Yes, this is what astonishes me most of all.
Then perhaps you need to re-evaluate why you feel the need to label them as xenophobic?
Here's the thing. There's no actual plan behind the "sanctuary city" bullcrap. It's just a blank statement without any grounding. What is a sanctuary city? Whats the status of the so called "illegals" once they arrive? Are they now legal? Are they free to roam? Are they to be confined to a make shift ghetto while they wait to be deported? If they're not legal, and are left free to roam, if (and when) some of them get out of these cities and go look for employment anywhere else in the US, who's liable for their escape?
Level already explained it to you, but the term “sanctuary city” came about from the leftists running various cities (or in the case of California, the entire state) and publicly flaunting their disregard for federal law, by discouraging law enforcement under their jurisdiction from contacting immigration if any apprehended criminals/suspects were in the country illegally. The right wing of the political spectrum did not coin the term or push its use.
There's no actual proposal, just "take them, it's your problem now". Certainly convenient, isn't it, after many reports of the kind of inhumane conditions they're being kept at the "camps".
I know you put it in quotes, but let’s address your use of the word “camps.” The implication that this is some sort of forced internment, like the Japanese in WWII (which my country was also guilty of). The people in question are not being rounded up and placed here. They are voluntarily travelling various distances across Central America to enter the US, and they are coming in droves. The numbers are unprecedented, and the posts across the southern US borders do not have the facilities to house this many people.
Trump initially followed the Flores Settlement Agreement of 1997 (in regards to not detaining
unaccompanied children at the border beyond a certain time, thereby releasing them into the US at secured facilities).
Then a 9th circuit court of appeals ruled Flores also applied to accompanied children. There’s since been another ruling allowing illegals to appeal their deportation, further bogging down the system.
All the above, combined with the record influx of people approaching the southern border, is what is causing the massive clogging of the existing infrastructure, and either you get people overflowing from the secure facilities into these “camps” as you put it, or you just let them into the US (the process long known as “catch-and-release”).
This isn’t helped by these sanctuary city policies loudly declaring their opposition to federal law (and most have been doing this before Trump came into power), this giving to-be migrants a sense of security.
Trump’s decision to ship these illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities shouldn’t be surprising. You can’t have it both ways. Either you want to safeguard illegals or you don’t. The current language emanating from the political/media left (NOT from the right) that these illegals are being “dumped” is extremely telling, and showcases a hitherto undeclared level of elitist hypocrisy. The left want to make certain policies... they just don’t want to feel the effects of them directly. “Not in my backyard.”
FYI....I don’t recall seeing any liberal outrage when Obama sent truckloads of (actually processed) refugees to small rural towns without their approval during his administration as being cruel or dehumanizing.
Here's the real tea:
The reason there's illegal immigration and drug trafficking is one and the same: there's demand for it in the US. If nobody was giving jobs to illegal immigrants, it would quite quickly die down, but of course, saving some money on hands and taxes is always a very tempting proposition for any capitalist. The same way, if you legalized immigrants quickly and swiftly, employers would have to pay them legal wages and pay taxes and benefits and all the other bits and bobs, they wouldn't be cheap anymore, they would be in competition with locals and soon enough the problem would be greatly diminished. But of course "muh job", will never happen. Build a wall that would accomplish nothing, that's better.
You seem to be conveniently ignoring that no one on this board, or on the mainstream political right, is advocating to abolish
legal immigration. Regardless, it’s a very complex process for any nation to throughly vet potential applicants. Your idea of simply speeding up the process for those swamping the border demanding to be let in, versus those that have been toiling away waiting for the legal process, isn’t realistic. Sovereign nations retain the right to select who they wish to allow in. No one has a right to demand access into a foreign nation.