Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Trump Plan To Transport Illegal Border Crossers to Sanctuary Cities Makes Liberals Live By Their Own Rules

Trump Plan To Transport Illegal Border Crossers to Sanctuary Cities Makes Liberals Live By Their Own Rules

When your own “Rules for Radicals” comes back to bite you

When I first heard that President Trump is considering releasing illegal aliens into sanctuary cities, I laughed. Out loud.  There may have been giggling, too, as I pondered the implications and read the outraged outraging of the left.

My first thought was “perfect! This is Alinsky in action: make them live by their own rules.”  My second thought was “this has a touch of Cloward-Piven, too, overwhelm the systems of the sanctuary cities, and voters there may decide they don’t like living in a sanctuary city after all.”

Saul Alinsky, go-to guru of the radical left, laid out his Rules for Radicals back in 1971.  The right has since become savvy to these tactics, and, as we see in Trump’s sanctuary city proposal, more than willing to deploy them when situations merit.

In this case, Trump is expertly using Rule #4.

“The fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”

The absolute chaos the very idea has created on the left is hilarious and underscores the effective power of Alinsky, even against those who know the rules inside and out.  They are by turns expressing outrage (is this even legal? He can’t do that!) and sputtering defiance (We’ll take all the illegals you can send our way. So there!).

Trump doubled down on his proposal late Friday, Fox News reports.

President Trump responded to reports Friday that his administration proposed releasing immigrant detainees in sanctuary cities by not only confirming the plan but saying it remains under “strong” consideration.

Further, the president tweeted that relocating illegal immigrants to these districts should make the “Radical Left” happy.

. . . .  Trump repeated the remarks later at the White House: “We can give them an unlimited supply…let’s see if they have open arms.”

The president doubled down as Democrats fumed over the relocation idea.

“The extent of this Administration’s cynicism and cruelty cannot be overstated,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s spokeswoman Ashley Etienne said in a statement Friday. “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.”

Perhaps responding to Pelosi and other Democrat outrage, the president tweeted:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1116891452003557376

The rollout of this is a master class in the perfect execution of Alinsky’s Rule #4. In three tweets, the president has Democrats scrambling to readjust their slipped masks.  They are in chaos, unsure how to respond and becoming increasingly aware that their initial outrage at the very thought revealed to all that they are not in the least interested in having their cities and states flooded with hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens.

Further, no one is talking about much else, not tax returns, not the Attorney General or Mueller report, not health care.  Nothing.

It’s also worth noting that little notice was taken when the Obama administration was transporting illegals all over the country—including to towns that turned them away and on “buses to nowhere”.

At least Trump wants to send them where they will be most welcome. So why all the outrage and defiant bluff-calling?  What happens when Trump responds to their faux enthusiasm by suggesting they foot the bill to have the illegals bused to their progressive sanctuary utopias?  And are they really so sure the president is bluffing?

I’m not, but I very much appreciate Trump’s élan when it comes to using the left’s tactics against them.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

TheOldZombie | April 13, 2019 at 8:34 pm

Do it!!! Send all the illegals to the sanctuary cities and states. Let them deal with it.

If they refuse that only proves they are hypocrites and will make great campaign fodder.

Worse, the media had a few initial headlines about “dumping” them – I think this was CNN and a NBC property. They quickly reversed when people say mean “you think they are trash?”.

You thought “perfect”, but if you listened carefully, you would have heard echoes of half the country saying “Do It!”.

    “Perfect” to me necessarily includes “do it.” But I’d be embarrassed if I could only manage to grunt out two words when what Trump has done here is so insanely great. The only way it could get better is if he actually does it . . . and makes the sanctuary cities pay the bus fare. *snort*

Alternatively, just send them all to DC.

    Valerie in reply to bawatkins. | April 13, 2019 at 10:05 pm

    San Francisco. The people there will even allow illegal aliens to get away with murder.*

    *Sorry, a grown man allegedly playing with a handgun is going beyond manslaughter, in my opinion, and the jury found him not guilty. He shot a girl in San Francisco, just to watch her die.

Well, if executed right, they will do what Cabrini-Green did for Chicago. When I lived there, they averaged a murder a day in just a block section.

I say load, Chicago, LA, Detroit and Baltimore and put a bunch next to Dearborn MI and the nice little area near Minn. Make sure we capture everyones DNA so we can show how 10 years from now, which crimes were committed by the nice people that are invading our country. Would love to put them in high rent districts in CA and Westchester area of New York where AOC grew up. I would even call it a gift from her.

At its peak, Cabrini–Green was home to 15,000 people,[3] living in mid- and high-rise apartment buildings totaling 3,607 units.

Over the years, crime, gang violence and neglect created deplorable living conditions for the residents, and “Cabrini–Green” became synonymous with the problems associated with public housing in the United States.

    MarkSmith in reply to MarkSmith. | April 13, 2019 at 8:39 pm

    “just a block section.” Correction 8 block section. I lived in Chicago, not Cabrini-Green, too, but not too far from it.

    artichoke in reply to MarkSmith. | April 13, 2019 at 10:22 pm

    Westchester County NY is not a Sanctuary as far as I know, even though our awful County Exec probably wants it to be. We used to vote red until just recently (and I am a bit mystified by the change) so … don’t send them here.

    We just got over 7 years of Obama trying to rezone us even though no racial discrimination was ever shown.

    Mike H. in reply to MarkSmith. | April 13, 2019 at 11:35 pm

    Outstanding idea! DNA collection first and then transportation.

Ahhh, the compassionate left. Their standards are like their book keeping. They always have at least 2 sets.

How about we just send them to college and save time. Summer housing in all those empty dorm rooms. Berkley, Yale, Harvard, Princeton, USC, I believe most Ivy League school would be more than welcoming.

    MarkSmith in reply to MarkSmith. | April 13, 2019 at 8:53 pm

    Look what is say about Berkeley:

    “From a group of academic pioneers in 1868 to the Free Speech Movement in 1964, Berkeley is a place where the brightest minds from across the globe come together to explore, ask questions and improve the world.”

    Let them prove it!!!

Why do I get the sinking feeling that a GOPe or Obama Federal judge will nix Trump’s plan and order illegals to be dumped in Flyover Country?

    Because they always Cuck and back down? Because Trump bows to judges even when they have no standing? Because you’re a realist.

      It does not help that a number of open borders GOPe wackjobs in Congress and governors’ mansions are likely just as freaked out over this as Democrats are.

      txvet2 in reply to forksdad. | April 14, 2019 at 8:08 pm

      It would be refreshing if Trump simply declared that the judge’s ruling applied only to his own bailiwick and proceeded with his distribution plan elsewhere.

      JohnSmith100 in reply to forksdad. | April 14, 2019 at 8:20 pm

      I wish Trump would start telling those judges that he will only comply when SCOTUS rules that he must.

As it happens a District Judge in the 9th Circuit put an injunction against enforcing the stay-in-Mexico plan.

Then Trump threatened to send a lot of them to major cities within the 9th Circuit.

And then just yesterday the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the injunction pending review by SCOTUS.

It does look like Trump forced the 9th Circuit to do the right thing, against all their previous tendencies, by making them see that their own area and favorite communities and power bases would pay the price otherwise.

Winning!

    Andy in reply to artichoke. | April 14, 2019 at 7:07 am

    Once again, Trump is the smartest man in the room.

    Seattle, Olympia, Portland, San Fran and the rest of the I-5 corridor are already suffocating from homeless addicts, dumping illigals in these dumpster fire cities will literally be the end of them.

    iconotastic in reply to artichoke. | April 14, 2019 at 6:39 pm

    If I understand it correctly, the 1996 asylum law states that there will be no judicial review of decisions by the AG regarding where asylum seekers will be sent. So President Trump should be able to tell this Obama judge to stick his decision where the sun doesn’t shine.

      dystopia in reply to iconotastic. | April 14, 2019 at 7:03 pm

      Unfortunately, this is politics not law. Obama defied Federal Court orders on occasion. For example one on Yuka Mountain. Democrat governors were not to concerned about implementing the Supreme Courts 2nd Amendment decisions. Nor do Courts seem too concerned with implementing Crawford vs Marion County. It’s politics dressed up as law.

      If Trump defied a judge doing the bidding of the Democrat Party, the Democrats would sprout homilies about “the rule of law” and their media allies would join in with the other aphorisms they have on file.

        JohnSmith100 in reply to dystopia. | April 14, 2019 at 11:14 pm

        Democrats have become the party of criminals. Based on per capita crime rates, blacks are the worst, Hispanics are next in line. Both groups mostly vote Dem.

        And then there is Hillary, who put a woman well known to be associated with with terrorist organizations in a position to pass all sorts of classified information to those terrorists.

buckeyeminuteman | April 13, 2019 at 10:35 pm

It sounds funny and is opening a debate. But releasing illegals anywhere in the United States in itself is criminal. They should be deported. What if they hurt somebody in that sanctuary city? Whether it’s a crazy lefty or not, US government has a responsibility to protect Americans.

    artichoke in reply to buckeyeminuteman. | April 13, 2019 at 10:38 pm

    Of course you’re right in principle but not in the law as it exists now. The current law, from the confluence of a bunch of stuff including the Flores settlement, is that Trump is being forced to release them in the homeland. But he does, apparently, have discretion to dump them where they are so beloved, the Sanctuary Cities, and to save the cities that cooperate with federal law enforcement from getting more of them delivered.

    tom_swift in reply to buckeyeminuteman. | April 14, 2019 at 12:05 am

    What if they hurt somebody in that sanctuary city?

    That’s generally a matter for state law.

    DaveGinOly in reply to buckeyeminuteman. | April 14, 2019 at 4:02 am

    At this point, if it’s the responsibility of the US government to protect its citizens, then the citizens who should get the protection are those who are not advocating lawlessness. If anyone should reap the consequences of lawlessness, it should be those who are responsible for it. The US government certainly has no positive responsibility to spread the threat throughout the country and to subject people to it who have had no part in manifesting it.

San Francisco is too expensive for “criminally trespassing” aliens.
Sent them to Napa Valley. I hear Nancy has a place in St Helena.

Of all the genius ideas President Trump has ever had, this is the most ingenious.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to Leslie Eastman. | April 14, 2019 at 9:57 am

    I have repeatedly suggested extracting a healthy chunk of the money being transfered to illegals families to help pay for both the wall and border enforcement.

    Another idea would be to use civil fortiture. Identify illegals who have significant assets, grab those assets and deport them, with lots of publicity. Other illegals would at some point liquidate and leave. They should be taxed 25% of any assets they are taking with them.

I’ve been recommending months….send lots of illegals to Martha’s Vineyard and the Hamptons.
Then watch the local leftists scream bloody murder…..and demand the gubmint erect a wall.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | April 13, 2019 at 11:56 pm

Great pic of the Pres Fuzzy. Makes me think of President Reagan.

This could not be why all the DEMS are so NIMBY could it????

Reuters Propaganda Headline: “Man Arrested After Boy Falls from Balcony”?….
This is infuriating…. Emmanuel Deshawn Aranda is charged with attempted homicide after throwing a random five-year-old boy from the third level of the Mall of America. How does Reuters present the story:
– the Last Refuge

Best election ever.

The illegal aliens need to give a DNA sample and be fitted with a GPS ankle monitor. If they are caught outside the sanctuary jurisdiction, they are immediately deported and forever barred from re-entry. This gives them incentive to remain in the sanctuary jurisdiction.

COME ON PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP, WE CAN DO THIS!!! MAGA!!!

The Democrat’s are furious because they want illegal immigrants to vote for them in areas that are in contention in important elections. Sanctuary cities are generally in safely Democratic Congressional Districts, and most are in safely Democratic states. Sending the immigrants there is good for the immigrants themselves who will then be protected against deportation, but not particularly good for the Democratic Party. (It could even annoy legal voters in Sanctuary cities.)
Trump is being magnanimous to the immigrants while not harming his party! I can’t think of a single reason for him not doing this.
The main effect will actually be that the money supporting the caravans of pretend asylum seekers will dry up.

Sanctuary states and cities expect the entire country to shoulder the burden created by their agenda. But there is no good reason why the entire country should assume responsibility for an agenda that’s not supported by Congress through federal statute. That is the only lawful way to make any agenda the responsibility of the entire country. Until that happens, the responsibility for the “sanctuary” agenda should be borne by its adherents and proponents.

When it first came out this was said to be a “blue sky” type thought, one that was dismissed early on. Yet, Trump does this type of thing often enough that I think the leaking of the idea was purposeful to test the reaction.

The left going nuts as they have shows their true self. It is no different from all the other things they do. They love their ideas based on taxpayers footing the bills, but slam on the brakes when it gets pushed into their home towns. They love open borders for the illegal voting machine, but they don’t want the illegals in their home town.

The Oakland Mayor, that wonderful warmhearted liberal who boasts of their sanctuary city and even warns illegals when an ICE raid is coming has said how unfair it is to her city because it would overwhelm the depleting resources of the city. Aww, poor baby. The costs are high for taxpayers, they have to pay out a lot to support these schemes, but like the good goose stepping armed locked fascists they are at heart, they want others to pay for it. Though give them credit, they are bringing their city to ruin for the sake of the agenda.

The politicians who push this don’t believe they ever have to face living next door to these people. It is easy to compassion, however misplaced, when you don’t have to pay the cost directly.

Trump now had them stuttering. They don’t know how to react to this brilliant move.

His next move should be to find out all the sponsors for the illegal caravans and find a legal way to force the housing and care of them on their properties. A sponsorship requirement in view of how they organized and payed for these people to come to the borders to overwhelm it in Cloward Piven fashion. They want their way to collapse our government to form it anew. Make their property city states where the lands are their own entities, however, none can leave those lands without passports and papers, and the bill has to be paid by them. Of course that wouldn’t happen, but it’s nice to dream.

    alv7722 in reply to oldgoat36. | April 15, 2019 at 6:22 pm

    Much of the influx is sponsored by George Soros. A staunch Communist advocate. I think Hungary outlawed him and his machinations.. Here, he gets tax exempt status for his attempts to destroy our country!!

It will work better if he then condemns property in the ‘good’ parts of town to build the public housing, clinics and other gov’t support for them. What’s wrong putting the new gardeners close to the lawns they will service? NIMBY!

YIMBY! (Yes in my back yard)

It’s good that he’s still considering it. My impression from the MSM coverage was thsat he’d been persuaded not to do it, and my first thought was “why?”. It’s a great idea and should be done. None of the arguments against it make any sense.

Remember Murietta? Dumping unvetted migrants into the cities of political foes was done by Obama first–Monica Showalter

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/04/remember_murietta_dumping_unvetted_migrants_into_the_cities_of_political_foes_was_done_by_obama_first.html#ixzz5l3hCysJh

We see all the gated communities in California. I also remember George Clooney getting upset about the refuge camps near his home in Italy. The list goes on and on. Remember when people cried for Congress to move their health insurance to Obamacare. Well, they got to keep their doctors and insurance while the rest of us didn’t and the Republicans did nothing. This time Trump has the cojones to make the Dems feel the full effects of their words.

Waiting for the first city to declare themselves sanctuary for US citizens

Although it isn’t popular, our Pasadena City Council voted to make the city a sanctuary city a few years ago. I seem to be the only person who knows that even though most everyone I know is against the concept. It damage just hasn’t yet registered with people who don’t live in the poor and working class neighborhoods where it is very unpopular. A lot of people are about to get an education. THIS is what your are doing to OTHER people! How do you like it? NIMBY?

Wow. This obtuse hypocrisy is astounding.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-04-14/cory-booker-releasing-migrants-sanctuary-cities-would-make-us-less-safe

Geez Sparticus! If they are making YOUR cities less safe, why do we have the sanctuary cities? Why is it a good idea to even allow them to flood into the country in the first place?

Two weeks ago, the white Sparticus, Bozo O’Rourke, declared that El Paso is safe BECAUSE of all of the illegals there!

I hope this isn’t just the latest of Trump’s endless bluffs. For once, just once, I would like to see him actually follow through. This should be the one. The silver bullet. Do it!!! Now!!! No more talking!!!

‘“The extent of this Administration’s cynicism and cruelty cannot be overstated,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s spokeswoman Ashley Etienne said in a statement Friday. “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.”’

Yeah, uhh, as if the Dems aren’t undisputed champions of using “human beings-including little children” as pawns. They’ve been doing this since forever. What do they think the entire point of ‘sanctuary cities’ is, if not to virtue-signal and use immigrants as pawns?

    alv7722 in reply to rdmdawg. | April 15, 2019 at 6:28 pm

    “Using human beings—including little children—as pawns” Isn’t this what the Communists are already doing??? In their attempt to destroy our country!!!

I think Trump knocked this one out of the park. Can you imagine those “special” areas in the meto areas where all those progressives live getting pushed out by Illegals.

Here is a key that he is winning. AP is trying to make the case that it goes against what Trump wants, but they fail to see that Trump is not going to get what he wants anyways, so those who ask, get. Their city crime rate is going to balloon and they are going to wonder why 5 year olds are thrown off 3 story ledges. I don’t think any of us have any reason to push back against “legal” immigrants. In some way we all are.

I was listening to C-span this morning to National Urban League President and CEO Marc Morial and how blacks are being discriminated against. How unfair the education is to blacks. He got his hat handed to him by blacks calling in and system that many of the laws passed hurt blacks. Desegregation took blacks away from good teachers and changed the learning environment to a caustic one. Listening to Morial try to weasel out of it was great. Blacks are waking up that Dems. are not looking out for them and are using identity politics instead of looking out of their interests. I think a revolution is on its way.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?459704-1/washington-journal-04142019

AP Headlines:

“Trump sanctuary city idea could help migrants stay in US”

https://apnews.com/e991a0409f7c475ba48e827e232b6cfe

An idea floated by President Donald Trump to send immigrants from the border to “sanctuary cities” to exact revenge on Democratic foes could end up doing the migrants a favor by placing them in locations that make it easier to put down roots and stay in the country.

The plan would put thousands of immigrants in cities that are not only welcoming to them, but also more likely to rebuff federal officials carrying out deportation orders. Many of these locations have more resources to help immigrants make their legal cases to stay in the United States than smaller cities, with some of the nation’s biggest immigration advocacy groups based in places like San Francisco, New York City and Chicago. The downside for the immigrants would be a high cost of living in the cities.

    alv7722 in reply to MarkSmith. | April 15, 2019 at 6:33 pm

    How would the ‘high cost’ of living in these cities affect the illegals?? They get welfare benefits, housing subsidies, and free healthcare. Many of them work under the table, while still receiving welfare!!! AND. Who cares??

Remarkable.
I have to admit, trump wasn’t on my top 10 list of picks for prez, and I had a bunch of doubts.
But, “by a mans enemies you will know him”.
The more deranged the anti trump Left and GOP-lite are made by him, the better I like him.

You might wish for a more diplomatic public face, but he gets stuff done, he actually works to fulfill campaign promises, and he’s not interested in making nice to people who won’t make nice either first or in return. After years of republican bipartisanship being defined as a republican who votes with the opposition I find his disinterest in being invited to all the right parties and fitting in with the US’s self-proclaimed elite class refreshing.

And I sincerely hope he does the sanctuary city dump. For years the Dems have lauded the economic, social, and crime-statistic benefits of turning a blind eye to illegal immigration. Now they are squawking like outraged live chickens being plucked at the prospect of being believed and given the full “benefit” of what they support as good for the rest of us.

They remind me of the old joke about the defense lawyer defending an accused axe murderer who pleads with the judge at Pre-trial that his client is the salt of the earth, harmless, and even requiring bail would be an injustice. Cue a closeup of the defendant with a crazed look fascinated by the blood stained axe on the evidence table. Whereupon the judge tells the lawyer – “you’ve convinced me, barrister. Until the trial concludes I release the defendant into your personal custody. He can stay at your home with your family “. Cue a closeup of the lawyers face as he looks a tad worried now.

As the saying goes “Turn About Is Fair Play”

I know my President said that I might get tired of winning.
But I’m not. I love winning.

I love it–ten thousand Hondurans in San Francisco, Cambridge,Mass., New Haven, Ann Arbor, Mich, etc. Give them a one-way bus or train ticket—you might want to add Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, beautiful–might be worth the air fare to send them to Brussels.

I pray that Trump can find a way to put illegal aliens into sanctuary cities on a scale large enough to choke them. They should be overwhelmed with so many of these illegals, that they claim are of such great benefit to the country, that they are begging for mass deportations, and an end to all immigration. Give them what they claim to want. Give it to them good and hard, and in full measure — and make them reject the policy they want to force on everyone else.

There never was a “Trump Plan To Transport Illegal Border Crossers to Sanctuary Cities”, but I love how President Trump can take something that started as a joke and turn it into something that highlights the hypocrisy of his political opposition!

He doesn’t have to worry about getting my vote in 2020.

It is a pity that the Democrats didn’t repeal the 22nd Amendment. LOL

    CaptTee in reply to CaptTee. | April 15, 2019 at 2:35 pm

    Or should I have written ‘There never was a “Trump Plan To Transport Illegal Border Crossers to Sanctuary Cities” until the proponents of Sanctuary Cities showed they couldn’t take a joke…’

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend