHS whistleblower, Trump adviser and immigration hardliner Stephen Miller came up with the plan.
As for this:
President Trump has tossed around threats of closing the southern border, but two reports say he took the proposal a step further.Now Trump is getting into impeachable territory, again. Soliciting a Federal official to perform a criminal act, conspiracy to commit a criminal act.
Last week, Trump told his then-Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Kevin McAleenan to close the border to asylum seekers, two senior officials informed both The New York Times and CNN. Trump also reportedly said that if McAleenan got in trouble for it, he would pardon him, though the officials didn't make it clear if Trump appeared to be joking.
So much winning.
20 comments:
SO, again, why are you all for illegal immigration?
Bzzt. Assumption of facts not presented.
You're better than that, B.
Perhaps I should be better than that. Your statement is noted.
Nonetheless, the question stands:
And I fail to see how delivering these criminal border crossers to Sanctuary Cities to await their adjudication is a Bad Thing. Unless, of course, they don't want them for the for the same reasons the rest of the country doesn't.
They were just going to turn them loose in the cities without any adjudication whatsoever, B. Why is it you strain at the gnats of Obama’s policies, and swallow the #%%^* that Trump puts out?
B, your initial question is rejected. It is a petty rhetorical trick of the "answer 'yes' or 'no': Have you stopped beating your wife" variety.
The issue here is that Trump has no compassion for anyone. He's using desperate people as tools of political vengeance. If Trump had said: "We need to find a place for these people to stay while their cases are being adjudicated", it would be a different conversation.
But he didn't. Because Trump is a sociopath.
B, I think you need to read Comrade's response more carefully. She said "Assumption of facts not provided". Therefore the question does not stand. Because the prerequisite for your "why", i.e. confirmation that Comrade is "all for illegal immigration", has not been established.
This is pretty basic stuff for a fact-based discussion.
You'll get much better mileage if you first ask "are you all for illegal immigration?" and get a clear "yes" before moving into "why".
B., critical error, program terminated. The “criminal border crossers” you refer to are actually persons following the law of the United States, the one that allows people to apply for asylum. Now, the R’s controlled the Congress and the Presidency 2003-2007 and 2017-2019, plus all of Congress 2015-2017, and did exactly what to change this law that Donnie is now bleating causes a crisis? The immigration numbers are NOT at record highs, but the cuts in Immigration judges (guess who wrote the budget legislation covering that) have created the delays that Donnie complains so bitterly about. In fact, the actions of a Democratic Congress in 1996 resulted in the last significant tightening of immigration laws, and since then, R’s have had 6 years of total control (and many more of partial) and done squat.
So, since the Democrats have acted to tighten up the rules and the Republicans have ignored the issue when in charge, who is in favor of illegal immigration? Maybe the reputed “party of small business”, the ones who won’t fund a proper worked eligibility program because it would cost business money?
We'll take our share of them if that's how he wants to do it. Our already large and thriving Central American migrant communities would probably make this a better destination for them than wherever else they were going anyway.
My point is that the scare tactic of "We'll send you all of the "illegals" (they are not, in fact, illegal when seeking asylum) and see how you like it when they illegal up your communities" is bullshit designed to play to the bigotry of his base, to whom such a tactic makes perfect sense because they have never actually met a Central American immigrant and only have the scary propaganda to base their opinions on.
I was trained to drive the Peninsula delivery route at Tumbleweed by an El Salvadorian immigrant named Jose. When I asked him how he ended up in Oakland, he said: "I love my country, but when they started shooting at me it was time to leave."
-Doug in Oakland
Not "record Highs" but more than in the past decade.
https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-illegal-border-crossing-20190307-story.html
(and it's the Times, so you folks should not reject it)
Presenting oneself at the border for asylum is one thing. Crossing, then demanding it is a criminal act.
Big difference.
And dumping them into communities that welcome illegals is a great idea. Let them handle the terribly reduced crime and the lack of demand for services for which they won't pay...or contribute to the society upon which they leech.
I fail to see why these communities object to the idea (if they are telling the truth about al those illegals in the first place).
And. Comrade, I do owe you an apology. I am sorry.
Please, provide me with those facts:
Do you support illegal border crossings?
Or are you an "Open Border" advocate?
B, "Dumping". Really? Your implication is that those folks are garbage, refuse.
You have asked me an "either or" question. I reject the premise that it's one or the other.
Under the law, as I understand it, one has to cross the border and then present one's self for asylum. So, somebody who does that, are they an illegal immigrant or an asylum seeker?
If they do that, then are they not here legally, at least temporarily?
B, "Dumping". Really? Your implication is that those folks are garbage, refuse.
You have asked me an "either or" question. I reject the premise that it's one or the other.
Under the law, as I understand it, one has to cross the border and then present one's self for asylum. So, somebody who does that, are they an illegal immigrant or an asylum seeker?
If they do that, then are they not here legally, at least temporarily?
They don't have to cross the border to seek asylum. When one is caught in the middle of the desert far from a border checkpoint, one is not attempting to claim asylum under standard protocols.
"Dumping" is a term used by the Democrats for Trump's threat to deliver the illegals to the Sanctuary Cities. I don't think they are Garbage nor Refuse. They are criminals once they cross the border illegally.
As then I would ask you to clarify your stance on Illegal Immigration/open borders/Border Crossers/Asylum Seekers. Apparently I am mistaken in what I think you stand for. Please, clarify in order that I don't make that mistake again.
This is your problem, B:
He has tried to make immigration an equivalent emergency from the onset of his campaign but he hasn't succeeded yet in convincing the country that Mexicans are dangerous, because they aren't, even when they have weapons, like hoes, rakes, and bottles of windex.
He keeps trying to call them criminals, rapists, and terrorists, but it doesn't really stick. Mexicans are not exotics to Americans, they don't wear burkas, migrant workers have tended our fields peacefully, while living in discrete shantytowns out of sight of the middle American farms, they labor on, forever. So what's left for him and his movement and the billionaires behind it is to hype the numbers coming in as a form of violence or rape. I would not be surprised if they help instigate the form the migrations take so as to make them camera ready.
Again, it hasn't worked.
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/no-more-mister-nice-blog-1/no_more_mister_nice_blog_do_conservatives_love_immigration_the_way_they_used_to_love_911/#comment-4421795034
Dear, dear, B., perhaps you should read the law. Crossing at a non-crossing point is a misdemeanor for a non-asylum claimer, but a person wishing to claim asylum has one year to do so after entering the United States and is NOT considered to have committed "improper entry" unless the one year expires without them lodging and asylum claim.
Also, the U.S. was not prosecuting "improper entry" until recently, as not doing so allowed the release of the violator back into Mexico. If you charge them, they have Constitutional rights, including that of a trial, things that make it more practical to catch them and run them back over at an entry point. Doing so was policy for years under both Republican and Democratic Administrations, as anyone wishing to claim asylum could do so after they were detained.
Sorta true:
https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum/obtaining-asylum-united-states
But
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325
So anyone crossing the border illegally is indeed a criminal.
(I've referenced the laws above for your review.)
I ask again: What are your (and our hostesses) views on Illegal Immigration?
Do you support open borders?
And why do you consider the release of these criminals in Sanctuary Cities to be such a Bad Thing?
If they are asylum seekers, they aren’t criminals, B. Funny how you don’t seem to understand that.
B, you just asked: "why do you consider the release of these criminals in Sanctuary Cities to be such a Bad Thing? "
Earlier, I wrote this in this comment thread: "The issue here is that Trump has no compassion for anyone. He's using desperate people as tools of political vengeance. If Trump had said: "We need to find a place for these people to stay while their cases are being adjudicated", it would be a different conversation. But he didn't. Because Trump is a sociopath."
Which answers that question.
As to the rest, I decline.
So you didn't like the way he put it? Didn't sugar coat it?
It isn't like the leaders of the Sanctuary Cities aren't using the folks there for political gain.
I find it interesting that you decline to answer. Telling.
And DA: Once they CROSS the BORDER illegally, they ARE Criminals...no matter why they crossed the border. Funny how you either can't or won't understand that.
B, don't be obtuse. It's patently clear to almost everyone else that Trump doesn't give a rat's ass abut anyone.
As for "telling", take it for what you want. You don't pay me. You're not in my chain of command. I don't answer to you.
And to add one more thing: We're done, here.
Post a Comment