• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

You Want Them? You Can Have Them!

tiredretired

The Old Salt
SUPER Site Supporter
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.

Screen Shot 2019-04-12 at 2.12.55 PM.png
 

tiredretired

The Old Salt
SUPER Site Supporter
Dump illegals in Sanctuary Cities where there are the most wanted rather than sending them to areas where they are not welcome. Is this not the very purpose of sanctuary cities in the first place according to the Dems themselves? Donald just wants to make sure these people are safe and well taken care of.

sanc·tu·ar·y

[ˈsaNGk(t)SHəˌwerē]
NOUN
a place of refuge or safety.
"his sons took sanctuary in the church" ·

1. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."
2. "A good tactic is one your people enjoy."
3. "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself."
 

bczoom

Super Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
What a terrible thing to do. Won't that displace all the homeless veterans there?:unsure:

Please don't laugh. I am dead serious.
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. ;)
Bus the illegals from TX to CA then fill the bus full of Vets and bring them back to TX.
 

pirate_girl

legendary ⚓
GOLD Site Supporter
What a terrible thing to do. Won't that displace all the homeless veterans there?:unsure:

Please don't laugh. I am dead serious.

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.
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
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.
I'm gonna suggest the slight possibility that this balloon was floated just to get a reaction from the Pelosi left.

A hunch.:yum:

Once again, the Dems prove they are no match for THE Donald.
 

tiredretired

The Old Salt
SUPER Site Supporter
Abraham Lincoln once said; "The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly."
 

m1west

Well-known member
GOLD Site Supporter
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

Sounds like a great idea. I remember reading the Obama administration settled 1000's of muslims in small communities all over America completely devastating the local culture. The same happened in Europe . Turnabout is fair play. MAGA
 

XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq

Master of Distraction
Staff member
SUPER Site Supporter
Make a list of every politician that ever voted for a sanctuary city. Then drop off a bus load of illegals at each of their houses. One bus load for each municipal politician, two busloads for each state politician, and the rest at the federal politicians.

Time to play a little at the Democrats level. Dirty.
 

Jim_S

Gone But Not Forgotten
GOLD Site Supporter
POSTED ON APRIL 12, 2019 BY JOHN HINDERAKER IN IMMIGRATION
WHERE TO PUT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/04/where-to-put-illegal-immigrants.php

The Democratic Party has come out against the rule of law and in favor of illegal immigration. Opposing open borders, Democrats say, is immoral. OK, fine–where are the tens of millions of people who would like to move here from Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala, and so on going to go? Liberals imagine them inhabiting places where they don’t live. Flyoverland.

I have a good friend and frequent email correspondent who has been on this issue for quite a while. This comes from one missive written several years ago, but there have been others to the same effect. These numbers frame the issue:

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!!

So where will all these many millions of people go? My friend had a suggestion:

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?!!!


Indeed. Today, President Trump echoed my friend’s suggestion that illegal immigrants should be located where the liberals who want millions of them live:


https://mobile.twitter.com/realDona...s/2019/04/where-to-put-illegal-immigrants.php
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

Heh. Did that make the Democrats happy? Of course not! They reacted with fury to the idea that the many millions of illegal immigrants–illegal voters, one might say–whom they want to import into the U.S. might actually live near them. But isn’t that precisely what a sanctuary city is for?

Democrats were, naturally, outraged. This is, as people used to say, a teachable moment.
 

Jim_S

Gone But Not Forgotten
GOLD Site Supporter
And just like that . . . . . . .
 

Attachments

  • C74980FD-0B1E-433F-B71B-5CDBF10E3AA7.jpeg
    C74980FD-0B1E-433F-B71B-5CDBF10E3AA7.jpeg
    73.5 KB · Views: 71

m1west

Well-known member
GOLD Site Supporter
And just like that . . . . . . .

I live in Ca. I came here in 1980 is was wide open then no helmets on anything cash and carry gun sales you name it. And when you said tranny everyone new you were talking about a transmission not a sexual deviate. in the 90's is where everything started changing. I live about 90 miles east of SF and about 60 miles south east of Sacramento in the foothills of the sierras. I still like it where I live in a small rural community and it just irritates me to go to any of the larger cities everything is now run down trash, bums and illegals. Even though I'm sure it will cost me in some way Mr Trump should saturate every major city here until they cry uncle. Set them up in Palosi and boxers district and Newsoms Neighborhood. Give them tents, food, money anything they want just as long as they stay there.
 

mla2ofus

Well-known member
GOLD Site Supporter
As far as sanctuary goes the only illegals the dims give a sh!t about are the criminal ones!!
Mike
 

Jim_S

Gone But Not Forgotten
GOLD Site Supporter
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:

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.

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:

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."

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.
 

rugerman

New member
Do the democrats think that we need more welfare cheaters to waste money on our side so they can send money that they get from jobs that they pay little or no taxes on back to their home country to finance more illegals trip to our country. I say bus them hell, they can crawl all the way back to their home country’s!
 

tiredretired

The Old Salt
SUPER Site Supporter
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.

Check Fucking Mate! :yum::th_lmao::yum:
 
Top