The current Congress, the Congress that has a goal of “Screw the current administration, no matter what!” can create enough of a mess that the banks would indeed think twice about cashing those checks.
No. New York / Chicago/ Denver / etc.
Can you cite a reputable news article that explains exactly what event you’re talking about here?
The Feds are doing this? When you say “they”, and more than one entity is being discussed, clarifying who “they” are is very important.
Thanks for the link, but I find the article awfully short on specifics. The closest I see is:
But unlike 2013, the current deal under discussion in the Senate doesn’t offer a pathway to citizenship for the millions of undocumented immigrants – nor is it considered comprehensive. Instead, the Senate talks have focused on immigration restrictions pushed by Republicans, namely on asylum laws, changes to parole policies and the authority the administration can use to expel migrants or shut the border down when migration spikes.
I’d be a lot more critical of Repub proposals if I understood the Dems to be advancing some clear, reasonable proposals.
-$x to border states to allow the states to do a,b,c;
-Specific rules on transporting immigrants w/in the US;
-Specific funding for housing immigrants while status undetermined;
-Specific proposals for expediting status determinations;
-revision of the asylum definition/process;
-repatriation;
- and - yes, how exactly to handle immigrants when encountered upon entry, and who pays for such efforts.
I acknowledge that on a worldwide basis, the US has been woefully indadequate in its support for refugees resulting from situations the US often had a role in creating/allowing to occur.
EXACTLY what the Feds are doing. Again why do they get a pass as humanitarians while the cities foot the bill? Or as I’ve said before, it’s easy to be generous with others’ people money.
Again: cite? What event/policy are you talking about here?
The Federal government taking in refugees, dumping them in cities and not providing anywhere near sufficient funding.
There seems to be a second question of why does the Feds get a pass for doing it but Red States & Sanctuary States don’t.
Yes. What do you think the Feds are doing? Leaving the migrants at the border?
Again: citation please? It’s impossible to even talk about this until we know exactly what you’re referring to.
I don’t believe Feds are dumping refugees anywhere; that’s simply not how refugees are handled, and it never has been. I suspect you’re using “refugee” interchangeably with “immigrant” or “asylee” but that’s just a guess since you haven’t offered a shred of information to explain what you’re talking about.
Here is one article showing that it ain’t the Feds shipping them like cattle all over the place.
Texas is sending asylum seekers to major cities by bus with little notice. These mayors want to pump the brakes | CNN
Your turn.
Then are you saying the Feds are just leaving them in Texas? Saying Abbot you deal with them?
And if that’s true, then why can’t the sanctuary cities stop the bus and make them U-turn. Abbot can’t give cities in other states orders to take in refugees.
And then why can’t the executive branch have the $$$ follow the refugees. Hey Texas, you get $1B to support migrants. You just shipped Chicago half your immigrants so they get $500M iand you get $550M.
And why can’t the executive branch stop them as immigration is a Federal jurisdiction.
California and New Mexico are both blue states on the border. The idea that blue states are “removed” from what he actual border situation looks like is just false.
You were wrong about the Feds shipping them all over the place, weren’t you?
I am saying what I posted. Does it need to be rephrased?
Looks like New York City is trying to sue the charter bus companies for sending people to NYC without prior notice. Most likely a scare tactic, doubt if its constitutional.
I’m way behind. Many threads’ velocities exceed my limited reading abilities 
But it seems on-topic to mention that many of the people who’ve entered, or are entering, the country “improperly” wind up working for artificially low, exploitative wages, and for legal residents or citizens.
The effect of this, IMHO, is to socialize rather substantial costs and to privatize rather substantial profits.
It’s like a Bracero Program where we’re all handling costs and logistics for artificially low-wage, primarily manual, labor.
In theory, we get the benefit of lower prices (because of lowered labor costs). In practice, I would bet … not. Markets are what they are, and they do what they do.
Which is inherently messed up, IMHO.
Which – in a discussion of the economics of asylum seekers and ‘undocumented immigrants --’ shouldn’t get lost.
Even if that were legal, how do they tell which buses are full of refugees?
And a lot of people make no distinction or will use only the one description that suits them. So some rightwingers just say “illegals” of everyone who does not have a prior visa, while some on the left will refer to everyone at the border as “asylum seekers” whether or not they are. And as mentioned earlier, when the procedures end up being just as slow, onerous and unsatisfactory for all, the distinction loses meaning.
That’s what I thought, this thread really just seems to be a Gish Gallop of loaded questions with zero cites that “refugees” are involved, or that the federal government is dumping anybody anywhere.