I am not a great fun of President Trump. However, I don't by default disagree with everything he says blindly.
Recently, Trump suggested (and ICE at first thought it was a joke) to release immigrants in sanctuary cities. The motivation for this was actually a repugnant, vindictive thought to "punish" political opponents according to some sources.
Now, I certainly don't condone playing with people's lives and basing policies on petty motivations. However, that aside... I don't see any problem with what Trump suggested.
Sanctuary cities voted to support immigrants. As in, they elected officials that are against enforcing immigration. So... is it so bizarre to think they're pro-immigrant?
Also, while immigration is a big problem for USA, all things considered ... it's not that horrible for some of the rich and huge cities like LA and NYC to have a million or so immigrants between them. Their metro areas are vast and their economies dwarf even some developed nations with similar population.
If anything, LA and NYC are some of the richest places in the world. If Greece with a population of 12M people 1.2 of which were at some point immigrants (illegal or legal) then two megacities that combined with some of their closest suburbs are well over 20M people can certainly accommodate a few hundred thousand immigrants.
So... what's the problem with Sanctuary cities actually doing what they voted to do? They should have, IMO, embraced the opportunity to prove they can put their wallet where their mouth is.
Would it lead to an increase in crime? Yes, but they can hire more policemen and they have been sanctuary cities for some time already. It's not like they're foreign to crime.
Especially that part (from Washington Post):
" The White House suggested both transporting migrants who were captured at the border and those currently being held in facilities to sanctuary cities where local authorities don't cooperate with federal immigration enforcement authorities. Among the areas targeted: Democratic strongholds, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's district in San Francisco. "
Well, the Democrats made a huge deal (and rightfully so!) about dividing the families at the border and keeping kids separate from their parents. Indeed it was inhumane. It's quite better to simply send them to San Francisco, which is a big (metro 4.7M people), rich city (GDP 150B$) that voted to support immigrants.
Well, then do so! Get the families of the immigrants held separate in those inhuman facilities together and stop the madness of tearing families apart. San Francisco can then put them in the facilities they like or whatever.
"
Pelosi’s office blasted the plan.
“Using human beings — including little children — as pawns in their warped game to perpetuate fear and demonize immigrants is despicable.” "
It would indeed despicable... if that happened.
But they didn't use them to demonize immigrants. They suggested that cities that voted to support them and shield them, actually take them. Take those little children and protect them instead of using them in democrat warped games to perpetuate fear and demonize Republicans that simply asked "Oh, you voted to shield them? Very well, here are some of the kids then."
The people in those cities voted to shield the immigrants, they voted!
Clarification: I don't support Trump's petty and punitive action of "target the districts of my enemies!", I am talking about coming into an agreement with Sanctuary cities to indeed take over immigrants so that families can be together and holding facilities could be lighter and reserved for more dangerous illegal immigrants.