When my family and I were driving back from Chicago, a vote of the city council was revealed that perfectly captured the hypocrisy and politics surrounding undocumented migrants in major cities. The council voted down an effort to allow voters to decide on whether Chicago should remain a sanctuary city. The measure was defeated 16-31.
During our visit, there were distribution areas of undocumented families near my mother’s house on the Northside. There were also a large number of tents now near the park for the burgeoning homeless population.
What is striking about the vote is the contrast to the prior adoption of sanctuary city measures. Starting under Mayor Harold Washington, the city council was eager to vote on measures heralding its status as a sanctuary city and calling on migrants to come to the city. Mayor Rahm Emanuel reaffirmed Chicago’s status as a haven for immigrants fearing deportation and encouraged them to view Chicago as a protected zone: “You are safe in Chicago. You are secure in Chicago. And you are supported in Chicago. This is a city of inclusion.”
It was a major article of faith on the left to pass legislation (as the city did) to obstruct federal deportation efforts while declaring the city open for migrants. Such virtue signaling was wildly popular. Then migrants started to show up in large numbers.
While the city has only received a small percentage of the migrants as opposed to smaller cities along the border, Mayor Brandon Johnson (who also once proclaimed his own pro-immigrant stance) is denouncing both the Texas and federal governments for increasing numbers of migrants in Chicago. In the meantime, protests are growing over migrant camps and construction plans.
This puts liberal politicians in a bind. They do not want to take the heat by rescinding years of sanctuary city policies while not ticking off voters who are upset with the rising costs and impact on the city.
The solution was to block any effort to give the citizens a chance to voice their view of these policies in defeating the resolution of Alderman Anthony Beale (9th) and Raymond Lopez (15th).
Notably, much of the protests have come from traditionally black precincts where locals are fed up with the increasingly crowded conditions for schools and diversion of resources. Yet, eight alderman for those precincts voted to kill the proposal.
It appears that consulting the voters was not a good option for these politicians. Democracy is only useful for certain tasks, particularly when the outcome is likely to be a rejection of long-held policies. Polls indicate that the majority of Chicagoans oppose the sanctuary city policies. Nationally, some polls show 80 percent of voters oppose sanctuary city policies.
In one controversy on an earlier vote, Mayor Brandon Johnson’s floor leader, Alderman Carlos Ramirez-Rosa (35th) was accused of physically blocking West Side Alderman Emma Mitts (37th) from entering Council chambers in an effort to prevent a quorum of alderpeople needed to vote on the resolution. He was also accused of threatening members who supported the effort to let the voter decide. He later resigned as floor leader.
While Johnson opposed the measure, he has publicly decried the cost for caring for migrants. He wants to stay technically a sanctuary city without offering quite so much sanctuary.
Johnson blamed Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s “reckless” and “dangerous” decision to send buses of migrants to Chicago despite the city proclaiming for years that it was open for migrants to come and would refuse to assist the federal government in deportation efforts.
In the meantime, Gov. J.B. Pritzker has opened up 230 hotel rooms for migrants as local citizens demand a change in state and city policies. Given the anger of such residents, the city council has found a solution: just don’t let them vote. It appears something of a trend around the country.
I’m reminded by a friend of this classic line: “Some party hack decreed that the people had lost the government’s confidence and could only regain it with redoubled effort. If that is the case, would it not be be simpler, If the government simply dissolved the people and elected another?” Bertolt Brecht.
Odd, it takes an East German satirist who was harangued during the House Un-American Activities Committee to put this in perspective.
You don’t suppose elections are rigged by the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) in America do you???
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“[Overnight, I’ll have four million of those who don’t meet duly legislated American immigration criteria, not compassionately repatriated but voting democrat for 200 years].”
– Abraham Lincoln, Wholly Unconstitutional Emancipation Proclamation
______________________________________________________________________________
“I’ll have those ——- voting democrat for 200 years.”
– Lyndon Baines Johnson, Great (i.e. “free stuff”) Society, 1963
___________________________________________________________________
“[I’ll have those Mexicans and various and sundry flotsam voting democrat for 200 years].”
– Joe Biden (de facto, Barack Obama)
_________________________________________
“We the People of the United States…secure the Blessings of Liberty TO OURSELVES and OUR POSTERITY,….”
– Preamble, U.S. Constitution, 1789
______________________________________
NOT SO MUCH, BOYS.
Every person in the “globalized” world is an American-Voter-In-Waiting – waiting to vote for evermore “free stuff” from the pocketbooks of American taxpayers, and takeover the country.
How’s that “fundamentally transforming the United States of America” working for you?
Uncle Joe sent some emissaries to Mexico to meet with Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador
The US emissaries did drink to much Tequila and talk to much.
Can we dispense with this 1984 “undocumented” garbage.
A significant portion of them are quite well documented, they have been given green cards and all kinds of “documentation”
These are people who illegally entered the country – they are tresspassers. They are acted illegally.
Even should we change the law to increase the number of people who we will accept as legal immigrants – we are still not going to allow people to enter willy nilly wherever they please.
This is not a question of whether these people are good people or bad people – many are good, some are very bad.
It is more a question of deliberately using language to mislead.
Undocumented is both absolutely false in most cases but also deliberately misleading.
It implies that the only difference between those who immigrate here legally is paperwork – and that is FALSE.
Legal immigrants go through a thorough vetting process, and they have to be selected in a lottery.
This is like the difference between someone you invite to live with you and someone who breaks in and squats in your home.
And on January 1, 1863, upon the issuance of a wholly unconstitutional “proclamation” (i.e. there was no rebellion, only constitutional secession) by Lincoln, a 4-million-man, foreign, standing army, consisting of people who were not citizens and could not meet legislated immigration criteria, infiltrated the U.S.
It has been all downhill from there.
Nikki Haley Can’t Explain What Caused The Civil War
Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley declined to specify that slavery was a cause of the civil war on Wednesday, wading into an area of history that continues to reverberate.
Haley, the former governor of South Carolina, was asked by a New Hampshire voter about the reason for the war but didn’t mention slavery in her response.
Instead, Haley talked about the role of government, replying that it involved “basically how the government was going to run” and “the freedoms of what people could and couldn’t do”.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/28/nikki-haley-civil-war-slavery
………………………………………………
In the linked video, a man in the audience of a New Hampshire townhall asks Haley to explain what she believes caused the American Civil War.
Haley freezes up in visible discomfort. As though she’s been asked a trick question that puts her in a minefield. She then proceeds with a convoluted explanation about freedom and the role of government.
Haley’s response is highly disturbing in the sense that she is supposed to be the ‘sane alternative’ to Trump. But apparently blaming slavery for the Civil War is seriously incorrect amongst Republicans.
Haley’s discomfort is so pronounced that one would think Republicans are beholden to southern segregationists.
Haley is a slave to the extreme right.
That would be because it is a trick question.
While inarguably slavery was an issue, both the north and the south explicitly avoided identifying slavery as the cause of the war.
The core issue was whether southern states could secceed from the union.
That is both the official and actual reason for the war.
Lincoln did not “free the slaves” until several years into the war, and even then only those slaves in states that were in rebellion.
Conversely many southern states did emancipate slaves – if they would serve in the CSA.
The civil war did end slavery in this country.
The civil war likely would not have happened but for slavery.
But that is not the same as slavery caused the war – or even that it was specifically what was being fought for.
Further if slavery was the “cause” – it would have been just as easy for northern states to let the southern states go.
There were no slaves in most northern states. They had far larger and stronger economies.
The north did not need the south.
Factually incorrect.
Here are links to two seceding states’ declarations of causes (given link limits on this site):
MISSISSIPPI: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp
“In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world.”
TEXAS: https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/secession/2feb1861.html
“That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding States.”
Let’s practice reading comprehension. Read the declarations from MS and TX and then tell me if you statement above that the states “explicitly avoided identifying slavery as the cause of the war” is accurate.
Facts matter. Read primary documents. Not second-hand drivel.
Reading comprehension indeed.
Those were their reasons for SECESSION you moron.
“As the cause of the WAR”
Apparently you cant comprehend your own words.
People who insist that slavery was THE CAUSE of the civil war need to explain why the majority of Southern soldiers were not slave owners. Most were small farmers, like their Northern counterparts.
Although it is Illinois and not Chicago, the politicians in this state are the first to put measures supporting liberal causes on the ballot (most recently a progressive tax measure which failed). Even though there is a threshold higher than a simple majority, any of these measures that pass are consequently ensconced in the state constitution. This is part of the reason why the state is in such deep pension debt.
Apparently the politicians in Chicago aren’t interested in affording the citizens a similar opportunity on a measure they are afraid will pass. Not that a lack of consistency from an enclave of liberal politicians is surprising.
No doubt this is the reason. Guess who comes from Chicago and attended the same university as the famous couple in this link. I have to believe the model of destruction comes from the Cloward/Piven strategy.
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/civil-unrest/the-cloward-and-piven-strategy/ loop
The Chicago citizens need to recall the city council reps that refuse to allow them the ability to vote
The leadership in Chicago doesn’t give a damn about the stress being placed on border communities. Now when Chicago’s basic services are being effected they blame it on the busing to their city of illegal immigrants from Texas. They want the illegal immigrants but they want someone else to suffer the inconvenience and cost. Instead of admitting that they are the cause of the problem they blame Texas. If they give the people the vote and they lose their failed policies would be exposed. Obviously, from the very beginning they have been more concerned with covering their political backsides than any real concern for the migrants. Did they really mean it when they welcomed the illegal migrants to their city? In New York they are now working to stop the influx by requiring Texas to give a thirty two hour notice of the arrival of the buses. The next step will be using the national guard to turn back the buses at the state borders. Thanks Joe.
TiT,
Well said.
The hypocrisy of the Democrats is truly awesome. The lengths they will go to blame Texas and not the Biden admin failed border policies even when they are begging Biden for federal aid is also awesome.
I dont think the DNC sees this as much of a political issue for the upcoming election as they should.
@Upstate
I don’t think the dems do either, and I find their confidence about that troubling. It will make 2020 look like playtime, I fear.
Does Chicago have an initiative process through which the voters can overrule their city council? If yes then are there enough of Chicago’s higher income residents left to back such an initiative? If yes then why aren’t they getting organized?
Professor Turley,
The cited M3 Strategies poll from Chicago is trash.
First, as others noted, 46% is a plurality, not a majority.
Second, the poll’s methodology is questionable at best. The poll doesn’t define “Sanctuary City,” and in fact, its questions mislead the respondents regarding the meaning of the term. Chicago’s status as a “sanctuary city” is based on Mayor Harold Washington’s 1985 executive order (affirmed by Rahm Emanuel) that “the City will not ask about your immigration status, disclose that status to authorities, or most importantly, deny you City services based on your immigration status.”
It does not require Chicago to financially support migrants. It does not require Chicago to use taxpayer funds to care for or house migrants in Chicago.
However, the poll asked questions like the following:
“Which of these best describes how you feel about the new migrant situation in Chicago?”
OK (I am generally fine with Chicago being a sanctuary city and housing the new migrants)
OK, BUT (I am generally fine with Chicago being a sanctuary city and housing new migrants, but I do not want them living in my neighborhood)
NO (I no longer want Chicago to house these new migrants)
Not Sure”
Thus, respondents were misled into thinking that Chicago’s status as a “sanctuary city” has any bearing on its taxpayer resources. This is not true, invalidating the poll.
Professor Turley, if you are going to cite a poll, please do your research and actually read the polling methodology first. All you have done is amplify piss poor polling from a firm with direct ties to Chicago’s GOP. M3 is run by former GOP mayoral candidate Paul Vallas’s former campaign manager, Matt Podgorski.
https://www.mystateline.com/news/local-news/survey-shows-most-chicagoans-opposed-to-sanctuary-city-policies/
(Click on the “poll” hyperlink in this story to access a summary of the poll methodology and results).
So you really are arguing that the residents of chicago are perfectly happy with the status quo ?
And everything would be fine if the poll was just changed to ignroe the very real costs of being a sanctuary city.
You do not seem to grasp that the even though as you claim the sancturary city policy does not explicitly impose a duty on chicago to provide city services. That REALITY is that thousands of immigrants flooding chicago impose a cost on the city whether it likes it or not.
But that is common among left wing nut – pass stupid policies with huge predictable iunintended consequences, and then claim – that it is not your policies at fault, because the policy failure is predictable but not intentional.
Laws have consequences – more than those imagined by their authors.
The responsibility for the consequences rests with those who enact and support those laws – whether the consequences are intended or not.
If you drive drunk and kill someone – you are responsible for that death. It does not matter that you did not intend to kill that person.
No, that is not what I am arguing. Reading comprehension is hard.
A flawed poll reveals absolutely nothing. That is the full extent of the argument.
Try harder.
Well we know who this anon clown is. Its ATS. Its always with the reading comprehension horsesh!t. Everyone here can read and comprehend you nitwit. You need to try again.
The poll is not trash – your claim is that because the questions do not suit you you want to pretend it has no meaning.
It has clear meaning. Chicagoans do not like the consequences of being flooded with illegal immigrants.
If it were magically possible for them to be a sanctuary city without having to deal with the consequences – many would be happy with that.
And that was the case when the border was more secure or illegal immigrants were flooding other parts of the country, but no chicago.
Your claim that the poll is garbage is rooted in a reality that does not exist – being a sanctuary city without that having any cost or unintended consequences.
This response reveals a failure of basic reading comprehension.
I never claimed that being a sanctuary city would not have any cost or unintended consequences.
Try harder.
Any poll can be challenged on its methodology.
See below for the pedophile Dennis looking to Jonathan for solutions to housing issues.
Jonathan: As one with deep family roots in Chicago one would think you might want to offer constructive solutions to the challenge of housing and caring for migrants. Instead, you add to the problem by accusing the City Council of “hypocrisy” by voting down the non-binding resolution by a 31-16 vote–with 8 Black aldermen in the majority.
Now you say “Polls indicate that the majority of Chicagoans oppose the sanctuary city politics”. The poll you cite actually shows only 46% oppose–not a “majority”. And the pollster points out: “White voters actually prefer to keep it as a sanctuary city by a 10-point majority”.
So what is this all about? An attempt to divide Chicagoans by race and ethnicity–using migrants as a lightening rod issue in next year’s election. DJT, promises that if re-elected next year, he will crack down on undocumented immigrants, rounding them up and putting them in detention camps before deporting them. And Chicago will probably be one of his first stops. DJT keeps falsely claiming migrants are “bad people”–“rapists” and “bringing drugs into the country”.
Almost all the recent migrants to Chicago are coming from Texas where Gov. Abbott thinks he can turn “immigration” into a politicized issue next year. His political stunt is fueling DJT-style politics based on white supremacy. It’s politics based on divide and rule. And your column is an attempt to add fuel to the fire. That’s the real “hypocrisy”!.
Dennis – the only really effective constructive solution to this problem is for Chicagoens to stop voting Democratic. Your attempt to blame Trump for the disastrous open border policy of Democrats shows that there is no hope that Democrats will ever change this policy.
What is the open border policy of Democrats at present? Are you familiar with the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways (CLP) Rule?
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2023/05/11/fact-sheet-circumvention-lawful-pathways-final-rule
Is that an “open border” policy?
Facts matter.
The open border policy of the Democrats is to allow border trespassers to enter this country, give them a court date to determine their migrant status many years in the future, and then help them move around the country. Not surprisingly, most of the border jumpers never show up for their hearings. Over a few decades, a nation within a nation is created. Written policies do not compare to actions.
edwardmahl: Well, that’s unlikely to happen in Chicago any time soon. You know, there used to be a time when we welcomed immigrants. They helped build this country. My ancestors came to this country seeking a better life. I suspect you could tell a similar story. The immigrants who are now coming are seeking asylum from killings from drug cartels, government actors and sexual abuse. Do you really think we should just turn them away to face almost certain death?
Unfortunately, some in this country see immigration as a threat. With demographic projections the US will become majority-minority sometime between 2041 and 2046. DJT is trying to exploit the fears among some White Americans with his false claim that immigrants are “poisoning the blood”–echoes of Hitler in his rise to power.
The irony is that employers here depend on cheap immigrant labor–from large industries to restaurants and agriculture. Where will they go for cheap labor if DJT shuts down the border? Even DJT employees migrants at his golf resorts and hotels where they are abused and subject to sexual harassment.
Immigration is really not the issue for most voters. Polls show most Americans have other priorities–from inflation, shoring up Social Security, addressing climate change, putting the kids through college, reproductive rights, to making home ownership and health care affordable. Although not necessarily in this order, these are the big issues for most voters. Is the MAGA crowd in Congress addressing these issues. Nope. It’s all about stopping immigration and impeaching Joe Biden!
The only real “constructive solution”, to use your words, is to support candidates, whether Dem or GOP, who prepared to address the real issues facing the country. Unfortunately, most in the GOP have been captured by DJT’s divisive rhetoric and want to make immigrants a scapegoat. Divide and rule. That’s the GOP game plan for next year!
Dennis – absolutely in the late 19th century the US had proportionately far higher immigration than today.
While we were NOT so welcoming as you claim – as exemplified by the mass discrimination against Chinese, Irish, Italian, polish and other immigrants of the time. Further this mass immigration ultimately resulted in an almost complete shutdown of immigration in the first half of the 20th century. So No the country was not exactly welcoming, and frankly until recently the US has been uniquely opposed to asian immigrants. Through to the 1980’s we had laws limiting even where asians could live. The Chinatowns throughout the US are not accidents or just people of a culture chosing to live together – they are the conseuqnce of our laws – back to the times you claim this country was welcoming.
All that said – we did have less problems with mass immigration in the 19th century.
Why ? Because we had far far far fewer laws. An immigrant – like the rest of use had actual natural rights, not made up left wing nut idiocy.
There is no right to food or shelter, to work, to some minimum wage, to working conditions of your choice.
In the late 19th century immigrants flooded this country by the millions – proportionately far more than today.
They were paid poorly, lived in squalid conditions, and impossed very little burden on the public.
They received no entitlements. They did not need green cards to work, and they did not receive minimum wages, food stamps, unemployment , social security or public housing.
They had to fend for themselves – and they did.
I would note that they DID arrive at official ports of entry, they did not sneak into the country.
If you actually wish to return to the “open boarders” of the late 19th century – that would be problematic – but less disasterous than what we have today.
What you do not seem to grasp is that you can not through govenrment construct laws to force reality to conform to your wishes.
You have essentially tried to impose “open boarders” on the country – but not with consideration and forethought but through chaos and lawlessness – and the consequences have been bad.
The fact – one that Republicans are going to have to address, is that the US likely needs about 2M legal immigrants a year. That is about double the current number of LEGAL immigrants, but 50% less than current total immigration.
Regardless, there are very real consequences to immigration – both positive and negative.
Immigration lowers the average standard of living of the country – if you bring in more people at the bottom, that lowers the average.
But it increases the average standard of living of MOST of the non-immigrant population – it increases what the country produces and it lowers the cost of basic services – groceries, unskilled labor. But it is devestating to existing low skill workers.
Immigration also runs at odds to progressive programs that create faux rights.
There is no right to healthcare, to food, to shelter, to so called living wages. All of these and many many more progressive laws that restrict liberty either do not work at all or work poorly with large scale immigration.
Chicago would have no problems providing immigrants housing – but for stupid left wing nut laws that artifically reduce housing.
Large scale immigration only works well when government does not artificially – purportedly for the common good, restrict housing, employment, wages, etc.
It only works when people are free to come, and expected to take care of themselves when they get here.
It is actually important that it NOT be too easy – otherwise that creates a massive moral hazard.
There are at minimum about 375M people int he world who would come to the US immediately if that were possible.
All that stops them is the difficulty of doing so – both getting here and surviving when they do.
Finally I would note that while we did have open borders of sort in the past – though not the welcoming nonsense you are claiming. In response to the mass immigration of the time, we past the most restrictive immigration laws in history and virtually stopped immigration from 50 years.
Regardless, when you try to convert your wishes into laws, and public policy – you must confront how well they work in REALITY.
And mass immigration exposes massive unintended consequences in other progressive wet dream laws.
You rant about polls that you do not like, and then fawn over polls you do.
One of the problems with polls and to a lessor extent voting is that they measure opinions not values.
What is the difference ?
It is the difference between
Do you support free healthcare for everyone ?
and
Would you pay $100/yr to provide free healthcare for everyone ?
A value is something that you are willing to pay for – or something you are unwilling to pay for.
NEarly all the thing you think are popular – are left wing nut wishes that almost no one wants if they have to pay for.
With respect to CAGW – Human population density has increased by a factor of 9 since 1800 – there are actually FEWER people per sq. km on 90% of the planet, with far far far more people living in urban environments.
It is a FACT that urban areas are significantly warmer than elsewhere. Beyond the Global warming that has occured since 1750,
most humans experience approx. 1.2C of additiona warming – purely as a result of moving from Rural to urban areas – this “warming” do to urban migration is larger than all natural warming.
The FACT si that humans VALUE warmth – it has been a major driver of human history.
The entire history of civilization has been the balance between the fact that Humans do not live very long without heat, and that our means of providing heat also reduces our life expectancy.
We have an election coming up. If you beleive that voters actually favor all the things you calim more than immigration or the other failures of the left – then let voters decide that in November.
Let Trump and republicans make their case for their prefered public policies – to voters without censorship.
And you make your case for your prefered policies.
Let Repuiblicans make public arguments regarding the laws into your policies and their costs,
And let democrats counter those arguments.
Lets have real uncensored public debate.
And then let voters decide.
If these issues are not important to voters – then how is it that Trump is “capturing” so many voters ?
You beleive in complete nonsense that does not work – are you “captured” by the left ?
Is it impossible for you to accept that people disagree with you without some mythical nefarious force making them into zombies ?
Trump’s appeal to voters is quite simple – your policies have failed, their unintended consequences have proven horrendous, and ordinary people understand that and are voting accordingly.
Absolutely Trump voters do not understand nuances such that mass immigration CAN BE a substantial net positive for the country.
But neither do you. You can not grasp the difference between potential and actual. Mass immigration – and so many other left wing policies, are at odds with each other. You can not have healthcare, food, shelter, wages, employment as rights AND have mass immigration.
The consequences of Republicans closed border policies are not good. But they are actually far less bad than the unintended consequences of the toxic combination left wing policies.
This is pretty close to universal about the differences between conservatives and progressives.
Conservatives wish to preserve a status quo – sometimes a past status quo that worked imperfectly,
Progressives wish to change everything overnight, failing to grasp that most changes FAIL, and that all the changes they wish to impose as well as many they already imposed are in conflict.
You do not understand it is HARD to get things right. And that with near certainty – real progress does not come through the use of government force.
Dennis – Americans still welcome immigrants, but on our terms. Those terms are set forth in our immigration laws. Politicians who refuse to enforce those laws, or who actively subvert them, are little more than traitors. They can justly be called “insurrectionists.” Don’t blame Trump for saying what all patriotic Americans believe.
Dennis – Turley is correctly calling out Chicago as well as other “sanctuary cities” for hypocracy and stupid virtue signaling.
It is quite clear that left wing nut virtue signalers never thought they would in any consequential way have to address the consequences of their positions.
It is NOT Turley’s job to solve the problems that mass immigration has caused in cities that want to waive the flag of open immigration without actually having to deal with the cost.
Separately the problems these policies cause are trivially solveable – GET OUT OF THE WAY OF THE FREE MARKET.
There is no place in this country that has a housing shortage that is not of their own making.
Get rid of stupid laws restricting housing – and you will have more than enough housing.
That housing may not meet your personal preferences in terms of location, or amenities. But it will be better than tents on the streets.
Regardless the laws of supply and demand dictate – that absent government interferance where there is an actual shortage the market will ultimately meet demand. This is an immutable law of economics – one that left wing nuts do not understand – but that all economists agree on.
As to your poll nonsense – all you are doing is establishing that many chicago residents are also virtue signalling hypocrits.
There is no Real world choice that does not come with consequences and cost.
There is no free healthcare.
There is no such thing as a sancturary city that does not have to deal with the costs of those policies.
Far more disturbing – and also immoral is that hundreds of southwest border cities that did not choose to be sactuary cities have to take on costs far worse than chicago with far less resources.
Yes, absolutely – Those in Chicago are hypocrits – and it is neither Turley’s nor anyone else’s duty to solve the stupid problems they have imposed immorally on themselves and others.
No one is attempting to divide chicagoans. They are doing that to themselves.
You rant about Trump – but all Trump is doing is providing a voice to a huge undercurrent of popular oppinion that exists independent of Trump.
Absolutely Trump is making an issue of illegal immigration – because the majority of the country is very angry aboutthe consequences of left wing nut virtue signaling.
Trump has proposed a solution – one that BTW is just enforcing the laws we already have.
You do not like that solution – change the laws and do better.
The FACT is that you have FAILED.
The predictable but unintended consequences of refusal to enforce immigration laws
has resulted in chaos and lawlessness.
Republicans did not cause that.
Trump did not cause that.
Republicans are not dividing people over this – the consequences of mass illegal immigration is dividing people and hypocritical and bad left wing nut policies is dividing people.
You stupidly gave Trump and issue – and he is capitolizing on it.
A migrant is a person that comes from one place to another with the expectation of returning to where they came from.
As in migrant workers, who seasonally move from place to place.
An immigrant is someone who comes from one place to another with the intention of staying.
We do not have a migrant problem, we have an illegal immigrant problem.
No Abbot did not send migrants from Texas to Chicago, he prevented SOME illegal immigrants from remaining in TX by providing them transportation elsewhere.
Trying to blame Abbot or DeSantis is the most hypocritically stupid nonsense.
It also exposes you as a tyrant – impose stupid policies by force and then demand that only the states of your political enemies endure the consequences of YOUR bad policies.
Rather than deport illegal immigrants – just send them all to places that have chosen to be immigrant sanctuaries.
This is simple – if you want something – you must accept the consequences – good and bad, and you can not impose those consequences on others by force.
If mass immigration is a good thing – then TX sending the masses of immigrants that have been dumped on it by Federal Policies to Chicago should be to Chicago’s benefit.
“. . . offer constructive solutions to the challenge of housing and caring for migrants.”
Here’s an idea:
If you’re coming to the country of self-sufficiency, be self-sufficient.
My only beef with an otherwise fine column is the use of the term “undocumented”. This is literally not accurate. To address the crush of illegal migrants crossing the border, the Biden administration has focused the Border patrol’s activity to process the illegals and issuing arrest warrants and notices to appear in court some 9+ years hence. (How many of us is able to keep track of documents and an appointment 9 years in advance? This is insane.) These documents are what TSA allows these “undocumented” people to board domestic flights. So even though the illegal aliens discard their national documents (e.g. birth certificate, pass port, …) just prior to crossing the border, the US issues them documents. Please, don’t use the completely inaccurate label of “undocumented”.
I am going to attempt to engage in “wokespeak”. See paragraph below.
It only counts as “democracy” when the correct result will occur. We just can’t trust these rubes to know what’s best for them.
How did I do s@@tlibs?
“Democracy” the g-d that failed.
Of course, upper middle class s@@tlibs love sanctuary cities because it allows them to virtue signal and their money and education allows them escape the result of those policies they support. Minorities and working class whites cannot.
antonio
Antonio,
Yeah, that sums it up pretty well.
IIRC, Obama said something along those lines. Something like just do as I say and shut up.
Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson has a secret weapon to use.
The street gangs. Bloods, Cripps, Latin Kings, MS-13 are going want payment from asylum seekers to walk the streets of Chicago.
Change the CTA [Chicago Transit Authority] to CDA [Chicago Deportation Authority] and run them out of the Country on the Rails.
Chicago is home to the largest Rail Head in the Country – Express Trains to Mexico they will go. Ship Em Out – Not In My Sanctuary!
I had an Argentinian tell me ” WORK!!! I’m on Holiday” after I had put my neck out for him for a good Job.
These ‘migrants did not come here to work, they came here for a Holiday (literally), and when you mention the four letter word WORK,
they gone in a blink of the eye. Climate-wise, Living in the Tri-State Area (Mich., Ill., Ind.) is no picnic, in fact all along the I-94 Rust Belt it’s a Cold way to make a living. Once they figure out that America is not the life of Novelas (Soap Operas), They’ll long for the Tropics soon enough. Fact most of them plan to go back and retire after they have earned enough here, sent money back to the ‘homeland’ and built a House and possibly a small business for income.
The way to stem the flow is simple. Cut all Cellular Phone transmissions to south of the border off (They won’t be able to call Home and invite their Buddies to the Party), Stop all Money transfer to south of the border off (The People back home will want them to come home because America isn’t worth it (Sin Dinero $), Sanction the Governments south of the border for not adoption Our Constitution (No más ayuda estadounidensee) – Let’Em go Communist and Stop Feeding them – Let the Chinese and Russia pay for them. Once they get spread thin – this invasion will stop dead in it’s tracks.
@Anon
This is accurate. I grew up in the Southwest, and I knew countless people who sent most of their money to their countries of origin. They built houses there, bought luxuries for family there, and yes, with the full intention of returning, they never planned to stay or assimilate and by extension didn’t care about much going on here; it was just a work site to them and it was el patron’s job to take care of it. Many of them went back to visit on weekends. They were here to make money, period, asylum my ***.
It is complicated by the fact though that some folks in cartel territory, or being trafficked, for example, legitimately need help. The freeloaders, the coyotes, the activists with lots of clout but no knowledge or brains, dirty politicians – they are screwing those people, too.
@Anon
Oh, and PS: yes, many in the new generation of migrants want nothing to do with work. This has all been going on so long now that generationally they just expect to get a free ride if they make it in. If we tried a new Bracero program, I doubt there’d be many takers. 🙄
James,
You might find this an interesting read: ‘This Is Not the America I Knew’ “The recent wave of nearly 130,000 migrants to New York City is angering Hispanic residents—enough to make them consider voting red.”
https://www.thefp.com/p/hispanic-immigrants-angry-nyc-migrant-crisis
@Upstate
I’ve seen it in person. This is why the whole ‘latinx’ thing was such an egregious insult to people that actually care about things. I had resentment for the ‘old left’ and their white savior ways, they are about as culturally erudite as a bottle cap – but the modern left takes the cake, I mean, man: they lovingly baked that ******. Arrogant., privileged, *bleep*holes, their entire ideology has always been steeped in the notion that ALL people are not just people who care about their children and eating, and thriving. Their tone deafness of culture and cooperation echoes, and has echoed, so loudly even the *actual* deaf among us can hear it.
It actually makes me sad the Professor was raised in that farce, though I won’t judge him. Liberalism, as it has been defined, has never been compatible with personal freedom, and yes, that is a contradiction -most people cannot tolerate cognitive dissonance. I was not born into wealth with steps laid out, I had to make my way in the world. These idjits that think because their parents supported unions in the 60s they are enlightened need to check their privilege (forgetting about Jimmy Hoffa and what early immigration to this country was actually like. Indentured servitude, anyone?), likely while pulling away from a huge house in their Audi or BMW. Yes, there were fat cat Republicans. That era is dead and buried. Let it go, people, and do the right thing.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Democrat.
This would almost be funny if it did not display parallels to 1930s Germany, Mao’s Culture Revolution or the similarities to Iran.
Let the citizens vote on an issue that might go against their woke narrative? NO!
That is how a democracy should be ran according to woke leftists.
@UpstateFarmer you called it right. The Woke are a Tool of the Communist.
As the Biden Administration has they have gone Full Red Guard.
The latest effort to determine who the CO voters can cast ballots for is typical of all those places you named UpState. Vote washing is a favorite tactic of the Iranian despotic theocrats. I sure can’t stand OrangeManBad, but I also can’t stand the fascist left.
Comrade, so Communist of you.
So let me get this straight, cities virtue signal they are a sanctuary city, then the actual people show up and now they are upset? They blame someone else for people they claimed they would give sanctuary? I have a piece of advice for them from my mother.
YOU MADE YOUR BED, NOW LAY IN IT!
Or in this instance….you laid this steaming turd, now lie in it.
When a black man begs to the White Big Guy:
😂