Yeah and Pelosi is livid.
Lol
Send em to San Fran, I say!
If the illegals were sent to San Fran and the city had to pay for them, that would free up federal money to take care of those vets.What a terrible thing to do. Won't that displace all the homeless veterans there?
Please don't laugh. I am dead serious.
What a terrible thing to do. Won't that displace all the homeless veterans there?
Please don't laugh. I am dead serious.
I'm gonna suggest the slight possibility that this balloon was floated just to get a reaction from the Pelosi left.This from Conservative Review.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was really unhappy about a proposed plan to bus illegal immigrants to her district, but why should she be?
Here’s what happened: Anonymous “Department of Homeland Security officials,” according to the post, leaked a plan to send migrants to sanctuary jurisdictions on Thursday.
The White House responded that the idea was “just a suggestion that was floated and rejected, which ended any further discussion.”
Speaker Pelosi’s San Francisco district was one of the recommended busing areas, and she wasn’t too pleased with the news.
“The extent of this administration’s cynicism and cruelty cannot be overstated,” a Pelosi spokeswoman said. “Using human beings — including little children — as pawns in their warped game to perpetuate fear and demonize immigrants is despicable.”
Later, a White House official was quoted as saying that the idea was more about shifting the burden away from border towns: “Why wouldn’t we send them to districts where Democrats say ‘we want ‘em?’”
Indeed, why shouldn’t sanctuary jurisdictions and politicians like Pelosi who represent them want apprehended illegal immigrants sent their way? Look, aren’t sanctuary cities supposed to be, well, sanctuaries for illegal aliens?
The president’s political opponents can impart motives and criticize his actions all day long. They already do. But if the proponents of lax border security and liberal immigration policy really cared about the well-being of illegal aliens, shouldn’t they be clamoring to have every apprehended migrant sent immediately to a jurisdiction where they’d be the most insulated from deportation?
Other options would be to release them to places where they have a higher chance of getting detained and deported by federal authorities at some point in the future or to continue detaining them in facilities that Democratic rhetoric has thus far painted as modern-day gulags.
Why not send them to a place that’s more welcoming to them in both its laws and its local attitudes? Detractors can complain all they want about the motives involved, but how can they argue the outcomes here?
Could it possibly be that backlash against this proposal could be coming from the realization that a plan like this would put a huge burden on sanctuary cities that could even result in a shift in public attitudes about illegal immigration?
Pelosi might realize that adding a large influx of illegal immigrants to her home city of San Francisco’s homeless, drug, and fecal matter problems might be too much for the city to handle. And that would, in turn, simultaneously put pressure on sanctuary politicians who would have to acknowledge that we’re currently facing a crisis at the border.
Makes sense to me.
Ship their asses off to where the liberals seem to love them so much. Sanctuary Cities are perfect. They can room and board them. Wine and dine them and baby sit their worthless asses. Great idea, Donald. MAGA.
View attachment 112974
Without the immigration increase from 1965 to the present, total population today [2015] would be what it was in 1990: 250 million, rather than 320 million. [The Pew Foundation’s] projection, based on current trends, is for a population of 441 million in 50 years.
This has to be extremely conservative: it is a compound growth rate of only 5/8 of 1%. The actual population growth rate over the past 25 years has been 1%, overwhelmingly, as the Report shows, from immigration. If the growth rate over the next 50 years is midway between these two rates, about 7/8 of 1%, then the population impact is that much greater, to a total of 500 million! If the growth rate simply matches the immigration driven growth rate of the recent past, population in 2065 would be 535 million. And this assumes no Gang of Eight immigration “reform” which would essentially double current levels of immigration. Add another 50 million, more or less.
At a minimum, over my children’s lifetime, the immigration celebrationists are planning on adding a minimum of 120 million in increased population — the entire population of the United States in 1920! More likely, the increase is in the vicinity of 180 million, the entire population of the United States just before the disastrous 1965 Act!!
Where do they suppose we are going to put the equivalent of the entire population of the U.S. as of 1960 between now and 2065? Next to where they live? In the Hamptons, perhaps? Or Marin County, California? Maybe the pristine little New England towns in the suburbs of Boston? Montgomery County, MD? Westchester County, anyone? How about Martha’s Vineyard or Hyannisport? Plenty of room!
Actually, Madeline Albright smugly pointed out that from her airplane window, flying coast to coast, she could see that there was lots of room — in the Midwest! Plenty of space for another 150 million or so, right there!
Hey!…isn’t that where you live?!!!
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
·
11h
Due to the fact that Democrats are unwilling to change our very dangerous immigration laws, we are indeed, as reported, giving strong considerations to placing Illegal Immigrants in Sanctuary Cities only....
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
....The Radical Left always seems to have an Open Borders, Open Arms policy – so this should make them very happy!
12:38 PM · Apr 12, 2019 · Twitter for iPhone
And just like that . . . . . . .
Asked why the rebellion was centered in Murrieta and not elsewhere, the residents all had one answer: they were Reagan Country, and it was on their soil that the Reagan revolution was lit in 1978.
Henry, and many of the protesters joining him, believe their town was unfairly targeted as a destination for the migrants. Some believe the busloads are being sent to small, largely conservative towns, like Murrieta to send a political message.
"The administration thinks that if it floods our streets, in small town america, they can force us into immigration reform," Henry said. "These immigrants should not be here. The only reason that they are coming here is for political reasons."
April 13, 2019
Remember Murietta? Dumping unvetted migrants into the cities of political foes was done by Obama first
By Monica Showalter
https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...f_political_foes_was_done_by_obama_first.html
President Trump's trial balloon of sending migrants surging across our border to sanctuary cities has been derided by Democrats as 'cynicism and cruelty' as well as 'a new low' by Trump, but it has a precedent: President Obama.
Back in 2014, when the migrant surge of that year brought tens of thousands of "unaccompanied children" and "moms and kids," into the Rio Grande Valley, overwhelming the Texas processing facilities, President Obama inexplicably targeted small and mid-sized cities (same as the Trump officials' emails) as their next destination of choice. And instead of talking about it, they really did try to bus the unvetted migrants into small cities such as Murietta, California; Yuma, Arizona; and a conservative area of New Mexico, bringing crime, disease, and a high need for social services, without consulting those communities.
The residents protested, and the Obama administration declared them 'racist' in a bid to scare them into line.
I was on the ground at Murietta during those protests when I was an editorial writer at Investor's Business Daily, and I spoke to the citizens of that city, who were not only far from racist, but actually multiracial themselves. They told me this:
Breitbart's reporters went to the scene, too, as I did, and quite unlike the mainstream media, also asked and listened to the residents as to what they thought was going on:
There are no known FOIA documents to prove it (though it's a fine area for inquiry these days) that I have been able to find, but circumstantially, it appears to be a correct reading of the situation. The several hundred illegals being dumped off in Murietta were going to a small city with just five holding cells, given that it's a nearly crime-free city of homeowners. That's inexplicable, unless the idea was to unleash them onto the conservatives unvetted for other purposes.
The Los Angeles Times reported that it made no sense to dump the migrants into Murietta, because the much larger metropolis of San Diego, sixty miles south, had plenty of beds and holding cells for illegal entrants, and ones that could cater to migrant families. The migrants eventually were sent there, but not before Democrats could demonize the town as brimming with racists, leaving its officials (Latino ones, no less) sputtering their defense that they were not.
It's pretty obvious the whole thing was a political gambit to not only impose high costs from illegal migration on specially targeted conservative cities, its second aim was to force America's conservatives into submission out of fear of being called racists.
They rebelled instead, in what was an early bellwether of the rise of President Trump. Now Trump is giving back what Obama pioneered — the use of illegal migrants as a political football — and this time putting Democrats on their back foot.