White House proposed releasing immigrant detainees in sanctuary cities, targeting political foes

Nov 2005
7,850
2,415
California
#1
White House officials have tried to pressure U.S. immigration authorities to release detainees onto the streets of “sanctuary cities” to retaliate against President Trump’s political adversaries, according to Department of Homeland Security officials and email messages reviewed by The Washington Post.
Trump administration officials have proposed transporting detained immigrants to sanctuary cities at least twice in the past six months — once in November, as a migrant caravan approached the U.S. southern border, and again in February, amid a standoff with Democrats over funding for Trump’s border wall.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s district in San Francisco was among those the White House wanted to target, according to DHS officials. The administration also considered releasing detainees in other Democratic strongholds.
White House officials first broached the plan in a Nov. 16 email, asking officials at several agencies whether members of the caravan could be arrested at the border and then bused “to small- and mid-sized sanctuary cities,” places where local authorities have refused to hand over illegal immigrants for deportation.
The White House told U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement that the plan was intended to alleviate a shortage of detention space but also served to send a message to Democrats. The attempt at political retribution raised alarm within ICE, with a top official responding that it was rife with budgetary and liability concerns, and noting that “there are PR risks as well.”
After the White House pressed again in February, ICE’s legal department rejected the idea as inappropriate and rebuffed the administration.
A White House official and a spokesman for DHS sent nearly identical statements to The Post on Thursday, indicating that the proposal is no longer under consideration.
“This was just a suggestion that was floated and rejected, which ended any further discussion,” the White House statement said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/immi...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.96cec652c416

This is the sort of administration we're dealing with... :rolleyes:
 
Apr 2013
36,194
24,608
Left coast
#2
And the fun part. Yesterday the WH announced that that was just an informal proposal that was immediately rejected, even though it was brought up twice, first about 3 months ago and again very recently.

So of course, this morning the horsebarn brainiac tweets:


Click the twitter link if you want to see the second part. But it's not worth it.
 
Nov 2005
7,850
2,415
California
#7
I can't say I support it, but my goodness, that proposal does have style.
Only for those that favor crass ideals.

The concept itself raises the potential for kidnapping accusations.
At least when ICE transports detainees to a federal facility, that demonstrates justice and due process. Picking them up and unceremoniously dumping them elsewhere against their will would be kidnapping.

Regardless, if Trump wants to try it, it's not without precedent...
Nevada jury: $250K per mental patient dumped to other states
Perhaps the sanctuary cities will get more out of the federal government than the $250K that was levied against the guilty party in the above story...
 
Likes: Clara007
Dec 2018
1,858
600
New England
#8
At least when ICE transports detainees to a federal facility, that demonstrates justice and due process. Picking them up and unceremoniously dumping them elsewhere against their will would be kidnapping.
Now that's funny. You're trying to pretend that sending them to a "federal facility" would somehow be aligned with "their will?"

No, sending them to "sanctuary cities" is bad, and even illegal, policy for the very same reasons "sanctuary cities" get their name: it's wanton disregard for federal law.
 
Likes: Spdy
Nov 2005
7,850
2,415
California
#10
Now that's funny. You're trying to pretend that sending them to a "federal facility" would somehow be aligned with "their will?"
Did I say that? NO.

What is it with you and reading comprehension?
If a cop sees you stealing and takes you to the police station for processing, "that demonstrates justice and due process". (Which is what I said)
If instead he decides to pack you up in a car and drive you to some other city where he dumps you off, that is not in line with justice or due process. He would be acting outside the law.
As the cop would be both transporting you against your will and did so in violation of justice / due process, one can legitimately label that as kidnapping.


No, sending them to "sanctuary cities" is bad, and even illegal, policy for the very same reasons "sanctuary cities" get their name: it's wanton disregard for federal law.
City and state law enforcement are not obligated to enforce federal law. A sanctuary city is doing nothing illegal when they act as such.

You are right that Trump's idea would be bad and even illegal.


I support nullification though i do think that they should have all federal funds pulled that help support the invaders.
It does not surprise me that you support yet another unconstitutional act...
Court rules Trump move to cut 'sanctuary city' funds is unconstitutional
 
Likes: Clara007

Similar Discussions