Immigrant rights advocates said Friday that sanctuary cities would welcome undocumented immigrants, who President Donald Trump said he would send to the cities. (Photo: Ryan/flickr/cc)
As Trump Threatens to Ship Undocumented Immigrants to Sanctuary Cities, Those Cities Say: We Will Welcome Them
"Bold move going from 'We're getting rid of Sanctuary Cities' to 'We will use Sanctuary Cities for their intended purpose.'"
Confirming Friday that his administration is considering sending undocumented immigrants en masse to sanctuary cities, President Donald Trump framed the proposal as a threat--but several politicians and rights advocates replied that immigrants would be welcome in those communities.
The president announced that the White House is weighing the proposal hours after the Washington Post reported that it had been considered and then rejected last year.
"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," Trump tweeted.
At least one sanctuary city mayor, Jim Kenney of Philadelphia, responded that he would happily welcome any number of immigrants sent to his city.
"The city would be prepared to welcome these immigrants just as we have embraced our immigrant communities for decades," Kenney said in a statement. "This White House plan demonstrates the utter contempt that the Trump administration has for basic human dignity."
Mayor Libby Schaaf of Oakland expressed pride in her city's status as one that bars all city employees from cooperating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and condemned the president for focusing his immigration agenda on keeping immigrants out of the United States.
"I am proud to be the mayor of a sanctuary city," Schaaf told CNN. "We believe sanctuary cities are safer cities. We embrace the diversity in Oakland and we do not think it's appropriate for us to use local resources to do the government's failed immigration work."
Much of the response to the Post's earlier reporting centered around what an aide to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the White House's "despicable" attempt to use human beings as pawns to demonize immigrants.
As Libby Watson noted at Splinter, much of the corporate media's reporting on the plan followed the narrative laid out by the Trump administration--that sending undocumented immigrants to sanctuary cities would be an "attack" on those cities and their Democratic leaders.
"A premise like 'busing migrants to San Francisco will punish Nancy Pelosi' is not self-explanatory," Watson wrote. "I do not immediately understand the mechanism by which releasing a tired, huddled mass of immigrants in cities with massive populations--and cities where asylum approval rates are much higher--would punish their representatives."
"The framing is left as 'the presence of migrants in cities will be bad for those cities.' And in the end, that just does Stephen Miller's work for him," she added, referring to Trump's policy adviser who has pushed for hard-line, xenophobic immigration policies.
Julia Carrie Wong, a technology reporter for the Guardian, echoed Watson's concerns.
"Let's not concede that having refugees in our cities is something to be threatened by," Wong tweeted.
After Trump announced the plan was again under consideration Friday, critics noted that sending immigrants to sanctuary cities would simply be using the cities and their laws as they were intended.
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just three days to go in our Spring Campaign, we're falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Confirming Friday that his administration is considering sending undocumented immigrants en masse to sanctuary cities, President Donald Trump framed the proposal as a threat--but several politicians and rights advocates replied that immigrants would be welcome in those communities.
The president announced that the White House is weighing the proposal hours after the Washington Post reported that it had been considered and then rejected last year.
"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," Trump tweeted.
At least one sanctuary city mayor, Jim Kenney of Philadelphia, responded that he would happily welcome any number of immigrants sent to his city.
"The city would be prepared to welcome these immigrants just as we have embraced our immigrant communities for decades," Kenney said in a statement. "This White House plan demonstrates the utter contempt that the Trump administration has for basic human dignity."
Mayor Libby Schaaf of Oakland expressed pride in her city's status as one that bars all city employees from cooperating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and condemned the president for focusing his immigration agenda on keeping immigrants out of the United States.
"I am proud to be the mayor of a sanctuary city," Schaaf told CNN. "We believe sanctuary cities are safer cities. We embrace the diversity in Oakland and we do not think it's appropriate for us to use local resources to do the government's failed immigration work."
Much of the response to the Post's earlier reporting centered around what an aide to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the White House's "despicable" attempt to use human beings as pawns to demonize immigrants.
As Libby Watson noted at Splinter, much of the corporate media's reporting on the plan followed the narrative laid out by the Trump administration--that sending undocumented immigrants to sanctuary cities would be an "attack" on those cities and their Democratic leaders.
"A premise like 'busing migrants to San Francisco will punish Nancy Pelosi' is not self-explanatory," Watson wrote. "I do not immediately understand the mechanism by which releasing a tired, huddled mass of immigrants in cities with massive populations--and cities where asylum approval rates are much higher--would punish their representatives."
"The framing is left as 'the presence of migrants in cities will be bad for those cities.' And in the end, that just does Stephen Miller's work for him," she added, referring to Trump's policy adviser who has pushed for hard-line, xenophobic immigration policies.
Julia Carrie Wong, a technology reporter for the Guardian, echoed Watson's concerns.
"Let's not concede that having refugees in our cities is something to be threatened by," Wong tweeted.
After Trump announced the plan was again under consideration Friday, critics noted that sending immigrants to sanctuary cities would simply be using the cities and their laws as they were intended.
Confirming Friday that his administration is considering sending undocumented immigrants en masse to sanctuary cities, President Donald Trump framed the proposal as a threat--but several politicians and rights advocates replied that immigrants would be welcome in those communities.
The president announced that the White House is weighing the proposal hours after the Washington Post reported that it had been considered and then rejected last year.
"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," Trump tweeted.
At least one sanctuary city mayor, Jim Kenney of Philadelphia, responded that he would happily welcome any number of immigrants sent to his city.
"The city would be prepared to welcome these immigrants just as we have embraced our immigrant communities for decades," Kenney said in a statement. "This White House plan demonstrates the utter contempt that the Trump administration has for basic human dignity."
Mayor Libby Schaaf of Oakland expressed pride in her city's status as one that bars all city employees from cooperating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and condemned the president for focusing his immigration agenda on keeping immigrants out of the United States.
"I am proud to be the mayor of a sanctuary city," Schaaf told CNN. "We believe sanctuary cities are safer cities. We embrace the diversity in Oakland and we do not think it's appropriate for us to use local resources to do the government's failed immigration work."
Much of the response to the Post's earlier reporting centered around what an aide to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the White House's "despicable" attempt to use human beings as pawns to demonize immigrants.
As Libby Watson noted at Splinter, much of the corporate media's reporting on the plan followed the narrative laid out by the Trump administration--that sending undocumented immigrants to sanctuary cities would be an "attack" on those cities and their Democratic leaders.
"A premise like 'busing migrants to San Francisco will punish Nancy Pelosi' is not self-explanatory," Watson wrote. "I do not immediately understand the mechanism by which releasing a tired, huddled mass of immigrants in cities with massive populations--and cities where asylum approval rates are much higher--would punish their representatives."
"The framing is left as 'the presence of migrants in cities will be bad for those cities.' And in the end, that just does Stephen Miller's work for him," she added, referring to Trump's policy adviser who has pushed for hard-line, xenophobic immigration policies.
Julia Carrie Wong, a technology reporter for the Guardian, echoed Watson's concerns.
"Let's not concede that having refugees in our cities is something to be threatened by," Wong tweeted.
After Trump announced the plan was again under consideration Friday, critics noted that sending immigrants to sanctuary cities would simply be using the cities and their laws as they were intended.