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

Mar 2019
1,139
260
Texas
#51
You talked about letting people out of detention.
"Detention" includes jail.

It's not my fault you weren't clear...



Thank you for finally clarifying that.
Now how about answering the other questions.
Again no one but you has had the thought of letting people out of jail.

You fail but refuse to admit your short comings.
 
Likes: Spdy
Mar 2019
1,139
260
Texas
#53
Maybe the best thing to do would be to put more funds into the places where they are kept while waiting for asylum/deportation instead of doing an asshole move and putting people we don't know into places where we can't regulate them where they will probably not stay. :neutral:
So you want to spend much money going to more corporations for housing these people while everyone ignores the problem. That is kicking the can. These people could be out earning today and paying taxes instead of being a burden on us. They are not going to be deported and the only way to stop more from coming is for the leaders to get together and figure out working solutions.
 
Nov 2005
7,880
2,472
California
#54
Again no one but you has had the thought of letting people out of jail.
You fail but refuse to admit your short comings.
I have moved past your previously vague statements. But now you are using that situation to avoid discussion.

To repeat what you are avoiding...


I do have sound reasoning against the proposal in talking about overwhelming resources.
Moreover, there is absolutely no reason to restrict any group of asylum seekers to JUST "sanctuary cities".

You claimed: "Most of the cities are on board with the idea."
I find this claim amusing considering we just found out about Trump's idea. Pelosi is clearly against it and she is about as "liberal" as they come.
Where have "most of the cities" said as you claim?
What, exactly did they say?

How many people are being detained but not in jail
Why are they being detained?
 
Mar 2019
1,139
260
Texas
#55
I have moved past your previously vague statements. But now you are using that situation to avoid discussion.

To repeat what you are avoiding...


I do have sound reasoning against the proposal in talking about overwhelming resources.
Moreover, there is absolutely no reason to restrict any group of asylum seekers to JUST "sanctuary cities".

You claimed: "Most of the cities are on board with the idea."
I find this claim amusing considering we just found out about Trump's idea. Pelosi is clearly against it and she is about as "liberal" as they come.
Where have "most of the cities" said as you claim?
What, exactly did they say?

How many people are being detained but not in jail
Why are they being detained?
How about attempting to research the subject instead of trying to make myself spoon feed you info.
Do me a favor and search for your answers before asking for proof. What you will find is that many cities are on board with the idea and some are not. In the mean time i will do the same since i am going by what i have heard on the news reports.
 
Feb 2019
357
113
nunya
#56
So you want to spend much money going to more corporations for housing these people while everyone ignores the problem. That is kicking the can. These people could be out earning today and paying taxes instead of being a burden on us. They are not going to be deported and the only way to stop more from coming is for the leaders to get together and figure out working solutions.
Every year less immigrants are coming. You state that there is problem but don't say what it is.
 
Nov 2005
7,880
2,472
California
#58
How about attempting to research the subject instead of trying to make myself spoon feed you info.
ROFLMAO!
Another example of you finding excuses to avoid discussion.

YOU are the one who has presented a plan.
You obviously don't have clue one as to the amount of people you're talking about or what is really going on here...


Do me a favor and search for your answers before asking for proof. What you will find is that many cities are on board with the idea and some are not. In the mean time i will do the same since i am going by what i have heard on the news reports.
YOU MADE THE CLAIM that cities were on board with a nebulous idea.
The topic is about TRUMP's plan. I see nobody in power even trying to float your idea.
So it's rather obvious that you want to send others on a wild goose chase to try to substantiate your claim, when simple reason would indicate you are full of hot air.
 

Similar Discussions