You’re vaguely stating what he shouldn’t do. Which of his three options do you think is best? Turn away, detain, or nothing and overcrowd sanctuary cities with homeless migrants?
Biden wouldn't be overcrowding sanctuary cities, that would be the result of obstruction in congress.
That is also the least worst thing he could do, nothing at all. All of the other options are worse because of congressional obstruction.
It’s not about blame, it’s about resources. If a sanctuary city states they’re at capacity, they no longer can provide housing for the migrants.
Doing nothing results in following existing immigration policy. Migrants would be bused from border cities to sanctuary cities. Without housing, the migrants would be homeless in the overcrowded sanctuary cities. Are you suggesting that’s the better option for migrants, or suggesting he does it to deflect the blame back on to Congress?
Releasing that pressure by denying migrants the proper asylum process means that the problem can be ignored for longer instead of the sanctuary cities applying more pressure for actual change.
This is a counterproductive band aid.
They’ve been asking for support since last year. Congress failed to pass a bill.
Republucans obstructed the bill they asked for. It will take longer than a year to overcome that hurdle.
It’s been almost forty years since comprehensive immigration reform was passed. The problem is Congress, not POTUS. Biden only has the three options I mentioned above.
He has a fourth option to do nothing about it because that is better than those three options. Sometimes doing nothing is better than doing something.
Doing nothing is the same as overcrowding sanctuary cities. Doing nothing defaults to current immigration policy of busing migrants from border cities to sanctuary cities. They have no housing, so the migrants would be homeless. Allowing them to get housing elsewhere requires an act of Congress. Those are literally his options.
You’re vaguely stating what he shouldn’t do. Which of his three options do you think is best? Turn away, detain, or nothing and overcrowd sanctuary cities with homeless migrants?
Biden wouldn't be overcrowding sanctuary cities, that would be the result of obstruction in congress.
That is also the least worst thing he could do, nothing at all. All of the other options are worse because of congressional obstruction.
It’s not about blame, it’s about resources. If a sanctuary city states they’re at capacity, they no longer can provide housing for the migrants.
Doing nothing results in following existing immigration policy. Migrants would be bused from border cities to sanctuary cities. Without housing, the migrants would be homeless in the overcrowded sanctuary cities. Are you suggesting that’s the better option for migrants, or suggesting he does it to deflect the blame back on to Congress?
Releasing that pressure by denying migrants the proper asylum process means that the problem can be ignored for longer instead of the sanctuary cities applying more pressure for actual change.
This is a counterproductive band aid.
They’ve been asking for support since last year. Congress failed to pass a bill.
Republucans obstructed the bill they asked for. It will take longer than a year to overcome that hurdle.
It’s been almost forty years since comprehensive immigration reform was passed. The problem is Congress, not POTUS. Biden only has the three options I mentioned above.
He has a fourth option to do nothing about it because that is better than those three options. Sometimes doing nothing is better than doing something.
Doing nothing is the same as overcrowding sanctuary cities. Doing nothing defaults to current immigration policy of busing migrants from border cities to sanctuary cities. They have no housing, so the migrants would be homeless. Allowing them to get housing elsewhere requires an act of Congress. Those are literally his options.