Once again, President Trump brings us utilitarianism at its best and most brutal, and perhaps trolling at its most refined.
The White House apparently has discussed sending illegal immigrants and dubious “migrants” to sanctuary cities. A Washington Post story described this as “targeting political foes” :
White House officials have tried to pressure U.S. immigration authorities to release detainees onto the streets of “sanctuary cities” to retaliate against President Trump’s political adversaries, according to Department of Homeland Security officials and email messages reviewed by The Washington Post.
Trump administration officials have proposed transporting detained immigrants to sanctuary cities at least twice in the past six months — once in November, as a migrant caravan approached the U.S. southern border, and again in February, amid a standoff with Democrats over funding for Trump’s border wall.
If true, and since the Post is reporting it, who knows if it is, the proposal is unethical, however diabolically amusing. The national government cannot and must not pick and choose among the states, cities and citizens: all must be treated equally, even those, like the sanctuary cities, that are asking to be slapped down. The idea is redolent of Chicago local politics. or the prime of Washington’s Mayor Barry, who somehow managed to see that the roads in Republican districts stayed snow-bound long after Barry-supporting districts got plowed.
However, nothing about the fact that the White House may have wanted to play games with illegal immigrants in the face of Democratic refusal to help him enforce our laws is either surprising or substantive. The reaction of the President’s foes, however, is useful intelligence. If this was ploy launched to make Democrats and others reveal their real attitudes and monumental hypocrisy, boy, did it work.
My favorite response, by far, was that of CNN legal Trump-basher Jeffrey Toobin, who called the proposal an attempt to use humans as “pestilence to spread around the country.” Wait, WHAT? The media and Democrats were just screaming about how wrong it was for the President to refer to these same humans as “animals’! (He didn’t, but never mind). I may not be up on my memos from the Langauge Police, but I’m pretty sure that calling human beings diseases is a lot worse than calling them animals. How do you really feel about illegal immigrants, Jeffrey?
Then there was Nancy Pelosi spokeswoman Ashley Etienne, speaking for her boss:
“The extent of this administration’s cynicism and cruelty cannot be overstated. Using human beings — including little children — as pawns in their warped game to perpetuate fear and demonize immigrants is despicable.”
Wow. 1) How is it cruelty to send the illegal immigrants Democrats defend and romanticize to nice, welcoming cities like San Francisco? Oh! I get it! It’s cruel to the people of San Francisco, Nancy’s constituency! 2) A Democrat, of the “Think of the Children!” Party, is actually claiming Trump is using children as pawns? The Democratic rhetoric and demagoguery about children at the border has encouraged those trying to breach our borders to use children as human shields, placing them in danger. The proposal doesn’t endanger children at all. It sends them to Disneyland! 3) Fear? Who is fearful? Oh, that’s right…the citizens in those sanctuary cities, who apparently fear being forced to accept the consequences of their own grandstanding.
And, of course there’s Adam Schiff:
“Power corrupts, and absolute power results in dangerously hare-brained schemes like this one, in which people fleeing violence are cynically used as political pawns.”
What is it that Schiff thinks is dangerous? Haven’t we been told that it was Trump who was demonizing illegal immigrants, the salt of the Earth? Where’s the danger? (Hmmm...do you think “pawns” may have been in a mass talking point memo?) If the illegal immigrants are fleeing violence—they all are, right, from those non-shit-hole but inexplicably violent countries–how is it cynical to send them to New York City, Portland Oregon, or Los Angeles? isn’t that kind? Isn’t that what they want?
I wonder if this was just a glorious set-up job by Trump to trap Democrats into revealing their utter hypocrisy. Mr.Trump, are you that smart?
33 thoughts on “Unethical Proposal, But The Reaction Was Worth It…And Maybe That Was the Idea”
Jack, he is smart like a fox on this one.
Laws and judges who are trying to make laws as they go say that you cannot send them back to their countries of origin.
So, it is actually in compliance to let them stay. No where does it state that you get to live wherever the heck you want while you wait for your bogus asylum claim to be denied.
My bet is that if this went to court, it could very well be upheld.
and as a hoisting by their own petard, its sheer brilliance…
“I wonder if this was just a glorious set-up job by Trump to trap Democrats into revealing their utter hypocrisy. Mr.Trump, are you that smart?”
Of course it was. On a lot of stuff, Trump is stucking foopid. On stuff like this, he’s a Regular Einstein (back in the late ’70s, that was the name of a punk band. One of the greatest band names ever, IMO).
Yes, he IS that smart, in his own limited way, and he’s arguably the greatest troll that has yet graced the planet (fat lotta good THAT’S gonna do us while the next Greatest Troll is in development).
But this one is fucking hilarious – and though it doesn’t speak well of me, I’m enjoying every minute of it.
PS: sorry I ruined your morning.
”But this one is fucking hilarious – and though it doesn’t speak well of me, I’m enjoying every minute of it.”
Oh, you mean that’s not a thing? 🙂
It is now!
I wonder if presenting them with a list of sanctuary cities and free transportation to the nearest one would be enough.
Oh, and Pelosi can get on out of here with that hot take. “Using human beings — including little children — as pawns in their warped game…” Now who does that? Maybe the political party that pretends that thousands of children AREN’T being trafficked for sex and forced labor across the border, raped by coyotes, and tossed over the fence as decoys so that grown men can scurry across the border while official are distracted trying to help the kids? The party that would rather see hundreds, if not thousands, of victims die in the desert or be raped repeatedly for years tied to a bed if it means they can yammer to the cameras about how compassionate they are and make Trump look bad?
They love immigrants the way Thomas Jefferson loved his slaves.
As I recall, Jefferson freed some of his slaves before and after his death. Maybe Sally Hemings was responsible as many of the freed ones were related to her.
FWIW, Sally Hemings’ youngest son Eston Hemings, born into slavery at Monticello, moved to the 77 Square Miles Surrounded By A Sea Of Reality, (AKA my hometown Madison, WI) after being freed by Jefferson.
Based on his experience in Madison, he’s reputed to have birthed the expression, “Out of the frying pan, into the fire.”
I do not understand fully why this is unethical. The asylum seekers may be able, by virtue of many willing legal eagles, obtain rights to enter and stay while awaiting a hearing many years from now I fail to see how resettling these people to areas that are most likely their advocates is illegal, immoral or unethical.
Our existing laws can require U.S. citizens to remain in a given geographic location while awaiting a court hearing. What the hell; a person asks for protection and then demands unfettered movement around our 50 states that allow them to fade into the proverbial shadows that their advocates lament.
We bussed children out of their neighborhoods to schools in other neighborhoods to achieve a political goal.
In my opinion they should be released to one of the lesser Hawaiian Islands until their hearing. After the hearing they are given free reign to relocate as needed or be sent back.
When I made that suggestion on FB, my left leaning brother commented that it was reminiscent of tbe Madagascar plan. I blew a gasket. This was his way of labelling me a Nazi. Damn shame.
When I called him out he said it was tongue in cheek. I told him slander is no joke and I now only have two brothers. Thanks to all who think throwing the Nazi label around comes without costs.
What floors me is this: is there no one on the Left or among their media sycophants who understands how this looks? If there are any voices saying with a shrug “Sure, we’ll take them, no problem,” I have yet to hear them from any mainstream source.
This is TDS on full display. In this case TDS stands for Trump Delusion Syndrome where the Resistance deludes itself into believing that calling the the plan a method to spread pestilence id actually a term of endearment.
I was actually going to suggest this yesterday, but thought it was too inflammatory. I am not sure it is even unethical. The ‘sanctuary cities’ have stated that they welcome these ‘undocumented immigrants’. If they have to go somewhere, shouldn’t they go where the local government has offered to take them? I think this is how the Somali refugees ended up in Minnesota, the government there offered to take them.
Chicago mayor-elect Lori Lightfoot and San Jose mayor Sam Liccardo have now come forward as welcoming any detainees Trump might want to send their way. At least they’re not all brain-dead.
Yeah, they are. If they get their wish, they’ll likely be voluntarily subjecting the citizens of their city to greater danger, and cost.
That’s insane. It’s one thing to look the other way when people break the national laws and instruct your employees to do so also. It’s another to invite more crime and indigence into an already strained system, and if either of those cities is sitting on a big, fat budget surplus, I’ve yet to hear about it.
Jack, I’m not seeing this as unethical. The plowing example isn’t analogous. It only would be if the unplowed districts were actively resisting the plows and using other government agencies to obstruct them.
I’ll add more to my argument.
NIMNBY isn’t ethical. Acknowledging that things are needed, but refusing to let them be built near you is unethical. Insisting that we need to let illegals in, just not in my backyard is a very unethical position.
…but such behavior is typical of progressives. Anything they force upon others must not inconvenience them personally.
Coastal progressives like Red States like Texas having the burden of these criminals, and have been laughing up their sleeves for years. Now that THEY might literally have to put their money where their mouth is, they are outraged. Progressives never intend to live under the rules they make for deplorables.
Anyone been tracking the uptick in unknown diseases across our nation? Diseases long extinct here suddenly active again? How the clusters seem to spring up all over the map at once? What could be the vector for tropical disease never before seen in the USA?
A couple of years ago Obama shipped illegals all over the nation without telling local and state authorities. That year, the flu vaccine mostly failed, as the predicted strains were not the predominant one. The strain that hit the US so hard was the one targeted in the Central and South American flu shot.
Gee, how did that happen?
“Pestilence” is not as hyperbolic as you might think.
”Progressives never intend to live under the rules they make for deplorables.”
In a (IMO) hilariously cruel twist of fate, Righty is co-opting Saul Alinskey’s “Rules For Radicals” Rule # 4:
“Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
Sucks to have to live by your principles.
I am surprised Trump hasn’t used the large Ebola epidemic in the Congo. It has been going on for over 6 months and threatens to spread around the world. Maybe Trump will seal ALL the borders until the outbreak is under control. Foreigners can return to their countries, but no one gets in.
Sometimes the best strategy is give the opposing party what they want. Democrats have been using immigration as a platform for claiming that they are the party for human rights the last several years so it makes perfect sense to say round up all the illegals you can find and send them to those cities most concerned about their welfare. This sounds exactly like something President Trump would think up, I’m just surprised it’s taken this long to come out.
Great post and great comments. Tremendous reading. Just goes to show that just because they are in a barrel does not mean any number of fish don’t need to be shot.
I immediately embraced the concept of sending illegal immigrants to Sanctuary Cities or to California, which is now a “Sanctuary State.” It’s a wonderful idea! Imagine how secure and safe the illegals would feel knowing this is where they’re actually welcome and where they’re belong. At last their journey would be over. And what a perfect excuse for California to actually secede from the Union as they’ve been wanting to do for years. With all the benefits, labor, money their new found residents would bring along with them, there would be no need for any Federal Government handouts. California and their counter-parts, the Sanctuary Cities across the country, could do it all by themselves. More power to them! Just want you to know I’m a 30 year resident of California and I totally support this action that California so justly deserves.
Even if California used this, or any other policy dispute, as a catalyst to finally secede….what good would it do, since the newly established nation-state obviously doesn’t believe in borders?
The entire left coast is a set of three sanctuary states.
Perhaps Trump just need to extract all border enforcement from the California Mexico border, and make it clear that so long as the immigrants stay in the sanctuary states they’ll be left alone. No transport needed, the illegals will all stop trying to sneak into Texas, New Mexico and Arizona.
This is hilarious. So Sanctuary Cities will talk the talk, but freak out if they’re asked to walk the walk. Brilliant. Brings out the worst of the worst.
Actually, a number of mayors in so-called “sanctuary cities” are now stepping forward to announce their acceptance. So, good on them for that.
And let’s see how long it takes for them to change their minds and demand federal money once they’re overwhelmed. Which, inevitably, they will be.
Well, not everyone is stupid AND hypocritical. I’ve been stunned by some of the statements in response to Trump’ trap—how dumb do you have to be to be extolling a group and then when the prospect of them arriving is threatened, to shout: “How dare you?”
If I knew how to insert an image into this response, I’d put up a picture of Nancy Pelosi.
That (image of Pelosi) would be fitting. CBS’ “60 Minutes” broadcast a masterful puff piece on her last night. (I say masterful, in sarcasm – but of course it was masterful; it was done by a Pelosi ally! In truth, I merely glanced at a few seconds of the segment, then switched channels, muttering, “Puff piece.”)