Amazing

I shouldn’t be surprised. I’ve long said it is irrational to expect people to be rational. But yet, I’m still amazed at times. This is my current example:

Donald Trump’s proposal to move migrants into sanctuary cities raises logistical, legal issues

A myriad of logistical and legal obstacles await President Donald Trump if he follows through on his threat to place migrants arriving at the border into so-called sanctuary cities, a move apparently designed to punish Democrats for refusing to support his immigration policies.

Donald Trump’s use of government power to conduct corrupt, vindictive operations smells like Watergate,” said Becerra, a former congressman from California. “It’s a sobering reminder that our nation is only as strong as our democratic institutions and the rule of law.

And declaring your city a sanctuary for illegal aliens is legal? The last I heard aiding and abetting a criminal is illegal.

The politicians of “sanctuary cities” are only concerned with the rule of law when it is to their advantage. Either you have to conclude that liberalism is a mental disorder and/or they are knowingly committing criminal acts. It either case these politicians should be tried and sent to prison.

13 thoughts on “Amazing

  1. Logistics and legalities didn’t seem to be a problem when the halfican and his commie/muzzie friends were moving “refugees” from sh**hole countries into Middle-American states and cities. (Can you say Maine, Minnesota, Florida, etc?)

  2. Portland, Salem, California, buying bus tickets to move homeless to So. Oregon is the same tactic in reverse. Your spot on, only when the law suits them.
    8 U.S.C. 1324, aiding and abiding an illegal alien. 5 to 20 year federal felony. This crap would end tomorrow with just a few “perp walks”. then maybe WE could “enjoy their trial”.

  3. Let’s be honest. The Demoncrats have been using the illegal immigrants to punish people they don’t like. Despite all assurances to the contrary they have no particular love for illegal immigrants except for how it benefits them politically.

  4. I don’t like the logic here, because I pretty strongly agree with the local LEOs who are refusing to enforce federal firearms laws. I don’t see a fundamental difference other than one agrees with me, and that isn’t a good basis to decide that one is a proper separation of powers and the other is aiding and abetting.

    • The ‘logic’ is using their own rules (Alyinsky Rules for Radicals #4 Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.) against them.
      Cram their rules down their throats and make them choke on it.

      And ‘Constitutionally’ RKBA is an enumerated right, with both the Fed & State .gov now covered and restricted by “…shall not be infringed”.
      Immigration isn’t.

    • Yeah, if I understand your point, I’d say it doesn’t work. The analog for sanctuary gun cities is this; the Democrats buy us all AR-15s and AKs, truckloads of ammo and magazines, they help to set up new shooting ranges for us, we all have a good time, and crime plummets to new lows.

      And as stated; gun sanctuaries (police refusing to enforce illegal, anti-American, Anti-constitutional laws) are pro constitution and pro law, whereas illegal alien sanctuaries are anti constitution and anti law. They have little in common beyond the concept of “push-back”.

  5. It’s been said before that the Republicans can easily get away with doing the things that we hate the Democrats for doing (I’ll spare you the long list of sad examples).

    Toward this end, Trump has a brilliant strategy. He’d have us cheering as he brings in a million illegals here and another million there, in essence “bombing” American cities with “biological weapons”.

    Maybe Soros, et al would agree to provide the busses or charter some jets to help out if Trump actually wanted to make this happen. This is exactly what the global, Romish left has been doing to Western Judaeo/Christian Civilization as a whole. Trump’s proposal would simply be continuing that same mission under a modified narrative.

    So it’s the narrative that matters, not the action.

    So doing something horrible for the country, causing our cities to deteriorate further, and the electorate to shift farther left, is not only OK, but laudable, if, a) it’s done by a Republican, and b) it makes our political “opponents” suffer more than it makes us suffer? That latter part (b) is altogether uncertain too, by the way– the movers and shakers themselves don’t ever suffer from this stuff, and they prefer a suffering constituency anyway.

    A contented constituency doesn’t need politicians.

    Trump, any president, has the authority to close the borders any day, for any half-baked reason. This therefore can be nothing but a circus. Mm; keep us distracted with bread and circuses, and we’ll fall for anything. Trump has had it both ways, and will continue to have it both ways, on this issue. He’s been talking big, we cheer the talk, and the borders remain as pours as ever. This has been a foregone conclusion since before the Reagan administration and you all know it, so stop, scan and assess, reconnoiter the tactical landscape.

    Politicians aren’t going to fix the world, or restore this country,, and neither are we.

    • Perhaps.

      Thing is, I suspect (based on my and my wife’s recent trips to the Bay Area) at least some of the locals are starting to recognize what’s happening to their property values, safety, and pleasant local environment.

      If we presume the illegals will be in the country anyway, then we may as well move and concentrate them to where the local population has indicated they’d be welcome (at least as per who they elected). That way at least we will more or less know where they are, and the locals can get an early taste of the end state their elected officials are taking them to.

      Put it another way, I suspect this isn’t a “Briar Patch / Brer Rabbit” situation, unlike your example with rifles and shooting ranges above.

  6. The logistic problem is greatly overrated. Consider that during WWII, the Russians moved millions of workers, their families and their factories from the western part of the Soviet Union to the Urals and Siberia. All this was done with the Nazis nipping at their heels and over a much more primitive infrastructure than we have. It was not done with the greatest of comfort for the evacuees but our stronger infrastructure should take care of this.

  7. Lots of Leftist enclaves are on the water. Instead of letting them scrap older cruise ships, aqcuire them to move the illegals in bigger batches. No getting off early while enroute! Set up a port at the north end of the Gulf of CA, and pick a convenient one in TX on the Gulf of Mexico. Welcome to Seattle, Portland, San Fran, NYFC, Chicago, etc!

    • If Chicago is the destination then there are some problems. The St Lawrence Seaway appears to only allow a maximum beam width of 78 feet. This isn’t large enough for most cruise ships. Some of the really small ones might be able to make it though.

  8. i don’t understand the problem. Instead of announcing that they will be bused to sanctuary cities, when people in the country illegally are arrested and processed, they are then released on their own recognizance with a promise to return for a court date of which they are informed.
    Simply issue each one a map, a list of sanctuary cities, the location of the nearest bus terminal, and if possible, some cash. Leave their decision up to them.

Comments are closed.