As a direct result of HRC’s loss and President Trump’s election, a fair number of cities controlled by Democratic politicians have climbed on the “sanctuary city” train. They’ve come online to resist the deportation of non-citizens who’ve entered the country without permission, and have offered their protection in the sense kingdoms of old would offer sanctuary to monks, and other travelers who sought their protection. The difference this time is purely political rather than humanitarian motives of the Lords and Ladies of these cities.
This week, like almost every other week, President Trump created a firestorm on Twitter®, when he suggested he would acquiesce to the Dem’s position and instead of deporting illegals caught in border crossings he would ship them to the cities that had offered them sanctuary.
Oh, the humanity! Oh, the outrage! Oh, the immorality!
It is always amusing when politicians and Hollywood actors claim the proposed Presidential actions are immoral. The same people who have voted to deny human rights to viable human fetuses, who’ve demonstrated their own personal greed, and encourage rape (of the right people), think they have the moral high ground and can define the common morality? Give me a break.
If you don’t really want these migrating humans in your back yard, then why did you make the offer? Oh, that’s right, it was really just something you did to make you appear to be more virtuous and appeal to the illegal voters you seek to gain.
Scott Adams, of Dilbert fame, noted the suggestion by the President wasn’t really something he could actually pull off because of the logistics of moving all those people, but his tweet was really a brilliant way to highlight the hypocrisy of the left and perhaps move the discussion of immigration off the current topics of border walls and cages.
No comments:
Post a Comment