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.
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. In a few short weeks, US voters will have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. Our Fall Campaign is underway, and we need your help. To power our newsroom through the rest of the year, we need to raise $125,000 by midnight on October 31. So if you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
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.