The student news site of Marquette University

Marquette Wire

The student news site of Marquette University

Marquette Wire

The student news site of Marquette University

Marquette Wire

LIPO: Trumps sanctuary plan hypocritical

Photo by Andrew Himmelberg

President Donald Trump tweeted April 12 about his new proposal of sending undocumented individuals to sanctuary cities, since space is limited in detention centers due to the outpouring of immigrants from Central America and various other places.

While the White House said this plan was to alleviate space needs in detainee centers, it also sent a clear message to the Democratic Party. Trump is using undocumented people “as pawns to punish their political enemies,” according to an article by David French. Trump’s moves are hypocritical, as he never was a proponent of sanctuary cities in the first place. He believes they can foster crime and should not be federally funded. 

Sanctuary cities are safe places where local governments do not cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement to round up people who may be living in the United States illegally. Sanctuary cities were created in response to Trump’s policy of deportation of undocumented immigrants and “zero tolerance” policy.

Some sanctuary states include California, Colorado, Oregon and Vermont, according to the Center of Immigration Studies. Specific cities include Denver, New Orleans, Boston, Los Angeles and Iowa City.

This idea of sending individuals to sanctuary cities has been brought up in discussion at least twice in the last six months, once in February involving a migrant caravan approaching the southern border and once in November regarding a conversation between Democrats and Republicans about the wall, according to Department of Homeland Security messages gathered by The Washington Post.

These placements of the undocumented into sanctuary cities will not benefit the country or the undocumented in any way. In fact, when Trump’s ultimate goal is deportation back to the individual’s home country, it makes no sense to first send individuals all throughout the United States to these states that may offer protection. Twelve immigrants died in detention in 2017, according to Injustice Watch a non-partisan multimedia journalism organization.

In a speech Dec. 7, 2018, Trump blasted sanctuary cities, saying, “These outrageous sanctuary cities are grave threats to public safety and national security.”

When these undocumented individuals are sent to sanctuary cities, they will have no resources or connections to thrive. These deportations will ultimately not help them flourish in the long run.

Trump has made his opinions of undocumented individuals quite clear, calling Central American immigrants “stone cold criminals.” If he believes this is true, he is expecting these individuals to wreak havoc in sanctuary cities they are placed in. If the end goal is ultimate deportation, then sending individuals to various places around the country may make this ultimate goal more difficult.

Trump’s new proposed policy is detrimental to the country and to the undocumented families and individuals who may be spread throughout the country in sanctuary cities. This dispersion is against Trump’s policy that does not support or stand for sanctuary cities, and seems to be more of a threat or warning to the Democratic Party than anything else.

There are bigger problems regarding immigration that need to be addressed, and sending the undocumented throughout the United States in sanctuary cities will not alleviate any of the actual dangers and stressors of the current immigration system.

Story continues below advertisement
View Comments (1)
More to Discover

Comments (1)

All Marquette Wire Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

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

  • J

    Jim PereApr 26, 2019 at 10:50 am

    It is always interesting to me how quickly people are to backtrack on their ideas. While I would have to agree that the President’s statement is hypocritical, wouldn’t you agree that so is the response?

    Just to start off we must clear the air. Sanctuary cities were first established in the 1980’s. San Francisco was the first in the country and it adopted the policy in 1985 (1). This policy has helped tame consequences for illegal immigrants through two Democratic Presidents and four Republicans, of which Clinton had deported the most of any president.

    If immigrants are not put in sanctuary cities, where would you have them placed? It would seem that sanctuary cities are best equipped to help. Many cities such as San Francisco have set up social services which are specifically tasked with helping the illegal community.

    It seems more hypocritical that supporters of sanctuary cities are now rescinding their invitation. Could this be because citizens in sanctuary cities have realized that welcoming illegal immigrants is detrimental to their community? If not then why the resistance?