New York is begging to not take anymore refugees.
Chicago as well.
Denver is nearing bankruptcy. Workers are fearing no raises and possible furloughs.
Now the Red States refusing to take refugees is looking less like racism and more like financial self-defense.
Simple question. Why are the Feds not paying these cities to house and feed the refugees they’re sending there?
Harder question. What can these cities do?
Bonus question. Will this cost the Democrats enough urban votes to affect the 2024 elections?
Having the feds pay for the refugees would require an act of Congress. Republicans have decided that fixing the immigration system and/or helping states and cities handle the influx would be a bad move politically. They’d much rather have the problem and point to Biden and the Democrats than lift a finger to fix it.
What can the cities do? Call upon the states to step in. They don’t have unlimited pockets, but their pockets are deeper than the cities.
Will this affect the 2024 election? Personally, I doubt it. Those who hate immigrants already vote Republican.
Does the Fereral government already pay the border states some money to handle the illegal immigrants? If so the could take resources away and reallocate them, like say moving funds for border patrols over to the northern states they are being shipped to.
It would be a shitty move in response to a shitty move yes, but thats the kind of shitshow the repulbicans want in an election year.
The federal government is providing some assistance through FEMA, it is not sufficient to cover everything. The Biden administration can’t just spend money as if sees fit, if Congress hasn’t allocated the money. Given the current climate, with a government shutdown looming, Congress is unlikely to do so.
Nitpick: The people who are arriving at the Southern border and asking for asylum are not ‘refugees’, they are ‘asylum seekers’. Refugees come to the U.S. through a separate program, which the Federal government pays for.
No, a city can’t just expel people they don’t like. The most they could do is refuse to assist them. And New York City can’t even do that - there’s a New York law that requires the city to provide shelter to anyone.
No, the cities can’t refuse to accept more asylum seekers, because they’re just being dumped there.
The latest tactic - Abbot chartered a 777; flew 300 immigrants into Rockford. From there, he had hired local busses to drop the immigrants at various commuter train stations in the northwest suburbs to send them into Union Station in Chicago.
Tell me - where in that series of events could you “refuse” them? Once they’re there, you have to do something with them. We’re trying our best to do something humane - someplace warm, some food, medical care.
Well, theoretically, the Feds are paying. Every state receives federal funding for immigration and asylum seekers based on historical usage. Meaning that Texas, Florida, etc. receive funds already. By shipping these people to New York, Chicago, etc., Abbot is spending his federal funding on shifting people, not on actually helping them. My guess is that shipping is cheaper than helping, so he’s actually adding to the state coffers from the federal funds. New York, Chicago, etc., meanwhile don’t have as large a history of having these immigrants, so their federal funding is lower, causing them to make up the difference somehow.
City Manager: Not my problem. Let the Feds deal with them and get them housing, food and water on Federal land - not in my city.
Y’all talk about the Red States shipping and dropping refugees off in sanctuary cities. How is that any different than what the Feds are doing?
I’m talking voting when your trash is not picked up every other week, city services are slashed, potholes are not fixed, no snow removal, your neighbor was laid of from their city job because there’s not enough money, city sales tax goes up 2 percentage points, etc.
That my point. “We” includes cities that cannot afford it, not the Feds. When it starts affecting city residents when is enough enough? Should city workers have to take a week’s unpaid furlough to pay for migrants the Feds moved in? Be denied their COLA? How is that fair to them when they live paycheck to paycheck?
But what does that physically look like? How do you make the Feds deal with them? Do you just put them back on trains and busses? Leave them on the street?
Also a few states have laws on the books that state they must provide certain services to asylum seekers. So it is illegal in those states to refuse care.
So basically you have stats that don’t have requirements to care for asylum seekers using Federal money to transport them to states that do have humane requirements. And then campaigning on their inhumanity.
Do to the Feds what they do to the cities. Put them on a bus drive them to the nearest national park and dump their asses there. Look, I’m not trying to be an asshole here. I’m just trying to figure out why the Feds get a pass when they take refugees, put them on busses and dump them in a city and tell the Mayor , “You deal with them” but if a governor or mayor does the exact same thing, that’s wrong. Huge double-standard.
They don’t/won’t vote Republican. All they need is, “I’m not going to vote Biden/Dem either. Why vote since it is a shitshow no matter who is in office.”
Have you been to a national park? Do you think this plan would actually work? Do you think this is better for anybody?
Also, as stated, many states have laws that forbid this sort of thing (the random transportation of migrants).
The Feds have basically abdicated their responsibility by refusing to pass any sort of immigration bill. There are also plenty of politicians that love this situation because they know that the furor around it plays well for the GOP, so they have no incentive to actually solve the problem.
National Parks, apparently. Well known for their extensive housing facilities for the care of migrants.
OP raises very real questions, with few good answers. US immigration policy has been very poorly conceived and administered for a long time. The current immigration/“asylum*” situation ought to be dealt with on a federal - not local - level. But good luck on getting Washington to address it in any meaningful manner.
I believe so many folk are being shipped to cities such as NYC and Chicago because of their self identification as sanctuary cities. I guess such identification becomes problematic when it bears real costs… Once you designate yourself as a sanctuary, it is problematic to shove the folk onto another bus and ship them off elsewhere.
It would be welcome if the federal government investigated the transport of such people by border states and the use of federal funds by those states. I generally have little sympathy/appreciation for states like Texas and Florida, but I acknowledge that the immigration issues they face require a national response.
*Yes, I know that an individual requesting asylum is legally considered to differ from an immigrant. I personally consider that distinction bullshit and not beneficial. And if the asylum process takes as long as it does, I believe asylum seekers should be allowed to support themselves while waiting.