Sending migrants on buses, trains, and planes...

[Ernie]

Texas and some other states have been sending migrants on buses, trains, and planes to sanctuary cities and other places, without respecting drop off hours and giving cities advance notice.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watc ... companies/

[Ernie]

My take...

Chicago and New York City are not currently limiting the number of migrants to their cities. They are trying to have the process done in an orderly manner and during hours when they have the staff to welcome the immigrants.
Besides there are dozens of other cities and counties that welcome migrants. If Texas has too many migrants to send to New York or Chicago in a given day, they can send migrants to these https://cis.org/Map-Sanctuary-Cities-Co ... and-States .

But Texas goal is not to make it nice for the migrants or for the people caring for them. Their goal is to create chaos for these cities that will put pressure on the White House to slow down the flow of migrants into the US. If Texas sent migrants to the 200+ cities on the above list, there would not be as much chaos, and then there would be less pressure on the White House to do something.

With some politicians voting against spending more for border patrol, they can keep the chaos ensuing. It's all about politics as usual.
https://www.govexec.com/management/2024 ... ys/393089/

[Neto]

My take...

Chicago and New York City are not currently limiting the number of migrants to their cities. They are trying to have the process done in an orderly manner and during hours when they have the staff to welcome the immigrants.
Besides there are dozens of other cities and counties that welcome migrants. If Texas has too many migrants to send to New York or Chicago in a given day, they can send migrants to these https://cis.org/Map-Sanctuary-Cities-Co ... and-States .

But Texas goal is not to make it nice for the migrants or for the people caring for them. Their goal is to create chaos for these cities that will put pressure on the White House to slow down the flow of migrants into the US. If Texas sent migrants to the 200+ cities on the above list, there would not be as much chaos, and then there would be less pressure on the White House to do something.

With some politicians voting against spending more for border patrol, they can keep the chaos ensuing. It's all about politics as usual.
https://www.govexec.com/management/2024 ... ys/393089/

I get a "Page Not Found" response from the 1st link in your post.

Found the following map, dated 12-22-2023

https://cis.org/Map-Sanctuary-Cities-Co ... and-States

[Josh]

Texas and some other states have been sending migrants on buses, trains, and planes to sanctuary cities and other places, without respecting drop off hours and giving cities advance notice.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watc ... companies/

Migrants are free to board or not board buses, trains, and planes. Most choose to accept a free trip to big cities, because they'd rather be in a big city that in rural Texas country that is functionally very similar to Mexico, complete with things like lack of sewage infrastructure, very poor housing, and low-paying jobs. (There is a gigantic shanty town that is being built up north of a major Texas city as well.)

Migrants have already not respected things like "drop off locations" and "giving advance notice". The former is the same as entering at an approved port of entry. Illegal aliens don't do that. The second is making sure to have appropriate visas in order before showing up. Illegal aliens don't do that either. So why is it any surprise that they show up and flood a city that is unprepared for it?

Ultimately, America does have a right of free movement of people - regardless of one's visa status, too. If you aren't in detention or confined to jail or on probation or something, you are free to go to any state or city, at any time of the day, without giving the government a reason. You may be picked up or dropped off anywhere, subject to simple things like traffic laws or parking regulations.

It seems Chicago and NYC are asking that immigrants be detained indefinitely in Texas and not allowed to come into their cities. That sounds a lot like "border controls" to me. And limiting immigration to "legal migration". So, the question is... is that what is wanted, or not?

[Ernie]

Texas and some other states have been sending migrants on buses, trains, and planes to sanctuary cities and other places, without respecting drop off hours and giving cities advance notice.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watc ... companies/

Migrants have already not respected things like "drop off locations" and "giving advance notice". The former is the same as entering at an approved port of entry. Illegal aliens don't do that. The second is making sure to have appropriate visas in order before showing up. Illegal aliens don't do that either. So why is it any surprise that they show up and flood a city that is unprepared for it?

It depends on who is funding it and who is arranging it.

It seems Chicago and NYC are asking that immigrants be detained indefinitely in Texas and not allowed to come into their cities. That sounds a lot like "border controls" to me. And limiting immigration to "legal migration". So, the question is... is that what is wanted, or not?

No. As I showed earlier, there are lots of cities and counties where they can be sent, immediately. But if the states did that, it produce less chaos, and less talking points.

[Josh]

Perhaps the migrants don’t want to go other places.

When asked by journalists, destinations they wanted to go to were Philadelphia, NYC, and Los Angeles. Generally, whenever I’ve gone to other countries, I mostly stayed in the biggest cities. That’s what migrants usually do.

TX border towns are small and impoverished and also have not decided to be “sanctuary cities”. Chicago and NYC decided to be. They could change their laws if they don’t want to be.

[Ernie]

Just because a city decides to be a sanctuary city, does not mean they need to be able to accept migrants at all hours and many bus loads at once.
There are many other large cities that are sanctuary cities that they can go to until their city of preference is ready to take them.

I help support and sponsor refugees, but I am not able to help more than a few at a time. If someone wants to be sponsored by me, they will need to wait their turn. If they want someone to sponsor them now, there are others in the US that can do that. Just because they want me to sponsor them on their terms does not mean I need to do what they want.

[Bootstrap]

My take...

Chicago and New York City are not currently limiting the number of migrants to their cities. They are trying to have the process done in an orderly manner and during hours when they have the staff to welcome the immigrants.

Exactly. They want to be able to plan.

But this chaotic approach sure creates headlines! Theme: be transgressive, be a little cruel, make headlines. This is a game we see a bunch of politicians playing. Think of all the free publicity Abbott is getting!

Imagine this happened where you live. You would want to know who is arriving when so you could plan to help them. You don't want people to be just dumped without a plan to help them. Texas has telephones and internet connections. They are quite capable of working with authorities who work with immigrants in other states so that they can be prepared to help immigrants who arrive.

[Judas Maccabeus]

Just because a city decides to be a sanctuary city, does not mean they need to be able to accept migrants at all hours and many bus loads at once.
There are many other large cities that are sanctuary cities that they can go to until their city of preference is ready to take them.

I help support and sponsor refugees, but I am not able to help more than a few at a time. If someone wants to be sponsored by me, they will need to wait their turn. If they want someone to sponsor them now, there are others in the US that can do that. Just because they want me to sponsor them on their terms does not mean I need to do what they want.

Since when can an American city restrict entry to one that , according to the claim do the sanctuary city advocates, have every right to be there. Once they are “admitted “ to the United States, they can travel anywhere they want, by any means they want, once you say they have a legal right to be in the country.

Hypocrisy? You bet. They want unrestricted migration, but want to shield their cities from the consequences.

Eric Adams has sued. My prediction, that suit will fail, first due to lack of standing, to gain such that they must claim damages which would be politically infeasible. Than they have to show the bus companies are the cause o’f the damages. Good luck on that.

[Judas Maccabeus]

Just because a city decides to be a sanctuary city, does not mean they need to be able to accept migrants at all hours and many bus loads at once.
There are many other large cities that are sanctuary cities that they can go to until their city of preference is ready to take them.

I help support and sponsor refugees, but I am not able to help more than a few at a time. If someone wants to be sponsored by me, they will need to wait their turn. If they want someone to sponsor them now, there are others in the US that can do that. Just because they want me to sponsor them on their terms does not mean I need to do what they want.

Could you concede that the country as a whole has a capacity, that has been exceeded. Therefore we can’t permit new arrivals?