Trump gleefully admits it was his "sick idea" to use immigrants as pawns in his games of political retribution
Trump gleefully admits it was his "sick idea" to use immigrants as pawns in his games of political retribution. Disgusting
0:46
23.9K views
6:44 PM - 27 Apr 2019
Article is LOCKED by moderator [smarty_function_ntUser_get_name: user_id or profile_id parameter required]
Who is online
63 visitors
President Trump told a Green Bay, Wisconsin, rally Saturday that his administration is sending undocumented migrants to sanctuary cities.
The state of play: The Department of Homeland Security has yet to announce the sanctuary cities plan. Senior White House officials and immigration lawyers have told Axios U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement wouldn't have enough funds for it and there'd be major liabilities if anyone got hurt during transfers.
Why is it sick? What do you have against migrants?
trmp was the one who said it was "sick"
Ask him what he has against migrants
The decision by @ realDonaldTrump to give orders that compromised the rights of specific people as a way to create a political effect is criminal on many levels: from abuse of office to illegal abduction, hate crimes & a deliberate attack on the Bill of Rights & 14th Amendment.
It is impossible for the person who admits to & celebrates these crimes to serve in high office lawfully. It is impossible for his oath of office to be lawful & legitimate. Tonight, @ realDonaldTrump confessed to conspiring to nullify the Constitution of the United States.
The Constitution provides four remedies to uphold the rule of law: 1) impeachment, 2) the # 25thAmendment , 3) the next election, or 4) criminal indictment & conviction.
it was an awesome idea.
everyone gets what they want
cheers
Yeah, it certainly ranks with Scumbag's other "awesome ideas." Let's look at a few of them:
1. Building a "big, beautiful 30' [or was it 100?] concrete wall (well, really a fence now)
2. Making Mexico pay for that wall (which isn't one anyway).
3. Better and cheaper health insurance for "EVERYONE"--we just have to wait until he's re-elected, though.
4. Separating children from families and then losing track of the parents (as these children were hidden all around the country to keep them from being located)
5. Shielding the Saudi prince who had a US permanent resident and journalist murdered and hacked apart.
Is no lie or failure that Scumbag's faithful don't worship?
Like taking feral cats to the crazy cat person
WTF is "sick" about it?
Sanctuary cities and states WANT more illegal aliens, and have no problem with illegal aliens living amongst them, so WTF is the problem?
Why are you asking John? Your Scumbag's the one who used the word.
Trump himself said it is sick. Maybe the "problem" is yours.
I think it is a brilliant plan. Sanctuary cities and states care more for illegal aliens than US citizens, so have fun getting more illegal aliens!
Surely Democrats in these "sanctuaries" aren't getting burned out with illegal aliens, are they? The more the merrier, right?
They wanted illegal aliens, HAVE some illegal aliens!
Trump’s rhetoric about undocumented immigrants and asylum seekers has not just been about how they are taking advantage of lax American laws or that they are in the country illegally but that they are also dangerous. He has decried them as gang members, “animals” and even terrorists . He has said Mexico and Central American countries are sending their dregs northward. “ They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime, they’re rapists ,” Trump said in his 2015 presidential announcement speech, “and some, I assume, are good people.”
So what better way to deal with the increasing problem at the Southern border, Trump reasons, than to ... tell these alleged criminals they’ll get a one-way ticket to a community that will welcome them?
The first major issue with this is that, regardless of where these people are sent, they can go wherever they want after that. The Post’s Nick Miroff and Tim Meko this weekend showed us where people tend to go once they cross the border , and it’s to nearly every corner of the country. If people have the means and wherewithal to get from the border to Crookston, Minn., what’s to stop them from, after they get sent to San Francisco, simply resuming their plans to go wherever they initially intended to go?
Supporters of this policy would argue that they might just stay in the sanctuary city because it is welcoming, but there are reasons people make long treks to places like Crookston rather than heading straight for sanctuary cities. They may have family in the area. They may know there is work waiting for them. And being diverted initially upon entry isn’t likely to deter many of them from reaching wherever it is they hope their final destination will be.
The second issue is that this does nothing to address the allegedly huge problems Trump brought up. There is no evidence that these immigrants or asylum seekers are responsible for more crime than American citizens , and Trump’s own administration has said there is no evidence of terrorist groups accessing the United States via the Southern border . But even if Trump were right, what would turning such people loose in the American homeland do? If they stay in the sanctuary cities, those cities would have to deal with them, yes. But so might the federal government. And if they have plans to join gangs like MS-13 or hatch terrorists plots, giving them a free pass into American society — any part of it — would seem like a really bad idea.
Even if they did stay in sanctuary cities, that would also run counter to Trump’s stated warnings about this group. Sanctuary cities are less likely to turn undocumented immigrants over to federal authorities for minor offenses -- or even to ask about their legal status. Having them reside in these cities would seem to allow the ne’er-do-wells among them to stay off the radar of a federal government who might hold them accountable and prevent such the kind of tragedy Trump warns about.
And finally, there is the incentive that this would create. Trump has rather clearly embraced things like family separation as a deterrent — in hopes that it would send a message to other would-be border-crossers that they would rather not deal with all that crossing the border entails. This policy would create the opposite incentive. It would tell people who cross the border illegally or seek asylum that they would get a one-way ticket to what are mostly major American cities. That seems a much more attractive prospect than simply being detained.
All of which is to say this likely isn’t actually a serious policy consideration by Trump. He likes to stir the pot. He wants to put sanctuary cities and those who support them in the position of saying, “No, we can’t take these people,” and have these people look like hypocrites to Trump’s base. I’m not sure it’s had the desired effect, apart from the odd reaction from people like Cher .
But more than anything, the supposed policy idea is a complete non sequitur when it comes to Trump’s stated reasons for a border crackdown. It’s intended to be punitive and perhaps elicit some kind of action by Democrats, but it probably wouldn’t even really satisfy those goals.
Wow, it is absolutely shocking that NOW many Dems don't want illegal aliens in their communities.
Of course liberals advocating FOR illegal aliens must be shocked that Trump is giving them exactly what they want--more illegal aliens.
Sounds like a win-win.
And the majority of illegal aliens reside in just a handful of states, so I don't expect any mass illegal alien exodus to Minnesota any time soon.
If Democrats don't want to be seen as illegal alien-enablers then they should look at the policies they have passed doing EXACTLY that.
What I know is that it is a damn shame that some Democratic lawmakers love illegal aliens more than US citizens.
I don't care if they send any here or not.
Last night in Green Bay Trump admitted that his idea was political. "Sick idea". You don't say that reasonable, thoughtful plans are "my sick idea".
His big mouth once again reveals his unfitness for his office.
Good. Then there is no sense in bitching about Trump's plan.
So what? Is making a community a sanctuary for illegal aliens NOT a political move?
John, no matter WHAT Trump ever COULD utter, you would be deeply offended and mad about it. You aren;t fooling anyone--your hatred of Trump is well known.
There is nothing that prevents republican controlled cities from becoming "sanctuary" cities, so the answer is no.
For the most part, common sense and love of country would prevent most Republican cities, counties and states from repeating Democratic mistakes.
Of COURSE it is political--there is no other reason to do it otherwise.
there are many reasons why republicans do not follow democrat policy... LOL
btw didja know sanctuary cities are illegal in texas? we don't play that game anymore.
sanctuary cities "prevented" and my bet is other states follow our lead soon enough.
Do you really? What makes you think all the people shipped to sanctuary cities are going to stay there. Certainly no one in those cities are going to force them to stay. Scumbag's "brilliant" idea would end up releasing tens of thousands of undocumented entrants to go anywhere they please.
It's true.
We're getting the worst that Central America and Mexico have to offer....the "dregs" if you will.
Unskilled, poor, often carrying disease and vermin, with all kinds of criminals and gangers sprinkled in the mix.
We already have enough of those who are citizens...and you want thousands more here??
That's what already happening at the border, because the there are not enough people, facilities, and funds to handle the oncoming hoards of immigrant caravan busses. And that's just the ones trying to get through the ports of entry.
This is all the fault of the Democrats who have resisted doing anything useful towards border security. And are you saying you didn't know this??
oh, FFS.
Don't your post your faux concern about illegal aliens running all over the country NOW.
Plenty will stay in Sanctifornia.
There's no bitching and there's no plan. It was just another of Scumbag's bullshit to rouse the rabble. And the rabble never fails to get roused.
However did you get that from anything I wrote.....oh, yeah--your ever-desperate need to gin up a come back no matter how lame, right Tex?
That is always the excuse the rightwing has to use every time their brainless policies predictably go to shit. Won't you ever get tired of blaming liberals for all your failures, Greg? Is everything that goes wrong in your life someone else's fault?
Pretty good explanation of why Democratci progressive liberals are whining and crying about it!
Kudos!
Anyone with a shred of decency, a concept of honesty and cared a whit about this country should be offended every time that Scumbag opens his filthy mouth.
LMFAO!
What really offends me is Democrats who have put all their eggs in the Great Mueller's basket, and now won't start impeachment proceedings.
What is the hold-up NOW?
Why are you people always so impatient? You said the same thing about the Mueller investigation--"why is it taking so long," you kept yammering. And then you pounced and prematurely did your victory dance on Barr's lie about what was in it only to find out there were bombshells all over the full report for Scumbag. I'd ask when you were ever going to learn but you've answered that question already many times.
Gawd, Tex. That's as lamely juvenile a come-back even by your low standards. You are really scrabbling to hold on.
y'all have been screeching for two long years that the great Mueller was going to bring Trump down.
Last I looked, he is STILL your President, like it or not.
Don't the Democrats in Congress have any integrity?
Why haven't they filed impeachment yet???????
Didn't Mueller prove everything Dems needed to have proved for impeachment?
Bunch of arrogant pussy Democrats in Congress talking loads of shit but failing, as usual, to deliver anything worthwhile.
You also seemed confused about what the term "sanctuary city" means.
You obviously don't recognize that comment from someone with your history is so grimly hilarious.
Your complete failure to answer what was asked and your pathetic attempt to deflect have been duly noted.
Again.
Allowing for the possibility that the "structure" of the statement is a bit, let's say, "confusing," it seems to wrongly assume that I expressed any "concern." I merely pointed out once again how Scumbag and his acolytes never seem to understand the unintended (or intended, for that matter) consequences of his bone-head "awesome ideas."
Didn't you mean to send that comment to yourself? I say this because the "you" in it is a perfect self-description of its writer.
But if you were still asking about Democrats' integrity (so nice of you to be concerned) that was addressed before you even asked after it. Dems are embarking on a thorough public airing of everything in the Mueller report by bringing many, if not all, of the "players" in it before various committees for public and publicized testimony so the country can hear in their own words while watching them do so what Scumbag did (or didn't) do. Unlike how republicans rushed the impeachment of Clinton in 1998 (and suffered as a result in that year's mid-terms, btw) only to have him acquitted in the Senate by large shortfalls of the 2/3 necessary to convict. I can see one path for this that Dems might find at the end of all the hearings that impeachment isn't the proper course for the country to take and let the facts speak for themselves in the public arena as the 2020 election approaches. What would your objections to that be?
I think the screeching you heard was coming from inside the house as it were. But, you can't seem to decide what to rant about, Tex. Is it still the Mueller report (which did NOT exonerate Scumbag at all as far as obstruction goes; quite the opposite in fact; it provides a detailed road map that prosecutors could use to indict Scumbag once he leaves office---I've discussed this in some detail else)? You now seem to be under yet another one of your misapprehensions that there's anything close to a majority much less a consensus among Dems to impeach Scumbag. I think you get that from the rightwing pukefunnel you use as "information" (to your frequent embarrassment) rather than the real world.
Nothing I've written could come close with the pathetic idea you seem to have that you can goad Dems into doing something that you desperately hope might save Scumbag's miserable hide on election day, 2020.
I am really enjoying the "display" you're putting on today. You're obviously "overwrought" at the idea that Dems aren't doing what you'd like them to do. My question is what in the world makes you think they'd either follow your advice or let themselves be cowed by someone with your politics? That's magical thinking on a massive scale.
So when California Democrats decided to make their state a sanctuary one, it was all about compassion.
Now, when illegal aliens might be free to roam elsewhere, it is sinister?
LMFAO at that outstanding bit of hypocrisy!
And once again, the majority of illegal aliens reside in a handful of states. Don't expect a bunch if illegal aliens to leave the safety of California for places like Minnesota!
Asylum seekers aren't 'illegal aliens'.
If they WERE, Trump and YOU are talking about 'catch and release' on an epic scale. I thought y'all were agin' that...
Trump is talking about sending asylum seekers to sanctuary cities. Since they are here LEGALLY, that would equate to kidnapping or at minimum, human trafficking as defined by the UN.
I am quite sure in Bizarro World, impeachment proceedings is a harbinger of election success.
LMFAO at the sheer brilliance of that remark!
How is FORCING an asylum seeker to travel 'free roam elsewhere'?
Well, no shit, Sherlock. Who said they were? Are you attempting AGIAN to argue points no one makes? Intellectually dishonest way to attempt to debate. I ain't playing that shit today.
I am not repsonsible for every thought that pops into your head. Own it yourself, no matter how wrong it is!
Sue the Administration then--DO something instead of merely grousing about it-- for once.
Please try to keep up or respond to someone else.
What's intellectually dishonest is trying to pretend that you and Trump are talking about transporting 'illegal aliens' to sanctuary cities. You aren't.
I thought you were against arguing points no one makes. Guess not...
How is my statement wrong Tex?
My support for the ACLU addresses that goal.
I've been on the streets and politically active since 1968. I'll trade war stories with you any day.
Well let's see:
I asked you a cogent question, you followed your MO by avoiding answering and instead made a snarky remark.
That's were we are to date.
How's that for keeping up?
So your posit is that Trump should round up MS13 members, kidnap them and move them to Chicago. You should call the WH with your groundbreaking proposal. Trump will love it.
Well, what does it mean, smarty-pants?
Thanks for the false equivalency, they always elevate the discussion. /s
More deflection and obfuscation.
The topic is Trump's sick proposal of shipping off 'immigrants' to sanctuary cities and you suggested singling out MS13 for transport to Chicago. How could you fantasy happen it they can't 'tell the good from the bad'? You seem to be throwing cold water on your own wet dream.
BTFW, 'the open border dilemma' is moot for this topic since you've got to catch them to ship them. Despite your scenario, those who are caught ARE vetted. If they can't weed out MS13, they need better training. First year corrections intake officers manage it every day.
You'd prefer we just let them wander in the desert?
I feel sorry that you think that was a cogent question.
Piss-poor, actually.
I am confident you'll tell me what you thought I said, and what I meant. Happens quite often with you.
Perhaps one day you'll actually have a point. I look forward to it.
Just your usual trick of attempting to tell others what they said or meant.
Good for you. Here's a little gold star for ya!
Don't you just love it when intellectually dishonest people tell you what you wrote, er, what they think you wrote or meant?
My rebuttal is that your comment is a false equivalency. Your own link PROVE that to be a fact. Perhaps you should actually READ it.
So you support Trump bussing immigrants to sanctuary cities that haven't even been vetted? You really have no clue about the asylum process.
I wish I could say that I'm surprised by the depravity that comment illustrates.
Yes, I know MS13 is a gang BF and that you think it would appropriate to send them to Chicago.
Nope.
That's obtuse...
You did.
The topic is Trump shipping immigrants to sanctuary cities.
It's a known fact that John lives in Chicago.
You 'suggested' that MS13 'would be better equipped for that area'.
Why are you asking me a question when you refuse to answer mine?
What part of it didn't you understand Tex?
How so?
I am confident that deflecting rather than addressing the topic is a safe place for you.
Since you'd have to be capable of recognizing a point, prepare for disappointment.
Asking you a question about your comment isn't a 'trick' Tex. It's how this shit works.
Not as much as I love it when someone lacking the gonads to address a member up front disses them through another member.
yeah, I hate that shit, too.
Which is why I directly responded to you in post 7.1.35, and I have specifically addressed your rather nasty little habit of attempting to put words ion others mouths and then trying to debate THAT.
I understood it all.
You supposed to be a smart cookie--I am sure you'll figure it out eventually.
I don't see where you have asked me one. I have to assume that's because you haven't. A quick search of this seed confirms that. Did you just make this up because you can't/won't answer my question?
They do that anyway...
I'm sure it doesn't surprise you that I don't give a fuck whether you believe me.
I don't see where I said I DID ask YOU one.
You DID however reply to a question, that you didn't answer, with a question.
No, you did.
Then it's pretty hypocritical to do so yourself.
Wow, you said all of that with this comment?
Hilarious.
That is unadulterated bullshit. I responded to you first when you tried to pull the same shit on me. Then I spoke to another poster about you doing the same intellectually dishonest bullshit with another poster. I have told you many times that I don't play that fucking game. If you want to debate--DO IT without resorting to attempting to put words in others mouths and then trying to debate what you wanted them to say.
Ooooh, I made a typo. It was the post prior to that one,
Doesn't change the fact that you did exactly what I accused you of, and all your little spin doesn't change what you fucking did.
No, not hilarious. It is fucking pathetic.
[deleted]
When Fish isn't birthing new lies he's reviving old ones.
That's pretty fucking funny Tex. I asked you a question and instead of answering it you've gone on a rant and try to pretend that asking you a question is somehow a 'trick'.
My attempt at debate started in 7.1.33. I guess my question was too logical for you.
Your failed attempt at obfuscation came immediately afterward.
This comment is to both Tex and Dulay,
I have had multiple flags about this thread. I don't see any violations per se, but I do see a lot of snark. I would prefer not writing either of you up, so please get back to the discussion.
He used it to refer to - and sort of quote - the leftists, like Bill de Blasio and Alyssa Milano among others who have been calling it "sick." This is a common rhetorical device. One takes the attack word and makes it his own to show he's not shamed even a little bit. So if people have been saying, "Who's sick idea was this?" he proudly responds "it was my sick idea" but you have to understand he doesn't really think it's sick at all.
The gambit of pretending Scumbag just "joking" every time he says something disgusting (ah, but I repeat myself) just aint workin'. It never did and it never will.
Your position is devoid of logic unless you can explain why a person would pursue a policy he genuinely believed was "sick."
Because he did it to be vindictive.
Can you explain that?
And even if true, so what? That still doesn't explain why people would object to those migrants being transported to cities that claimed they would welcome them.
Oh please. Democrats have been doing it long before Trump come on the scene.
Where DO you come up with these fantasies, Jer? Oh, wait.....we know. Nevermind.
Yet you posted your false equivalency twice.
Again, my rebuttal is that your comment is a false equivalency.
If big words are the issue, dictionaries help.
I'm not surprised you're confused about the topic (or just trying to derail it) which would be a wholesale dumping of thousands (not 400) into cities selected for political punishment as a point of policy. Completely unlike Scumbag himself uttering this policy threat, the article you cite had nothing to do with picking on Phoenix and Tucson for political reasons nor was not a policy decision made by Obama but poor judgment call by the local officials on the Texas border. As far as it being "inhumanitarian" we see that parents and children were not separated which also stands in stark contrast to the actual still active crime scene of the policy (put in place by good ol' boy Sessions) to do just that and in what's now the trademark of the Scumbag administration to do it so incompetently and coldly that there's a strong likelihood that these children will never be reunited with their families. That's called kidnapping and in this case, as it was done as government policy, qualifies as a crime against humanity.
So, no. I don't really have any more questions about factually inaccurate statements but I do wonder if you plan on quitting the use of them.
No? Or do you mean you pervert language and don't consider that a game but serious business?