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

Dec 2013
32,748
19,080
Beware of watermelons
#31
Sabcat falling back to his repetitive "it went over your head" claim when he's proven wrong... :rolleyes:
It's his go to issue derailment when he knows he's got nothing left...

Well, when almost every single time you respond to my posts you clearly don't get my point you either don't understand it or you are being intentionally obtuse. By both reading your other posts and changing my approach w/ you it has become clear to me that you have a problem grasping abstract concepts.
 
Likes: Spdy
Nov 2005
7,850
2,415
California
#32
Well, when almost every single time you respond to my posts you clearly don't get my point you either don't understand it or you are being intentionally obtuse. By both reading your other posts and changing my approach w/ you it has become clear to me that you have a problem grasping abstract concepts.
ROFLMAO!
No. It's just a reply you use incessantly when you don't want to talk about the topic anymore.
I'm not the only one to notice it... :rolleyes:

Another glaring problem in your claim is that you can never explain what it is that I supposedly didn't get.
It's always some claim you toss out there like a boringly repetitive fallback that you think nobody else recognizes...

But you keep plugging away there slugger! I'm sure one day you'll put a cogent thought together!
After all, if people think a monkey could write the complete works of Shakespeare, there's hope for you yet!
 
Last edited:
Dec 2013
32,748
19,080
Beware of watermelons
#33
ROFLMAO!
No. It's just a reply you use incessantly when you don't want to talk about the topic anymore.
I'm not the only one to notice it... :rolleyes:

Another glaring problem in your claim is that you can never explain what it is that I supposedly didn't get.
It's always some claim you toss out there like a boringly repetitive fallback that you think nobody else recognizes...

But you keep plugging away there slugger! I'm sure one day you'll put a cogent thought together!
After all, if people think a monkey could write the complete works of Shakespeare, there's hope for you yet!

Sure thing there sweetie.



 
Likes: Spdy
Mar 2019
1,078
247
Texas
#34
DED, I would appreciate it if you would explicitly address the following:
Why were they interested in busing them to "small and mid-sized sanctuary cities"?
Why were they seeking to avoid the large sanctuary cities?
We both know the answer. It was a purposeful effort to overwhelm the available resources. An even distribution across all the sanctuary areas could potentially be absorbed and providing a situation which could disprove the attempted artificial point.



As I (and even people that have discussed the issue in the article) have pointed out, there are legal problems with this approach.
But of course, the Trumpettes often don't care about the constitution nor legal requirements in their own personal interests...



Let me be clear on my opinion.
I think Trump is an idiot.
I don't support sanctuary cities.
I don't support our government pursuing illegal actions in order to try to prove a point in a clear way that is biased to artificial failure.



Who the <bleep> is saying that?



This plan is a purely illegal political ploy, and you say "stop playing politics"???
:rolleyes:
So much info you disagree with so i will keep it simple. I agree with you about potus. My goal is simple i want them out of cells and such. I could care less if the law is broken to get it done cause the guy has proven he can break the law no big deal so this time at least some people get freed. I agree they should spread them around all the cities that want them. I have no doubt the idea was born out of hate and politicol battle but again you know my goal is i want people who want to work to get a job and not be caged and i do not want them taking from federal funding anymore and that is what is happening currently by caging them. The argument seems to be that there is no funds for their travel yet we are spending serious money everyday on them currently. Making this move will bring democrats to the table.
 
Nov 2005
7,850
2,415
California
#35
So much info you disagree with so i will keep it simple. I agree with you about potus. My goal is simple i want them out of cells and such. I could care less if the law is broken to get it done cause the guy has proven he can break the law no big deal so this time at least some people get freed.
The person who illegally immigrated into this country broke the law. There is a legal process involved for detaining people who broke the law.
Do you have similar concerns regarding everybody who breaks the law? Or just the illegal immigration violations?

I guess I don't understand your concern on "want them out of cells".


I agree they should spread them around all the cities that want them. I have no doubt the idea was born out of hate and politicol battle but again you know my goal is i want people who want to work to get a job and not be caged and i do not want them taking from federal funding anymore and that is what is happening currently by caging them. The argument seems to be that there is no funds for their travel yet we are spending serious money everyday on them currently. Making this move will bring democrats to the table.
Making this move would bring democrats to the courts.
Like I mentioned, it's a violation of our established Due Process and can easily be interpreted as "kidnapping".
There is a reason it has been resoundingly rejected by people who would have legal culpability in the process, with the exception of POTUS who doesn't care how many lawsuits he gets into... :rolleyes:
 
Mar 2019
1,078
247
Texas
#36
The person who illegally immigrated into this country broke the law. There is a legal process involved for detaining people who broke the law.
Do you have similar concerns regarding everybody who breaks the law? Or just the illegal immigration violations?

I guess I don't understand your concern on "want them out of cells".



Making this move would bring democrats to the courts.
Like I mentioned, it's a violation of our established Due Process and can easily be interpreted as "kidnapping".
There is a reason it has been resoundingly rejected by people who would have legal culpability in the process, with the exception of POTUS who doesn't care how many lawsuits he gets into... :rolleyes:
FAIL from the start.

People who claim asylum are not breaking the law.

At the least let's get on the same page before debating this issue.

It is 100% legal to cross between ports and claim asylum and no law is broken in doing so.

Potus has challenged this in court and lost. Otherwise these people would be in jail.
 
Nov 2005
7,850
2,415
California
#37
FAIL from the start.
People who claim asylum are not breaking the law.
Did I say "people who claim asylum"? No.
Don't move the goal-posts on me and then pretend I am the one who has failed... :rolleyes:


At the least let's get on the same page before debating this issue.
It is 100% legal to cross between ports and claim asylum and no law is broken in doing so.
Look at the original article.
WHERE did POTUS's plan specify asylum seekers?
Hint, nowhere.


Potus has challenged this in court and lost. Otherwise these people would be in jail.
How many LEGAL asylum seekers (following the process and breaking no laws) are in jail?
 
Mar 2019
1,078
247
Texas
#38
Did I say "people who claim asylum"? No.
Don't move the goal-posts on me and then pretend I am the one who has failed... :rolleyes:



Look at the original article.
WHERE did POTUS's plan specify asylum seekers?
Hint, nowhere.



How many LEGAL asylum seekers (following the process and breaking no laws) are in jail?
Yes you are moving the goal post.

People that have broken the law crossing illegally are not eligible to be in the usa and the transportation they receive will be to their home country.

Illegal immigrants are not at all in the group that potus wants to send to cities across the usa.

Stick to the issue at hand cause no one is talking about sending criminals to those cities.
 
Nov 2005
7,850
2,415
California
#39
Yes you are moving the goal post.
Geez.
Most people evolve past the "I know you are but what am I?" schoolyard retort...


People that have broken the law crossing illegally are not eligible to be in the usa and the transportation they receive will be to their home country.
Illegal immigrants are not at all in the group that potus wants to send to cities across the usa.
Stick to the issue at hand cause no one is talking about sending criminals to those cities.
You didn't answer the question.
How many LEGAL asylum seekers (following the process and breaking no laws) are in jail detained in cells?

As with many things, the President often throws out half-formed ideas that are fundamentally flawed.
It's important to note the phrasing used to recognize his true intent.

For example, on the campaign trail, he spoke about preventing Muslim immigration. A clear violation of the first amendment.
He then proceeds to block immigration from some Muslim dominant countries.
He spent months tied up in the courts because his idiotic and unconstitutional statement was obviously tied to his subsequent actions.


The real problem here is you are trying to select a "solution" with irrelevant parts.
If the detention is truly a problem, then the detention piece should be addressed incorporating the reasoning for that detention.
Blindly saying that we should simply move them to "sanctuary cities" would be an irrelevant add-on to the situation (like Trump saying prevent Muslim immigration).
 
Last edited:
Mar 2019
1,078
247
Texas
#40
Geez.
Most people evolve past the "I know you are but what am I?" schoolyard retort...



You didn't answer the question.
How many LEGAL asylum seekers (following the process and breaking no laws) are in jail detained in cells?

As with many things, the President often throws out half-formed ideas that are fundamentally flawed.
It's important to note the phrasing used to recognize his true intent.

For example, on the campaign trail, he spoke about preventing Muslim immigration. A clear violation of the first amendment.
He then proceeds to block immigration from some Muslim dominant countries.
He spent months tied up in the courts because his idiotic and unconstitutional statement was obviously tied to his subsequent actions.


The real problem here is you are trying to select a "solution" with irrelevant parts.
If the detention is truly a problem, then the detention piece should be addressed incorporating the reasoning for that detention.
Blindly saying that we should simply move them to "sanctuary cities" would be an irrelevant add-on to the situation (like Trump saying prevent Muslim immigration).
At this point you not only moved the goal post but you have dismantled it.

I never figured you for one to make up things i did not say and claim i did.

Do you even remember the topic that sparked this debate. how about we stick to that.

You tried to make this about illegal immigrants and it never was.

Let's get back on track here if you want to continue.
 

Similar Discussions