New York City and Chicago Response to Immigrants

Emma Lazarus on the phone to these mayors.

 

NYC square mileage is about 470. Texas square mileage is about 270,000. No one is suggesting that these people should all be shipped to Dallas.

 

Texas is a state compromised of numerous cities and towns. New York and Chicago are cities. Somehow you missed that comparison

 

Just like the fact that most of the illegal immigrants come into Texas in a few isolated places New York and Illinois can now deal with small percentage of the illegal immigrants coming into their state in a isolated area. What’s the difference? Except that both those cities thumped their chest and claimed sanctuary city status.

 

A national election year has arrived. I can only assume the caravans stories are ready to be fired up, too.

 

Yep
Except Biden and other left sided politicians are now calling it a crisis. They must not have gotten the memo

 

They're not here illegally.

 

I’m confused did the op not read the second article?

 

Biden should divert federal funding from Texas to whereever they are sending migrants.

 

I think you are on to something. For years we have been lectured that this is a manufactured crisis and elite economists tell us they are a net positive. So with so many flooding in to Texas and some coming to New York and Illinois those states definitely don’t need as much federal funding. At least that would be intellectually honest and consistent

 

Here you are again. Sigh! Who was it that, in 2013, scuttled a BIPARTISAN immigration reform bill? The group laughably called the House "Freedom" Caucus.

The Republicans should shut their damn sanctimony mouths about immigration reform.

 

Immigrants got it good in NYC. I’ve stayed at the Roosevelt Hotel, it’s pretty nice

 

Do they get turn down service and mints on the pillows?

 

I don't know the numbers today.

In a class I took (granted, long time ago), I recall the professor pointing out a distinction here: that legal immigrants and illegal immigrants were a net plus to the economy and that refugees/asylum seekers were a net negative. I don't recall if that was only in the short term or not because I would guess that at least by the second and third generations of Cuban-Americans, for example, they have been at least as productive as natural-born Americans. If it's true that asylum seekers/refugees can't get work permits, as many of the posts on here suggest, that might account for some of the differences as well.

It should be kept in mind, of course, that even assuming refugees are a short-term net negative economically, they're not here illegally, and the conflation of these different groups is part of what makes the debate so nuanced and frustrating.

 

Except they are not false stories. Video is now king and shining a light on how bad this is getting.

 

It's also a fundamental misunderstanding of how things work. Migrants enter in border states (because those states are on the border!), but they don't necessarily stay there. They often travel to other states once they've been processed and released, generally to stay with friends/family. So the fact that they're entering Texas doesn't mean they're staying in Texas.

 

Sanctuary cities also nothing to undocumented immigrants other than a guarantee that local LEO's won't cooperate with ICE when it comes to whether or not a person is legally in the country or not. This policy started in San Francisco back in the late 1970s, and without a sanctuary policy, immigrants are less likely to cooperate with local LEOs. But with sanctuary protection from ICE, local LEOs are better able to do their job, and as a result, sanctuary cities are safer than non-sanctuary cities of similar size.