Remember Murietta? Dumping unvetted migrants into the cities of political foes was done by Obama first
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.
White House wanted to release asylum-seekers into sanctuary cities
Now, this is what I call "social justice."
The Trump administration proposed releasing immigrant detainees onto the streets of "sanctuary cities" — including San Francisco — on at least two occasions within the past six months as retribution against the president's political enemies, The Washington Post reported, citing unnamed Department of Homeland Security officials and emails.The proposal was first floated in November amid reports of a large migrant caravan from Central America making its way to the southern border. The other time it was considered — in February — occurred during a standoff between Trump and Democrats over border wall funding.It was rejected both times by immigration agencies, the report said. A Nov. 16 email from the White House to officials at several agencies reportedly asked whether migrants could be arrested and bused to "small-and mid-sized sanctuary cities" and other Democratic strongholds.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's district in San Francisco was considered one of the areas targeted, according to the paper. Pelosi blasted the plan Thursday, calling it "despicable" to use "human beings — including little children — as pawns in their warped game to perpetuate fear and demonize immigrants."
What is Pelosi's beef? Releasing detainees into sanctuary cities is the opposite of fear-mongering. Won't the detainees be safer there than they would be in a city without sanctuary protections?
Don't city officials make a huge deal about being "welcoming" to all people? So now, when it comes time to put their city budget where their mouth is, they get cold feet and start talking about "fear" and "demonizing" immigrants?
Listen, children: this is politics in the age of Trump — no-holds-barred, in-your-face, smash-mouth, ram-it-down-your-throat politics. Trump has shown he can play that game as well as the Democrats. For Pelosi and the left to call "foul" on Trump is hypocritical.
But Pelosi's right, of course. It's a "warped" idea. And the immigration bureaucracy declined the opportunity to stick it to Democrats and sanctuary cities. But the game has changed, and Democrats have been put on notice that even those who pretend to be nice guys won't win much in the way of power and influence.
It's time to go to the mattresses and take no prisoners.
Trump appears to embrace plan to bus illegals being released to sanctuary cities
Given the harsh reaction to the Washington Post story yesterday about the Trump administration considering releasing immigrant detainees into sanctuary cities, you just had to know that the president would take the opportunity to troll his political foes.
President Trump said Friday that he is considering a plan to release illegal immigrants into sanctuary cities, saying it is fitting punishment for Democrat-led communities that refuse to get tough on border security.Mr. Trump was confirming a report in The Washington Post that said the idea was being considered."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," the president said on Twitter.Hours later, speaking to reporters at the White House, Mr. Trump said he would only be giving the sanctuaries what they say they want."California certainly is always saying 'Oh we want more people,' and they want more people in their sanctuary cities, well we'll give them more people. We'll give them a lot. We can give them an unlimited supply," he said.
Apparently, Democrats oppose the idea because, well...why do they oppose the idea?
Democrats bristled at Mr. Trump's suggestion."It is a notion that is unworthy of the presidency of the United States and disrespectful," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters.Thousands of illegal immigrant [sic] children and families are being nabbed at the border every day right now and because of lax U.S. laws, most of them are quickly released. That usually means being driven to a bus station in a city near the border and dropped off, leaving the migrants to disperse on their own or with the help of nonprofit organizations that are rushing to help.Some of those communities have complained about being overwhelmed by the releases.Mr. Trump didn't say what exactly he's considering, but one option would be to transport the illegal immigrants caught at the border to sanctuary jurisdictions elsewhere, spreading the impact of the releases beyond the border.Court documents detailing illegal immigration show some migrants already gravitate toward sanctuary communities, seeking out the more generous treatment such as ability to obtain government services and driver's licenses.
Trump is offering Democrats a perfect opportunity to virtue-signal. Or do Democrats only give lip service to the "welcoming" nature of sanctuary cities?
In truth, the logistics would be a nightmare. You would need hundreds of buses going to dozens of destinations. You would need to feed and care for thousands of illegals on the road. And once they got to where they were going, what would you do with them? It's not enough to just dump them inside the city limits of a sanctuary city and expect the city to care for them. The immigration bureaucrats who rejected this proposal knew what they were doing.
Still, it's satisfying to see Trump once again expose the mass hypocrisy of Democrats. "Not in my backyard," says Pelosi. If not in San Francisco, where would you suggest they go, Madame Speaker?
No comments:
Post a Comment