“Trump claimed Oakland’s mayor doesn’t want released immigrants. Her response: We welcome all.” (Washington Post):
President Trump threw more fuel on the flames of the immigration debate Saturday night in a series of tweets that singled out Democrats and news outlets that had reported on his administration’s plan to relocate migrants to so-called “sanctuary cities.”
Trump specifically singled out the mayor of Oakland, Libby Schaaf (D), who had criticized a proposed policy to relocate detained immigrants to sanctuary cities as an “abuse of power and public resources.”
Then the president claimed that the mayor does not actually want the detained immigrants to be released into her city. In fact, Schaaf’s administration strengthened Oakland’s sanctuary policy in 2018 and had warned residents last year of an upcoming raid by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
On Saturday night, she responded to Trump’s attack with a clear message: “Oakland welcomes all.”
In a federally funded welfare state such as the U.S., aren’t poor people an asset for a lot of the politically influential folks within a city? Migrants should be entitled to Medicaid, right? That helps the local health care industry. Migrants should be entitled to food stamps. That is a boost to local supermarket owners. Migrants should be entitled to housing subsidies and/or will have to do some work to pay rent. That’s a boon to anyone who owns an apartment building.
California funds schools centrally. Every migrant child who shows up for a day in an Oakland school, for example, will result in a transfer of funds from Sacramento to Oakland. There should also be federal funds for every new student from a low-income or no-income family.
Might it be an economically rational strategy for political and economic elites in Oakland to pursue a leadership position in the hosting of migrants?
Related:
- “Are poor people an economic asset to a U.S. state or a liability?” (2015)
- Tweet from Cher pointing out that Los Angeles can’t take care of its existing poor (until now, she’s been an advocate for migrants and a critic of Donald Trump); is this a situation for a Marie Antoinette-style statement? “If there isn’t enough housing in Los Angeles, let the migrants go to San Francisco”?
There is similarity here in what happened recently in Massachusetts.
As most readers here know, Massachusetts legalized recreational marijuana [1] in 2016, but when the time comes to open shops, most reject it in their town [2].
So do I believe Libby Schaaf comment “Oakland welcomes all”? Not really. This is all lip service talk to show that she is a caring person.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/results/massachusetts-ballot-measure-4-legalize-marijuana
[2] https://newton.wickedlocal.com/news/20170525/map-find-out-what-towns-will-or-wont-allow-recreational-marijuana-so-far
Well, apparently, there are true believers in the cause, not just the usual bunch of hypocrites.
On one hand “Asylum seekers travel to Portland in droves, overwhelming city services”, https://www.pressherald.com/2018/12/23/asylum-seekers-travel-to-portland-in-droves-overwhelming-city-services/, but on the other their mayor is happy to take even more: https://bangordailynews.com/2019/04/12/news/portland/portland-mayor-if-trump-wants-to-send-more-immigrants-our-way-bring-them-on/
In addition to true believers and hypocrites there are also apostates such as Cher who has recently twitted “I Understand Helping struggling Immigrants,but MY CITY (Los Angeles) ISNT TAKING CARE OF ITS OWN.” Commissars will put her straight in no time one would imagine.
Speaking of the second variety, about two years ago I suggested to my close relatives on the west coast that they should contribute parts of their income, along with a group of like minded ‘passionate’ progressives, and sponsor a family or two of needy immigrant folks until such time the family becomes a “net positive”(their expression re. immigration) . They refused to even consider the idea on the basis that “they already pay enough taxes to take care of such people” and individual contribution was unfair, threrfore. I found their response so funny that I could not stop laughing. They did not find my laughing amusing at all.
Only if If the Cheeto in charge can stop funding sanctuary cities. I want to send them to Canada or at least vet them and keep the compliant workers for hotel maid and manual labor jobs.