In case you need a definition of “They’re going to attack you no matter what you do”, read the following two excerpts from Priscilla Alvarez and Evan Perez’s article for cnn.com.
First we have this:
President Donald Trump said Friday that his administration is “strongly looking at” the possibility of releasing immigrants into so-called sanctuary cities in part to retaliate against Democrats, undercutting earlier denials from his own administration officials.
Translation: President Trump is telling the people who openly advocate illegals streaming into the country that he is considering sending the resulting tidal wave of illegals to where they live.
Do you have any problem with that? If so, why?
Well, here’s one answer to the above question – from Aslhley Etienne, a spokesperson for Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi:
“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, and in some cases, criminal. The American people have resoundingly rejected this Administration’s toxic anti-immigrant policies, and Democrats will continue to advance immigration policies that keep us safe and honor our values.”
Uh…wait a minute, Ms. Etienne. Isn’t Trump’s suggestion that the “sanctuary” cities and states which advocate for illegals to be welcomed into the country should be the ones who accept the illegals they are offering sanctuary to?
If this is using them “as pawns in a warped game to perpetuate fear and demonize immigrants” (please note the lack of any reference to their being here illegally), what do you call the people who are ADVOCATING for them to come here? What are they engaging in?
In other words, your show of public outrage and fury is over President Trump suggesting that the people who want illegals here should be the people who receive them.
Isn’t that specifically what they are in favor of?
This, folks, is a classic case of NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard). A hypocrisy right up there with the people who demand that we have no border walls, but live in mansions with walls around them.
(Here’s just one example – the Clinton home in Chappaqua, New York”:)
Asking again: if politicians in some cities/states invent “sanctuary” status (absent any legal basis for it, unless you think state law supersedes federal law) for illegals to come into the country and stay here, why would they have any problem with the illegals being channeled to their cities/states?
Anyone have an answer? I’m all ears.