Sharyl Attkisson brings logic to the illegal alien problem

I’m sure most of us have been following the debate (and the outrage) over President Trump’s proposal to release illegal aliens in so-called “sanctuary cities” while their cases are being processed.  I find it highly amusing how liberals, who are normally so pro-illegal-alien, suddenly go all NIMBY when the suggestion is made.

I think Sharyl Attkisson, the journalist who lifted the lid on the “Fast and Furious” gun-running scandal, has the right of it in her latest column.

The beauty of [President Trump’s proposal| is its simplicity. It doesn’t require litigating who’s correct. It merely accepts the stated view of each side. President Trump is telling illegal immigration supporters: I hear you and am giving you the chance to practice your advocacy. You will receive all the benefits you foresee from illegal immigrants. At the same time, he’s telling illegal immigration opponents: I hear you and will not force you to bear what you see as costs to your communities.

There are consequences to whichever side is wrong, and that’s not a bad thing, either. Those communities that shun illegal immigrants will not receive the benefits, if it turns out they exist. On the other hand, those who welcome illegal immigrants will have to bear the costs or other negative consequences, if it turns out there are any after all.

Additionally, sanctuary cities and states should want to do all they can to keep illegal immigrants from being sent to less welcoming places. The best places for the immigrants’ welfare would seem to be where local policies and laws favor them; for example, where they can receive driver’s licenses, social welfare benefits, in-state or free college tuition — maybe even vote. It would seem to be to nobody’s benefit to house them in places where they are not allowed to drive or not offered favorable college plans and other assistance.

If illegal immigrants were welcomingly hosted by sanctuary cities and states, there’s an added benefit to all: We would be conducting a valuable social experiment. Within a year, there’s a pretty good chance we would be able to see which side is closer to being correct. The communities that take in masses of illegal immigrants will either be measurably safer and more prosperous, less safe and less prosperous, or some mix thereof.

Therefore, it seems to me there is only one logical response to the president’s threat — or promise. For non-sanctuary cities and states, it would be: “Thank you, President Trump, for not saddling us with the costs of this crisis.” For sanctuary cities and states, it would be: “Welcome to all illegal immigrants. And thank you, President Trump, for rewarding us with all the benefits they bring.”

There’s more at the link.

That’s it in a nutshell.  I hope President Trump goes ahead with his proposal.  Let’s see who’s right when the rubber hits the road!



  1. Yeah…but

    What about the fact that these people are here illegally and DO NOT belong here?
    What about the fact that people and companies who employ these illegal aliens are breaking the law?
    What about the likelihood that these sanctuary cities will soon start crying for more federal assistance to support all of the illegal aliens?

    The law is already established. What about enforcing it?

  2. DaveS,

    This isn't a proposed solution. This is a tactical ploy. As a solution it would stink on ice. As a ploy, it comes near to genius.

  3. NIMBYs, I remember them well. I lived in Emeryville when the citizens of Berkeley rose in outrage against the Berkeley city government for the crime of proposing that low-income housing be built anywhere in Berkeley.
    Well, what can I say, they've had bed bugs running amok in their library for decades. If they'd rather the homeless and low income live in the library branches I'm sure they have not suffered enough from their planned utopia.
    Still laugh at the contantly heard refrain about Berkeley as home of the free speech movement. If they mean it moved out and went to live in Texas, perhaps I'd agree with their sentiment.

  4. Logic and liberals just don't seem to fit real well. At all? Never?

    All of the arguments from the Right always assume the Left wants a solution. Nothing could be further from the truth. The absolute genius of Trump's proposal is it uses the exact same tactic the Left is always trotting out. Love it. But….But…but…I thought you wanted them.

  5. @DaveS, they are not here legally, but it's also illegal to get them out of the country until they get a hearing.

    So the short-term question isn't "are they are going to be in the US?", it's "WHERE in the US are they going to be?"

    under these rules, booting them out the door at the border to live on their own isn't doing them (or the community) any favors.

    It sure seems to me that giving them a one-way ticket to someplace that's not as overcrowded and who claims to want them is going to beneifit everyone, the people who are moved, the community they are being moved from, and the community they are being moved to.

    the claims that somehow this is illegal seem silly to me.

    What I've heard peoplesay is:

    * it is using federal dollars for political purposes, but by that criteria, any grants by the feds can be ruled illegal

    * not having enough money.congress didn't allocate money to do this. I'll bet you that crowdsourcing would produce alot of money to buy tickets

    * it makes it harder to get back for a court date. The tickets could be round trip, or (a better idea IMHO), open immigration courts in these sanctuary cities (assigning some of the ~200 new judges that are being hired). This is better than trying to hire judges to move to the tiny, crowded border towns (I hear SF and Chicago have a lit of vacant office space that the Feds could rent for this).

    The Lawyers would probably prefer to work in the big cities rather than in the small border towns as well.

    David Lang

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *