Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by sarcasmatwork 478 days ago
>The detainees have to be flown by a government transport at taxpayer expense.

They were flown across the country by the previous admin, costing money. NY Housing illegals costs millions the tax payers have to pay. Sanctuary cities force people to pay for illegals. Do you hold the same concern with "taxpayer expense" in these other cases?

The reason behind is here:

"We don’t want illegal criminals in the United States any — not a minute longer than they have to be,” he continued. “Move them off to Guantánamo Bay, where they can be safely maintained until they are deported to their final location, their country of origin, where they are headed."

"Hegseth noted that he served at Guantánamo Bay and is familiar with areas that can house 30,000 migrants. He also said the military prison “has long been a place for migrants,” adding, “In fact, in the 90s, tens of thousands of Haitian and Cuban migrants staged there as part of a crisis.”"

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5115256-hegseth-guantanam...

2 comments

> Do you hold the same concern with "taxpayer expense" in these other cases?

Yes. Next question.

> They were flown across the country by the previous admin

They or their sponsor typically pay. It's usually Greyhound. Even if the government were to pay for a commercial plane ticket, it would be far cheaper than arranging military transport to Guantanamo.

https://immigrationimpact.com/2022/02/02/biden-secret-flight...

> Sanctuary cities force people to pay for illegals

How? They pay nothing. They don't even pay for local law enforcement to assist ICE. That's much cheaper than deportation. I'm not saying that it's good policy, but it is inarguably cheaper.

> The reason behind is here:

They don't want them in the US while they await deportation and are willing to pay much more in order to say that. That doesn't sound like a good reason to me. I'd rather do the cheaper thing and spend one minute explaining why.