Immigration Watch International (2): 'Consider Another City' – NYC Mercilessly Trolled After Tapping Out on Sanctuary Status for Illegals

Tuesday, July 25, 2023

'Consider Another City' – NYC Mercilessly Trolled After Tapping Out on Sanctuary Status for Illegals

Deep-blue New York City is trading its sanctuary city status for a new policy of moving illegal immigrants down the road to somewhere, anywhere else.

And Twitter can’t laugh hard enough.

“Wait what happened to being a sanctuary city? Truly bizarre that New York would suddenly change their entire policy after being forced to deal with the consequences of their own actions,” Outkick sports writer Ian Miller tweeted in response to New York City’s aggressive push to stop illegal immigrants from coming there.

One part of the strategy was the development of posters claiming that since April 2022, more than 90,000 illegal immigrants have arrived in New York City. As noted by CNN, Texas began busing illegal immigrants to New York City in August of 2022.

The flyer warns that “The cost of food, transportation, and other necessities in NYC is the highest in the United States” and “There is no guarantee we will be able to provide shelter and services to new arrivals.” It concludes, “Please consider another city as you make your decision about where to settle in the U.S.”

Mayor Eric Adams announced the change in his longtime sanctuary city tune on Wednesday.

“We have no more room in the city,” he said, according to The New York Times.

“This is wrong that New York City is carrying the weight of a national problem,” Adams said Wednesday, according to Fox News.

The move to discourage immigrants was denounced by some, according to the Times. Brad Lander, New York City’s comptroller, said the announcement contradicted “the defining role of New York as a beacon of promise inscribed at the base of the Statue of Liberty.”

“The idea that there’s some imaginary place that people are going to go off to besides city streets is just false,” Craig Hughes, a social worker with Mobilization for Justice, a nonprofit legal services group, said.

In June, Deputy Mayor of Health and Human Services Anne Williams-Isom said the city had “reached a tipping point. We now have more asylum seekers in our care than longtime New Yorkers … who were in our existing DHS system,” Fox News reported

As liberals seethed, conservatives chortled.

But the city’s tactics are no laughing matter in the Schenectady County community of Rotterdam, which this week was part of a less-publicized piece of New York City’s strategy for dealing with illegal immigrants by sending them into Upstate New York.

Residents of a motel were summarily booted a day before a busload of illegal immigrants from New York City arrived to claim their space.

Democratic state Assemblyman Angelo Santabarbara accused Adams of “thoughtlessly sending buses with migrants to (the) Super 8 Motel in Rotterdam, completely disregarding the fact that many of the individuals already residing there were struggling with poverty themselves and are now displaced. I am absolutely outraged by what has transpired,” according to the Albany Times-Union.

“This level of disrespect and blatant lack of concern for our community by forcing this situation on us without notice and zero communication is unforgivable. The federal government must take action to put an end to this chaos,” he said.

https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/consider-another-city-nyc-mercilessly-trolled-tapping-sanctuary-status-illegals

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.

Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.

The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:

1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.

2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.

3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.

4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.

5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.

6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.

I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.

Immigration Watch International (2)

Tuesday, July 25, 2023

'Consider Another City' – NYC Mercilessly Trolled After Tapping Out on Sanctuary Status for Illegals

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Other blogs

Blog Archive

Contributors