15 ms·

It’s nice to have friends in city hall. Will be funny when NYC sues Florida or Texas to recoup these inflated costs. Then Florida or Texas will have some new d

It’s nice to have friends in city hall. Will be funny when NYC sues Florida or Texas to recoup these inflated costs. Then Florida or Texas will have some new dollars amounts to use when requesting federal funds.

lotsofpulp 3y ago
Is there any reason to think a court would entertain that lawsuit?
- whoknew1122 3y ago
  No there's not. If I were elected officials in Texas and Florida, I'd be much more worried about kidnapping and similar charges. Because, well, moving a person from one place to another by means of fraud seems seems to be pretty much the definition of kidnapping.
  - Fidelix 3y ago
    Kidnapping: "the unlawful act of capturing and carrying away a person against their will and holding them in false imprisonment" Nobody is being carried against their will. Nobody is being held under false imprisonment.
    - tomtheelder 3y ago
      Federal law: Under 18 USC 1201, a person is guilty of kidnapping who "unlawfully seizes, confines, inveigles, decoys, kidnaps, abducts, or carries away and holds for ransom or reward or otherwise any person." I think what went down would definitely qualify as inveigling.
    - whoknew1122 3y ago
      Kidnapping Texas penal code title 5, chapter 20, section 20.03: KIDNAPPING. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly abducts another person. Abduct is defined in section 20.01(2): (2) "Abduct" means to restrain a person with intent to prevent his liberation by: (A) secreting or holding him in a place where he is not likely to be found --snip-- Per reports, the alleged undocumented immigrants are induced with imaginary benefits (such as expedited asylum claims) and are sent to destinations unknown by them. If you don't know where you're going, you're not likely to be found. At the very least it'd be unlawful restraint. Sec. 20.02. UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly restrains another person. Restrain is defined in section 20.01(1): (1) "Restrain" means to restrict a person's movements without consent, so as to interfere substantially with the person's liberty, by moving the person from one place to another or by confining the person. Restraint is "without consent" if it is accomplished by: (A) force, intimidation, or deception --snip-- The alleged undocumented immigrants are being induced onto these bus and/or planes by false promises (e.g. expedited asylum claims elsewhere). Which means they're being trafficked somewhere else via deception.
      - prepend 3y ago
        Why would someone refuse a trip to Martha’s Vinyard? What makes you think any of the people transported are going against their will? That seems like such a weird take without lots of evidence. It seems much more likely that someone was offered a flight or bus ride to anywhere that isn’t Texas and they accepted. Financially, it’s much more beneficial to go to NYC or Denver or SFO than stay on the Texas border. And there are so many migrants it’s easy to just ask until your plane fills up. Any kidnapping lawsuits are likely to end up in the prosecutor looking stupid as 1) the migrants transported will likely say they went willingly / transporter has documentation and 2) migrants will likely split because they don’t want to be deported
        infamouscow 3y ago
        The people you're questioning already believe this to be kidnapping in a tautological sense.
  - JPKab 3y ago
    Based on what I've seen, the people are informed as to where the buses/planes are going, and voluntarily go. They correctly understand that any large city farther from the border has more jobs, more resources than any border town. And they are correct in this assessment. There's this weird, and frankly bigoted, infantilization of economic migrants who cross illegally. They aren't stupid. They are just as smart as your typical colleague. They are informed, they have agency, and access to information via smart phones they bring with them or the ones provided to them when CBP gives them a data to appear for their asylum hearings. If I lived in one of these countries, I'd be one of these migrants. And there's no way I'd get on a bus or plane to a destination unless I thought there were more opportunities there. And yes, the Martha's Vineyard plane fiasco was a publicity stunt, BUT it clearly showed the utter hypocrisy Americans have on this issue. They showed up on an island filled with vacant 10 bedroom mansions, and early enough in the fall where a large percentage of businesses were still open. Not a single mansion was offered to them. Instead they were rapidly ferried to a military base to avoid offending the sensibilities of the economic elites on MV. Meanwhile, if you live in a border town, you're just expected to deal with 1000x the number with no assistance from the US Federal government. After all, what do they care? They're thousands of miles away, and only care about things that they see. And they don't see the border towns, because the US national media has decided that it's not an interesting story for their audiences.
    - tivert 3y ago
      > Based on what I've seen, the people are informed as to where the buses/planes are going, and voluntarily go. They correctly understand that any large city farther from the border has more jobs, more resources than any border town. And they are correct in this assessment. > There's this weird, and frankly bigoted, infantilization of economic migrants who cross illegally. They aren't stupid. They are just as smart as your typical colleague. They are informed, they have agency, and access to information via smart phones they bring with them or the ones provided to them when CBP gives them a data to appear for their asylum hearings. And their understanding is likely a lot more sophisticated that a general inference about large cities. I would be highly surprised if they didn't have detailed, up-to-date knowledge about different US cities and their policies towards migrants (e.g. go to New York, be welcomed with open arms and be put up in a hotel). It's a major project to get to the border, and they're going to be trading information with other migrants, including ones that have already arrived at their destination.
  - infamouscow 3y ago
    [flagged]
JPKab 3y ago
By your logic, does Florida or Texas get to sue the US Federal government for the costs they incur housing these folks? Why are El Paso or Brownsville expected to incur the negative externalities of people who illegally cross into the US without any comments/concerns from national media, but a tiny fraction of that number in a northern city suddenly elicits an outcry? Immigrants, both legal and illegal, are good for the economy in the LONG term. However, those economic benefits are spread out over both time and geography. On a highly localized level, initial waves create intense negative externalities on specific municipalities. And nobody who lives north of these areas cares.
- whoknew1122 3y ago
  > Why are El Paso or Brownsville expected to incur the negative externalities of people who illegally cross into the US without any comments/concerns from national media, but a tiny fraction of that number in a northern city suddenly elicits an outcry? Given that the Texas state government is funded largely off of sales tax and property tax--and undocumented immigrants are ineligible for most social services--undocumented immigrants are a net positive to Texas' revenue.They are subject to sales tax whenever they buy things and pay landlords' property tax via rent. All while being unable to use most social programs. The reason Texas and Florida's political stunts elicit an outcry because is because those states are kidnapping and trafficking people--who may or may not be in the country legally--to make a political spectacle. People are commenting on the political spectacle that Abbott and DeSantis are knowingly and willingly creating.
  - randomopining 3y ago
    The only part of your response that makes sense is the last sentence.
  - JPKab 3y ago
    They are not a net benefit tax-wise, and anyone who has lived in these areas can tell you. Public schools, which are utterly inundated and massively overcrowded in these places (as well as in other non-border towns that have large undocumented populations such as Springdale, Arkansas), are primarily funded by property taxes. And having lived in neighborhoods that were predominantly populated by undocumented migrants, they tend to rent apartments/houses and pack in 2/3 to a bedroom, which means that there is no net increase in property taxes. And if you think that sales taxes paid by a frugal new immigrant remotely covers the roughly $15K a year it costs to educate a pupil in a public school, you are absolutely not doing the math honestly. The amount of willful blindness on this topic is amazing.
delfinom 3y ago
From the sounds of some of these deal, city hall isn't even pushing some of them. The city has a law on the books requiring housing the unhoused which conceptually worked for decades. But now there's rabid progressives threatening to file lawsuits if the migrants don't get shelter and well, the city is basically on the path to bankruptcy or severe dissolution of services to actual city residents.

lotsofpulp 3y ago

Is there any reason to think a court would entertain that lawsuit?

whoknew1122 3y ago
No there's not. If I were elected officials in Texas and Florida, I'd be much more worried about kidnapping and similar charges. Because, well, moving a person from one place to another by means of fraud seems seems to be pretty much the definition of kidnapping.
- Fidelix 3y ago
  Kidnapping: "the unlawful act of capturing and carrying away a person against their will and holding them in false imprisonment" Nobody is being carried against their will. Nobody is being held under false imprisonment.
  - tomtheelder 3y ago
    Federal law: Under 18 USC 1201, a person is guilty of kidnapping who "unlawfully seizes, confines, inveigles, decoys, kidnaps, abducts, or carries away and holds for ransom or reward or otherwise any person." I think what went down would definitely qualify as inveigling.
  - whoknew1122 3y ago
    Kidnapping Texas penal code title 5, chapter 20, section 20.03: KIDNAPPING. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly abducts another person. Abduct is defined in section 20.01(2): (2) "Abduct" means to restrain a person with intent to prevent his liberation by: (A) secreting or holding him in a place where he is not likely to be found --snip-- Per reports, the alleged undocumented immigrants are induced with imaginary benefits (such as expedited asylum claims) and are sent to destinations unknown by them. If you don't know where you're going, you're not likely to be found. At the very least it'd be unlawful restraint. Sec. 20.02. UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly restrains another person. Restrain is defined in section 20.01(1): (1) "Restrain" means to restrict a person's movements without consent, so as to interfere substantially with the person's liberty, by moving the person from one place to another or by confining the person. Restraint is "without consent" if it is accomplished by: (A) force, intimidation, or deception --snip-- The alleged undocumented immigrants are being induced onto these bus and/or planes by false promises (e.g. expedited asylum claims elsewhere). Which means they're being trafficked somewhere else via deception.
    - prepend 3y ago
      Why would someone refuse a trip to Martha’s Vinyard? What makes you think any of the people transported are going against their will? That seems like such a weird take without lots of evidence. It seems much more likely that someone was offered a flight or bus ride to anywhere that isn’t Texas and they accepted. Financially, it’s much more beneficial to go to NYC or Denver or SFO than stay on the Texas border. And there are so many migrants it’s easy to just ask until your plane fills up. Any kidnapping lawsuits are likely to end up in the prosecutor looking stupid as 1) the migrants transported will likely say they went willingly / transporter has documentation and 2) migrants will likely split because they don’t want to be deported
      - infamouscow 3y ago
        The people you're questioning already believe this to be kidnapping in a tautological sense.
- JPKab 3y ago
  Based on what I've seen, the people are informed as to where the buses/planes are going, and voluntarily go. They correctly understand that any large city farther from the border has more jobs, more resources than any border town. And they are correct in this assessment. There's this weird, and frankly bigoted, infantilization of economic migrants who cross illegally. They aren't stupid. They are just as smart as your typical colleague. They are informed, they have agency, and access to information via smart phones they bring with them or the ones provided to them when CBP gives them a data to appear for their asylum hearings. If I lived in one of these countries, I'd be one of these migrants. And there's no way I'd get on a bus or plane to a destination unless I thought there were more opportunities there. And yes, the Martha's Vineyard plane fiasco was a publicity stunt, BUT it clearly showed the utter hypocrisy Americans have on this issue. They showed up on an island filled with vacant 10 bedroom mansions, and early enough in the fall where a large percentage of businesses were still open. Not a single mansion was offered to them. Instead they were rapidly ferried to a military base to avoid offending the sensibilities of the economic elites on MV. Meanwhile, if you live in a border town, you're just expected to deal with 1000x the number with no assistance from the US Federal government. After all, what do they care? They're thousands of miles away, and only care about things that they see. And they don't see the border towns, because the US national media has decided that it's not an interesting story for their audiences.
  - tivert 3y ago
    > Based on what I've seen, the people are informed as to where the buses/planes are going, and voluntarily go. They correctly understand that any large city farther from the border has more jobs, more resources than any border town. And they are correct in this assessment. > There's this weird, and frankly bigoted, infantilization of economic migrants who cross illegally. They aren't stupid. They are just as smart as your typical colleague. They are informed, they have agency, and access to information via smart phones they bring with them or the ones provided to them when CBP gives them a data to appear for their asylum hearings. And their understanding is likely a lot more sophisticated that a general inference about large cities. I would be highly surprised if they didn't have detailed, up-to-date knowledge about different US cities and their policies towards migrants (e.g. go to New York, be welcomed with open arms and be put up in a hotel). It's a major project to get to the border, and they're going to be trading information with other migrants, including ones that have already arrived at their destination.
- infamouscow 3y ago
  [flagged]

JPKab 3y ago

By your logic, does Florida or Texas get to sue the US Federal government for the costs they incur housing these folks? Why are El Paso or Brownsville expected to incur the negative externalities of people who illegally cross into the US without any comments/concerns from national media, but a tiny fraction of that number in a northern city suddenly elicits an outcry? Immigrants, both legal and illegal, are good for the economy in the LONG term. However, those economic benefits are spread out over both time and geography. On a highly localized level, initial waves create intense negative externalities on specific municipalities. And nobody who lives north of these areas cares.

whoknew1122 3y ago
> Why are El Paso or Brownsville expected to incur the negative externalities of people who illegally cross into the US without any comments/concerns from national media, but a tiny fraction of that number in a northern city suddenly elicits an outcry? Given that the Texas state government is funded largely off of sales tax and property tax--and undocumented immigrants are ineligible for most social services--undocumented immigrants are a net positive to Texas' revenue.They are subject to sales tax whenever they buy things and pay landlords' property tax via rent. All while being unable to use most social programs. The reason Texas and Florida's political stunts elicit an outcry because is because those states are kidnapping and trafficking people--who may or may not be in the country legally--to make a political spectacle. People are commenting on the political spectacle that Abbott and DeSantis are knowingly and willingly creating.
- randomopining 3y ago
  The only part of your response that makes sense is the last sentence.
- JPKab 3y ago
  They are not a net benefit tax-wise, and anyone who has lived in these areas can tell you. Public schools, which are utterly inundated and massively overcrowded in these places (as well as in other non-border towns that have large undocumented populations such as Springdale, Arkansas), are primarily funded by property taxes. And having lived in neighborhoods that were predominantly populated by undocumented migrants, they tend to rent apartments/houses and pack in 2/3 to a bedroom, which means that there is no net increase in property taxes. And if you think that sales taxes paid by a frugal new immigrant remotely covers the roughly $15K a year it costs to educate a pupil in a public school, you are absolutely not doing the math honestly. The amount of willful blindness on this topic is amazing.

delfinom 3y ago

From the sounds of some of these deal, city hall isn't even pushing some of them. The city has a law on the books requiring housing the unhoused which conceptually worked for decades. But now there's rabid progressives threatening to file lawsuits if the migrants don't get shelter and well, the city is basically on the path to bankruptcy or severe dissolution of services to actual city residents.