Trump says he intends to dump asylum seekers in democrat districts...I assume as some form of punishment for not bowing to his will. This should make the far right happy--I can imagine PR doing a little jig--but I think Trump will find is that Americans will do what they can to help these people out. What this is going to show is how petty Trump and his follower are and just how BIG this country really is.

https://www.apnews.com/0596f544fe0646ada2a6383e23f74e83

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump said Friday he is strongly considering releasing “I*****l I*******ts” into Democratic strongholds to punish congressional foes for inaction on the border— just hours after White House and Homeland Security officials insisted the idea had been rejected as fast as it had been proposed.

“Due to the fact that Democrats are unwilling to change our very dangerous i*********n l*ws, we are indeed, as reported, giving strong considerations to placing I*****l I*******ts in Sanctuary Cities only,” Trump tweeted. He added that, “The Radical Left always seems to have an Open Borders, Open Arms policy - so this should make them very happy!”

He later told reporters that he was “strongly looking at” the idea of releasing migrant families into those communities, though there were no immediate plans in place to implement Trump’s threat.

“They’re always saying they have open arms. Let’s see if they have open arms,” he said.

The reversal, which appeared to catch officials at the Department of Homeland Security off guard, came as critics were blasting news that the White House had at least twice considered a plan to release detained immigrants into so-called sanctuary cities, using migrants as pawns to go after political opponents.

Before Trump’s comments, both the Department of Homeland Security and a White House official had insisted in nearly identical statements that that plan had been floated but then flatly rejected.

But not, apparently, by the president, who emphatically revived the idea.

“Sanctuary cities” are places where local authorities do not cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials, denying information or resources that would help ICE round up for deportation people living in the country illegally.

They include New York City and San Francisco, home city of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who on Friday called the idea “unworthy of the presidency of the United States and disrespectful of the challenges that we face as a country, as a people, to address who we are — a nation of immigrants.”

The idea of pressing immigration authorities to embrace the plan was discussed in November and then again in February as the Trump administration struggled with a surge of migrants at the border, according to three people who spoke on condition of anonymity to outline private conversations. Homeland Security and ICE lawyers quickly rejected the proposal, according to the people, and it was dropped on the grounds that it was complicated, too expensive and a misuse of funds, two of the people said.

The plan, which was first reported by the Washington Post, is one of many ideas considered by an increasingly frustrated White House in recent months as Trump has railed against the growing number of Central American migrant families crossing the southern border and looked for new ways to increase leverage on congressional Democrats to change laws that Trump insists are making the problem worse.

Officials say they are running out of options, and have proposed and recycled numerous ideas that have never come to fruition. Trump in recent weeks has discussed the idea of renewing his administration’s controversial family separation policy.

There were at least two versions of the sanctuary city plan that were considered, according to one of the people familiar with the effort. One would have moved people who had already been detained and were being held elsewhere to places with Democratic opponents of the president, while the other would have t***sported migrants apprehended at the border directly to San Francisco, New York City, Chicago and other spots.

ICE arrests people in the U.S. illegally and also manages migrants who present themselves at border crossings and ask for asylum. The surge of migrant families arriving at the southern border has been taxing the system, forcing ICE to set free more than 125,000 people as they await court hearings — a practice Trump has derided as “catch and release.” With immigrant processing and holding centers overwhelmed, the administration has also been busing people hundreds of miles inland and releasing them at Greyhound stations and churches in cities such as Albuquerque, San Antonio and Phoenix because towns close to the border already have more than they can handle.

Federal court rules prohibit the detention of children longer than 20 days.

Revelation of the “sanctuary cities” plan drew immediate condemnation from Pelosi and other Democrats.

Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, who chairs the House Homeland Security committee, said: “The fact that this idea was even considered - not once but twice - serves as a reminder that the Trump Administration’s reckless immigration agenda is not about keeping the country safe, but about partisan politics and wantonly inflicting cruelty. ”

T***sporting large groups of immigrants to distant cities would be expensive and burdensome for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which is already strapped for cash. The agency has said it doesn’t have the resources for immigrants processed by the Border Patrol and Border Patrol in most southern border sectors and is now instead releasing families after a health screening and criminal background check, leaving local nonprofits to help them make travel arrangements.

Flights chartered by ICE cost about $7,785 per flight hour, according to the agency. They require multiple staffers, including an officer who coordinates, several others who fly and monitor passengers and an in-flight medical professional. The agency also uses commercial flights but requires that migrants to pay for those. It’s unclear if that would be the case for families, who usually arrive with no money and rely on relatives already in the U.S. to pay for t***sportation.

Still, many “sanctuary” communities would likely welcome the immigrants in question and have nonprofit legal groups that could help them strengthen their legal cases to stay in the country.

Matt Albence, ICE’s new acting director, denied the White House pressured immigration officials to implement the idea when he was serving as deputy.

“I was asked my opinion and provided it, and my advice was heeded,” he said in a statement.

The Department of Health and Human Services said this week that it had started scouting vacant properties that could be turned into facilities for holding migrant children in several cities, including Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, and San Antonio.

Those facilities would be licensed by each state and likely take several months to be approved and opened, separating them from the rapidly expanding emergency shelter at Homestead, Florida, and the now-closed tent facility at Tornillo, Texas.

The Defense Department has also been reviewing a number of military bases to find a location that can house up to 5,000 unaccompanied migrant children as the U.S. braces for a surge of people crossing the U.S.-Mexico border this spring. Health and Human Services submitted the request for space last month, as Homeland Security leaders warned that tens of thousands of families were crossing the border each month. HHS has traditionally been responsible for providing temporary shelter to unaccompanied migrant.

ICE is tasked with arresting people living in the country illegally — including some who have been here for decades. Under the Trump administration, ICE has significantly stepped up arrests, including of people who have no U.S. criminal records.

In response, some cities have banished ICE from jails where agents could easily pick up immigration violators. Police in New York, Baltimore and Seattle rarely, if ever, disclose information about when suspected criminals in the U.S. illegally will be released from custody.

Democrats have said they will tackle immigration bills, possibly as soon as they return from their spring recess, and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell has indicated an interest in working on the issue.

There are good attorneys and bad attorneys, as well as good and bad judges. Biased judges who lean hard to one side of center (which is the rule of law) are bad judges. I would purge liberal judges that don't follow the rule of law as quickly as I'd purge right wing judges that bring their beliefs into the court.

We watch a lot of the forensic and murder case type TV shows, and it blows me away some of the despicable attorneys who adopt ridiculous defenses on people who are 100% guilty. I know it's their job, but to play game defenses and act outraged by the "innocence" of someone they know is guilty is pathetic.

The rule of law is being trashed under this president and administration.

There are good attorneys and bad attorneys, as well as good and bad judges. Biased judges who lean hard to one side of center (which is the rule of law) are bad judges. I would purge liberal judges that don't follow the rule of law as quickly as I'd purge right wing judges that bring their beliefs into the court.

You mean like Ruth Gingrich?

We watch a lot of the forensic and murder case type TV shows, and it blows me away some of the despicable attorneys who adopt ridiculous defenses on people who are 100% guilty. I know it's their job, but to play game defenses and act outraged by the "innocence" of someone they know is guilty is pathetic.

The rule of law is being trashed under this president and administration.

According to Joe Hoft of The Gateway Pundit:

"Israel e******n results indicate that liberalism is dying in the West. The far-left policies of open borders (i.e. no country boundaries), infanticide and socialism are losers around the world."

Here's the winners.

By the way, guess where this is!

A 2017 study estimated that 3.45 million Muslims were living in the United States. The U.S.-born share of the American Muslim population is considerable (42%). It consists of descendants of Muslim immigrants, converts to Islam (many of them black) and descendants of converts. Not easily contained, legally or otherwise. And many are US citizens: do we suspend their rights? Where does that lead for other groups, even, and perhaps eventually, for Christians in this growing secular society?

What do we do about them? Any practical, concrete solutions or plans to deal with them? A lot of endless ranting about how dangerous they are...and that does nothing. Tempest in a teapot. Why uselessly complain? But that's all that happens on this question. Threads on OPP outlining the threat and terror of nearly fourteen hundred years that Islam has existed and attacked Europe. What does that do? Wail against barbaric Sharia Law? What changes? Whine about Hijabs in Congress? Silly.

Is internment possible? Create ghettos to hold them? How about declaring all of Islam as a terrorist state, the protections of the 1st Amendment not applicable as a religion anymore? Then what? Civil war against them? Will Mexicans get thrown into the mix for good measure to resolve the immigration “problem”? Profiling and surveillance on all Mosques? Create special IDs and data bases for all Muslims? But remember, many are US citizens.

So, what to do? Any ideas? Real ideas! If the danger from Islam is as great as many here expound, present reasonable options to contain or subdue the problem. Or shut up! All you are doing is being xenophobic or r****t or boring otherwise.

April 11, 2019
Preparing for 2020 in Our So-called ‘Democracy’
By Jon N. Hall

(From American Thinker) (Link Here)https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/04/preparing_for_2020_in_our_socalled_democracy.html

Democrats have rather different concerns about the integrity of our e******ns than do Republicans. The perennial concern of Democrats is “v**er suppression.” The Dems allege that their folks are not being allowed to v**e. Recently, the loudest voice on v**er suppression may well be former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams. On February 19, The Hill reported on Abrams and quoted from her televised response to President Trump’s State of the Union address:

Let’s be clear: V**er suppression is real. From making it harder to register and stay on the rolls to moving and closing polling places to rejecting lawful b****ts, we can no longer ignore these threats to democracy.
Yes, “let’s be clear”: Whenever e******n officials have doubt about the eligibility of a v**er, that v**er can request a provisional b****t, regardless of whether he’s on the registry or not. But that fact doesn’t deter Democrats from squawking about v**er suppression. Complaints about v**er suppression shouldn’t be taken seriously when v**ers haven’t demanded provisional b****ts.

The Hill informs us that Ms. Abrams “has made v**er suppression her signature political issue since losing the race for governor.” But with the provisional b****t, v**er suppression is really a non-problem. In October, the National Conference of State Legislatures reported:

Provisional b****ts ensure that v**ers are not excluded from the v****g process due to an administrative error. They provide a fail-safe mechanism for v**ers who arrive at the polls on E******n Day and whose eligibility to v**e is uncertain.

Unfortunately, Stacey Abrams seems to be a sore loser. In her belated concession speech, she said “Let’s be clear, this is not a speech of concession” (video excerpt). Let’s be clear, Abrams’ breed of politics is d******e and even toxic. Let’s hope the Dems can find better (and sunnier) candidates. To learn more about her position on v**er suppression, avail yourself of the conversation she had in February at the Brookings Institution with a writer from The New Yorker.

E******n integrity encompasses much more than just v**er suppression. For instance, California has “automatically” enrolled i*****l a***ns on their v**er registries at the DMV. California also turbocharged its b****t harvesting rules just in time for the 2018 midterms. In January, Monica Showalter reported:
California's famed b****t-harvesters, who flipped places such as Orange County blue by "helping" fill out, turn in, and continue to turn in b****ts from otherwise uncommitted v**ers until they got the result they wanted, aren't actually U.S. citizens. […] This pretty well amounts to foreign nationals v****g, without any fear of prosecution.

That changes the nature of the e******n and, in fact, the U.S. republic itself.

In March, RealClearPolitics ran “On B****t Harvesting, GOP May Have to Push Back” by Susan CrabTree, who wrote (italics added): “The b****t-harvesting practice has faced new scrutiny in recent months after Republican candidates in California saw their E******n Day leads disintegrate as later-arriving Democratic v**es were counted in the weeks following the 2018 midterms.”

With the ongoing invasion by Central American caravans, the problem of i******s being on v**er rolls can only get worse. But Stacey Abrams thinks that i******s should be allowed to v**e.

Maybe it’s appropriate that we have banana republic e******n systems since we’re being invaded by banana republics.

For Democrats, v**er suppression is like their Russia collusion story: they can’t let go of it and move on. But what’s interesting about their Russia allegations is that it has forced the Democrats to change their talking points. In addition to endlessly carping about v**er suppression, the Dems are now talking about foreigners interfering in our e******ns. That just happens to be a concern of Republicans.

Government has assured America that Russia “meddled” in the 2016 e******ns. Though they expect us to believe in this Russian meddling narrative, the Dems want us to disbelieve in the possibility that Russians might have changed v**e counts. They remind us that e******ns are conducted by the states, and each state has its own e******n systems, so changing v**e counts would be quite difficult. But if changing v**e counts by foreign actors would be a daunting task, then it might also be fairly daunting to be certain that it didn’t happen. We’re told that v**e counts are accurate, but what proof is ever adduced, brought forward?

So here’s the big question: If one had to prove that the v**e counts in a federal e******n were correct and legitimate, how would one do that, what would it entail?

Well, given the state of America’s banana-republic e******n systems, I’m here to tell you that no crack team of experts could demonstrate what the legitimate v**e counts are in any of our federal e******ns. To do so would require that the experts know who cast each b****t, and then they would need to ascertain that v**er’s eligibility. Basically, they’d have to reregister all the v**ers.

One reason that no one can prove what the legitimate v**e count is in an American e******n is because there is no linkage between the b****ts and the v**ers who cast them. But even if the b****ts did have linkage to the v**ers, our crack team would still need to verify that each v**er is an eligible American citizen, and not a Russian, Mexican, Honduran, Salvadoran, or some other foreign national.

The safeguards the states use to ensure e******n integrity are on the “front end.” These include v***r r**********n, showing ID, signing in at the polls, etc. Such devices are meant to keep ineligibles out of e******ns. But once a b****t has been cast, it’s over. With the current systems, once the polls are closed there’s no way to find fraudulent b****ts. To secure her e******ns, America also needs safeguards for vetting the v**ers after the polls close, that is, on the “back end.”

Back-end safeguards would allow us to detect fraudulent b****ts, correct v**e counts, and prosecute fraudsters. The way to do this is to require v**ers to use their social security numbers to v**e and then attach those numbers to the b****ts. That would allow us to look up the SSNs on the SSA’s database to see if the v**er’s SSN is that of a citizen.

We especially need a “back end” to vet provisional b****ts, as well as late-arriving absentee b****ts and “harvested” b****ts. We also need back-end security to deal with frauds such as b****t box stuffing that are committed not by v**ers, but by partisan poll workers. Those who do not understand the necessity of being able to vet v**ers and the v**e on the back end just don’t understand data security. Except, of course, for classified data in Obama’s State Department, are there any other categories of sensitive data in America that are treated with the negligence and the disregard that government treats the v**e?

If you are an American citizen, your v**e can be nullified by the v**e of an i*****l a***n. It’s appalling that Democrats expect citizens to just mildly accept this. It’s also appalling that 2020 will mark the 20th anniversary of the 2000 e******n brouhaha in Florida and we still haven’t fixed our pathetic e******n systems. And we call this a “democracy.”

Jon N. Hall of ULTRACON OPINION is a programmer from Kansas City