Below is my column in USA Today on states and cities joining the “resistance” to the Trump Administration and its immigration policies. Last week, California Attorney General (AG) Rob Bonta joined that alliance after issuing new guidance to courthouses, healthcare facilities, universities, schools, labor agencies, public libraries and shelters on opposing federal enforcement efforts. However, the costs of the resistance will be borne by the citizens of these states and cities in a confrontation with federal authority.
Here is the column:
Denver Mayor Mike Johnston recently became the latest Democratic leader to engage in a chest-pounding call to arms in resistance to the incoming Trump administration’s plan to deport people who entered the United States unlawfully.
While a post-election poll by YouGov for CBS News shows that a massive 73% of adults want President-elect Donald Trump to prioritize the repatriation of illegal migrants, the mayor pledged to not only have Denver police “stationed at the county line to keep (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) out” but also that “you would have 50,000 Denverites there.”
Johnston said it would be like a “Tiananmen Square moment” and answered yes when questioned whether he’d be ready to go to jail.
That moment soon passed, however, as lawyers apparently explained to the mayor that armed resistance to the federal government is often called – wait for it – insurrection.
It appears that Johnston was not keen on becoming the Jefferson Davis of the left, so he backpedaled, stating, “Would I have taken it back if I could? Yes, I probably wouldn’t have used that image.”
Yet, Johnston is not alone in pledging resistance to repatriation efforts. Cities are reaffirming or adopting sanctuary city status, including most recently Boston. The cities pledge to continue their ban on any cooperation with the federal government in detaining or removing unlawful migrants. Other mayors are pledging to use city funds to pay for the defense costs of those fighting deportation.
The doubling down on sanctuary city promises will likely draw more migrants to those communities, which some mayors have welcomed despite the heavy costs of housing, education and other city services.
Immigration proved to be one of the top issues for voters in this year’s election, which brought control of both houses of Congress and the White House to the GOP. Citizens overwhelmingly supported new tough immigration measures, including deportations.
With Democratic cities joining the “resistance,” they may find the costs even higher. Congress cannot compel cooperation without triggering constitutional concerns. In Federalist #46, James Madison recognized the right of state officials to oppose federal policies, including “the refusal to co-operate with officers of the Union.”
In cases such as Printz v. United States (1997), which involved federal requirements that states cooperate on gun control measures, the Supreme Court enforced an anti-commandeering line that allowed states to refuse such federal orders.
Cities rely on federal money to pay for migrant services
However, this is a two-way street. Just as cities and states do not have to carry water for the federal government, the federal government does not have to supply the water to the states. The second Trump administration and Congress can play hardball by barring federal funds in various areas for these cities.
With their status as sanctuary cities, housing, law enforcement and social programming costs will continue to rise. Many of those budgets are heavily infused with federal funding. However, if cities resist or frustrate federal policy, there are ample reasons why the federal government might restrict funding.
Such measures can go too far. The Supreme Court has warned that financial penalties can be so coercive that they effectively commandeer states. However, the federal government is not required to spend money on services where costs are rising at least in part because of resistance to federal law.
Under constitutional law, the federal government cannot be a bully, but it does not have to be a chump.
It’s clear that elected leaders like Johnston did not think very long or well before starting a war with the incoming administration. In addition to the possible loss of federal funds, acts of resistance can trigger criminal liability if they amount to actively shielding or hiding unlawful migrants sought by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Under federal immigration law, it is a felony when anyone in “knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation.”
That is not triggered by a simple refusal to cooperate, but some officials have been accused of crossing the line, including state judges. It also could endanger private groups that work closely with these cities in housing and transporting unlawful migrants.
Obama defended federal government’s power over immigration
Moreover, as I wrote recently, Trump can cite a curious ally in this fight: Barack Obama.
During the Obama administration, the federal government largely triumphed over states in barring their interference with federal immigration policies. Back then, Democrats supported President Obama in claiming that the federal government had overriding authority on immigration in cases like Arizona v. United States.
The pressure on cities could grow if the Trump administration prioritizes members of violent gangs such as Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) or Tren de Aragua for deportation. To resist those efforts would be politically unpalatable in cities dealing with crime associated with such gangs.
It could take years to hash out these efforts. However, if Denver’s Mayor Johnston is any measure of the resistance, the chest-pounding may decline when the federal funding dries up.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
There have been two central and primary figures leading the refusal to enforce existing immigration law and encouraging state and local governments to follow their federal lead. This resistance has been preparing for this eventuality for the last four years as the DNC plunges forward with their ‘Demography Is Our Destiny’ legal chaos strategy.
One is Attorney General Merrick Garland as the new kid on this legal chaos block. The other is Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas; he did this earlier for eight straight years for Obama and was the architect and implementer of Obama’s “Dreamers” strategy
Four things these two have in common is that they are lawyers at the top of that profession, Democrats, members of the Washington DC Bar, and they share all these personal and professional attributes with their fellow member of the Washington DC Bar, Professor Turley.
Which is probably why Professor Turley gleefully excoriates state and local politicians who are members of the “resistance”. But little more than the occasional “tsk tsk” for Garland and Mayorkas, his two fellow lawyers who belong to the same bar association, despite the fact they explicitly swore an oath to defend the Constitution and enforce it’s laws while taking federal political office.
Writing of how they are a stain on the legal profession and regularly degrade the Constitution would make for uncomfortable personal moments when all three are together at events of the Washington DC Bar.
The “resistance” to President Trump is arguably a creature of that Washington DC Bar Association going back to 2016. One whose Bar Association members back then had names like James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Loretta Lynch, Sally Yates, Robert Mueller, etc. And now later additions like Merrick Garland and Alejandro Mayorkas.
If you didn’t know better you would believe the Washington DC Bar Association and its member lawyers don’t have a code of professional practice that they’re supposedly obligated to comply with.
But… nothing to see here about these Democrat Washington DC based federal lawyers and their 12+ years of attacks on the Constitution and American justice system, move along now.
I agree that Garland and Mayorkas are prime culprits in the border fiasco and I agree that Turley hasn’t mentioned them to his discredit. However, your lumping the good professor in with these two law breakers is a stretch way too far. There are probably a million lawyers in the DC Bar and your putting Turley in with these two is like putting Ronald Reagan into the same camp as the Hollywood Ten because they were all actors, they were all in Hollywood and they were all in the same union.
I really dislike when conservatives level as much hatred on Republicans for not stopping the Democrats as they level on the Democrats, the people actually doing the deed.
“However, your lumping the good professor in with these two law breakers is a stretch way too far.”
If you found some sort of accusation in any post that Professor Turley has also openly committed felonies while a member of that same Bar association, that’s a stretch way too far while you’re doing your best to build a strawman to attack.
What I’m pointing out is that Professor Turley goes to great lengths not to use the same terms and condemnation of his fellow members of that same bar that are actually committing these crimes and shredding the constitution that he does when repeatedly – not just once – demagoguing the magnitude of the J6 rioters and that three hour long riot, and how he sees them as a threat to constitutional order. And Trump’s actions.
He will point long and loud at politicians, social influencers, etc that he sees as a threat to Americans’ Bill of Rights and the Constitution. We can and should thank him for that. But he never, ever does the same thing when the threat comes from his fellow Democrat Washington DC lawyers.
Why is that, if you want to try stretching that far?
BTW, you’re a lawyer, correct? Like the press, it was once a respected profession.
With that in mind, is this one of the Bar Associations in the USA where lawyers who are members of that bar are NOT obligated under their code of professional conduct to report to their bar associations fellow lawyers of that bar they know or believe to be engaged in either unethical or outright illegal acts?
Let’s take those other members of the Washington DC Bar working for Obama that repeatedly committed perjury and uttered false documents to courts: Loretta Lynch, Sally Yates, Robert Mueller, Comey, McCabe, etc. Or if you prefer Merrick Garland who Professor Turley has expressed his admiration and respect for numerous times over the last four years. While he was perjuring himself to Congress in the very least.
Do you know if any member of the DC Bar Association, including Professor Turley, has filed a complaint with their Bar Association about any those repeated felonies by his fellow members of the Washington DC Bar Association?
This is why this kind of criminal conduct by these lawyers that includes both crimes and legal lawfare to deprive Americans of their rights continues.
“Nothing to see here… oh look! Squirrel over there! And it’s not one of my fellow lawyers!”
“There are probably a million lawyers in the DC Bar”
You are about an order of magnitude off, the DC Bar Association currently has 118,056 active members.
https://www.dcbar.org/about/who-we-are/membership-demographics
And I mostly disagree with your criticism of the OP. I didn’t understand him to be accusing Turley of being equally culpable in the misdeeds of Garland and Mayorkas on immigration. I did understand him to be accusing Turley of hypocrisy on the subject, and I have to 100% agree on that. Turley seems to portray himself as taking the high ground on substantially all public moral and ethical issues, and that is not the case. Possibly a little less sanctimoniousness about that would evoke less criticism when he fails to achieve that standard. If he has ever made a simple statement to the effect that he is quite capable of turning a blind eye to moral and ethical lapses by those that he views as his peers, I am unaware of it. To me, that would be a welcome disclaimer.
@Number 6 I did understand him to be accusing Turley of hypocrisy on the subject, and I have to 100% agree on that.
Exactly so. Professor Turley regularly pronounces himself to be a Constitution minded protector of the American rule of law, equal justice for all, and of course the Bill of Rights. An ongoing theme of his columns – and they’re worth reading – is to call out those he sees as besmirching our Constitutional norms, the degradation of the First Amendment, etc.
Those he identifies as guilty of that he pillories and essentially says they need to be better. However, when it comes to the outright criminal and lawfare lawyers that are his fellow members of that Washington DC Bar Association, no matter how criminal their actions i.e. Obama Attorney Generals Loretta Lynch and Sally Yates, Comey, etc, they NEVER get even the invective he posts here about the threat to our constitutional order that the J6 rioters were.
Meanwhile, yesterday he posted a column where he felt the need to make a comment about “Trump’s ill-considered remarks”. A few days earlier, he was lauding another one of his good friends, Washington political analyst journalist George Will. Unlike Trump and his infamous “ill-considered remarks”, Professor Turley tells us that his good friend – and mentor – George Will is the very model of civilized probity:
my friend and mentor, George Will, at a celebration of his legendary 50 years as a columnist. George is a national treasure who has been a voice of reason that has cut through the rage for decades of American politics. A former professor, George brought an unmatchable intellect and unique perspective to the issues that we have confronted as a nation.
Does anyone who has actually read George Will’s columns of rage and invective directed towards Trump since 2016 believe that he’s been nothing but “a voice of reason that has cut through the rage” directed towards Trump? George Will is one of the first and foremost Never Trumpers, where nothing they accused Trump of was out of bounds.
The point isn’t George Will. The point is I don’t believe Professor Turley is so blinded by his respect, admiration and friendship of people like Merrick Garland or George Will that he completely missed in some cases their flat out criminality i.e. Garland or George Will, doing his best to pump gasoline on the fire Trump Derangement Syndrome rage.
Professor Turley knows exactly what they have been doing. He has known it through the after I started reading his columns appearing with others on this blog back in 2015.
Professor Turley does his best to publish his columns at the Hill, his appearances on television and in interviews while avoiding calling out these people who are among the worst at creating the Age Of Rage that he is monetizing with his book.
His column is worth reading. Giving him a pass for his Democrat double standards and hypocrisy in order to protect his friends and fellow Democrat lawyers while he castigates and demagogues Trump, J6, etc isn’t going to happen.
If you support calling out Trump for his “ill-considered speech” to try and incentivize him to do better, why would you complain about Professor Turley being reminded that he is operating on Democrat double standards and hypocrisy?
Is it wrong to post that criticism in hoping Professor Turley can work towards becoming what he attempts to cosplay as being: a fair minded, political constitutional scholar who equally points out all those whose words and conduct are injurious to the American ideal?
Similar to Ron Paul’s call to end all foreign aid, we should end all federal “welfare” to states that does not have a national security concern. For federal funding of programs that do have a national security concern, wherever possible, relocate those programs to non-sanctuary states.
There is no federal welfare to states. There is only Congress funding programs it wants the states to run. If it decides it doesn’t want those programs any more it can stop funding them.
But Congress CANNOT cut a state’s funding in order to compel it to do something it doesn’t want to, such as to assist ICE in deportations. It can make a small cut in order to persuade the state, so long as the state can afford to absorb the cut and refuse to cooperate. The moment the cut becomes so big that the state has no option but to comply, it becomes unconstitutional and the state will go to court which will order the USA to keep paying, on pain of contempt of court and being thrown in a cell.
I don’t seem to remember any acts of resistance by blue states when Obama deported over 3 million illegals. This is just more stupid Democrat TDS — a pandemic they should be locked down for.
That’s because Democrats were not opposed to deporting violent offenders and those who had a prior criminal history. Not those who are just working and contributing to our economy.
“We estimate that 59 percent of illegal immigrant households use one or more major welfare programs, costing roughly $42 billion a year.”
“We estimate the cost of educating the children of illegal immigrants, most of whom are U.S.-born, totals $69 billion per year.”
“While illegal immigrants often receive other services for their U.S.-born children, even when we estimate the net fiscal impact of just the illegal immigrants themselves, excluding their U.S.-born children, we still find they create a lifetime net fiscal drain of $68,000 on average (taxes paid minus benefits received).”
“Even though illegal immigrants are net fiscal drains, they do pay a significant amount in taxes. We estimate illegal immigrants pay $25.9 billion a year to the federal government.
Unfortunately, their tax contributions do not cover their consumption of public services.”
“The fiscal situation today is very different from the situation more than 100 years ago during the last great wave of immigrants, when federal, state and local government was a much smaller share of GDP. Also, at that time industrial jobs for the less educated were plentiful and paid, by the standards of the day, relatively high wages. But none this is the case today. We need an immigration policy that reflects current realities, and we need to rigorously enforce it. Otherwise, the fiscal costs will be significant, as many communities across the country are currently finding out.”
https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/116727/witnesses/HHRG-118-JU01-Wstate-CamarotaS-20240111.pdf
Of course, it was written by the Center for Immigration Studies, a right-wing think tank that is biased against immigration.
They “estimate” a lot of things wihtout providing the source of their “estimation”.
“ Many unauthorized immigrants have dependent children or a spouse who are citizens and who may qualify for public benefits. About three quarters of children of undocumented immigrants are citizens. A study using 2014 data estimated that about 40 percent of all adult undocumented immigrants live with U.S. citizen minor or adult children. Therefore, although undocumented immigrants are not eligible for most benefits, their households often receive support. Studies which look at household-level benefit receipts have higher estimated rates for immigrant households than studies that focus on individual level support (for instance, compare this study to this one).”
https://econofact.org/do-undocumented-immigrants-overuse-government-benefits
CAIR frequently groups these situations together, creating a narrative that simplifies complex issues and portrays them as a burden on the system.
In fact it’s the opposite. They affect very little of the system. They don’t come here to live on government assistance. They come here to work and they do. That’s what CAIR and Republicans in congress don’t want. They are reluctant to acknowledge this, as it calls into question their fabricated narrative.
@George Of course, it was written by the Center for Immigration Studies, a right-wing think tank that is biased against immigration.
George, attempting to peddle the old Obama, Biden, Harris, Mayorkis lie that criminal Illegal Aliens are legal immigrants who just forgot their paperwork and visa from the US State Department when they answered the Obama/Biden invitation to come to America isn’t going to fly.
And Americans who don’t want your criminal Illegal Aliens aka Guest Democrat Voters illegally here in America isn’t what you lie is being biased against immigration. They’re against their daughters being raped and slaughtered by the “immigrants” you sold whatever you had left of a soul in hopes they could help you Democrats destroy America.
Dear George, you dishonest commie: the greatest demographic of the American population population that are victimized by your criminal Guest Democrat Voters are LEGAL Hispanic immigrants and American citizens.
George: why do you Democrats hate legal Hispanic immigrants and American citizens so much that you just consider them to be the eggs you’re happy to break to make your communist omelette?
If you didn’t have lies George, you’d be a hollow sock puppet with all the body of a used condom.
Every single illegal guest of Obama/Biden/Harris has both a prior and continuing criminal history, starting with the initial crime of illegally entering the USA. Whether tax fraud, impersonation, false documents, failing to register for the draft while in that age bracket, failing to register their presence in the USA, applying to receive benefits they are not entitled to, etc.
That has a financial as well as social and national security costs. George simply cannot believe that just the last four years of Biden’s “undocumented immigrants” has cost actual working and taxpaying Americans at least half a trillion dollars.
He doesn’t want us to believe that either.
George sees that financial price tag on law abiding American taxpayers as their “just working and contributing” to the Bidenomics economy. George is also a pathological liar.
To paraphrase the judge who was about to sentence Hunter Biden wrote a few days ago after reading the explanations that Big Joe provided with that pardon: “You have the right to say those things George, but you don’t have the right to re-write history”.
Is illegally entering the US a felony or a misdemeanor?
Your Google-Fu is broken and so you can’t look it up yourself?
“. . . Democrats were not opposed to deporting violent offenders . . .”
*Three million* criminal immigrants?!
What happened to the D “narrative” that immigrants very rarely commit crimes?
If they came here illegally they should be biometric id’ed, deported, and banned from ever returning. And stop misteading the 14th.
GioCon,
Actually, there was. NPR covered pro-immigration, anti-deportation protests at Obama holding facilities. It was a blip on the radar for about a minute and then never seen of again. I was shocked NPR would cover anything negative about Obama.
“cities and states do not have to carry water for the federal government”. Let those cities and states pay the cost of the water they wish to carry.
Dear Mr. Turley, GEB is right on in his comments. Back in 2004, I attended a “Brotherhood and Sisterhood” dinner at a local Black church. This dinner was touted as “bringing people together”. Much to my surprise, this dinner turned out to be very racist in tone. The complaint? Monies from the Federal Government were heading to the “brown” communities instead of the “black” communities in our medium-sized Midwestern city. I hope the Black community will finally wake up and pay attention to how the left has treated them over the years.
I think the Trump admin should aim for the easy, low hanging fruit of the Red states that are ready and willing to comply with federal immigration laws and ICE. Clean up those Red states. Let those in the “resistance” be the bearers of their own fruit. Will it be an increase in the number of immigrants fleeing Red states? Increase in crime? Look at what has happened to NYC for possible outcomes. The Free Press wrote an article, talking to several in the black community in Chicago, who were upset and fed up with failed Democrat policies as they saw illegals getting the kind of aid and support they have been asking for, for decades. Many of them said they would not vote in 2024 or they were voting for Trump. In comparison to 2016, the Democrat “resistance” seems to be failing. It certainly is more muted than then.
Not that it would help with the overall goal of deporting the most dangerous and threatening of the lot, however one cannot ignore the poetic justice that would be served if instead of deporting these illegals to their home countries (if anyone can even figure that out), the Feds do a Greg Abbott and fly them from the Red States to the self proclaimed sanctuary cities of Boston, Chicago, NYC, LA, San Fran, et., al., while striping those Confederate bastions of their Federal subsidies.
“The devil doesn’t come dressed in a red cape and pointy horns. He comes as everything you’ve ever wished for.”
–Tucker Max
Upstate, sure. They can do that. But… they are also risk losing tax revenue workers and their GDP’s become lower. Farmers won’t have enough people to help with the harvest of meatpacking plants wont have enough workers. Will real Americans step up to fill the void?
From the Confederacy to the new leftists, it’s always comes down to; “Who gonna pick the cotton?”
“Farmers won’t have enough people to help with the harvest of meatpacking plants wont have enough workers.”
There’s George putting on his dress to play the part of Nancy Pelosi to parrot that favorite DNC lie: “Who will pick your lettuce”!
Weird how that lettuce got picked and the Christmas turkey ended up on the table before Obama and Biden added another 20+ MILLION guest illegal aliens in this country!!!!
The reason that George, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, etc do not cite either the Obama or Biden Bureau Of Labor Statistics when putting forth the Lettuce Lie is because those US government statistics for field workers, food production, etc directly contradict that Democrat lie.
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
https://www.bls.gov/
They would be deporting illegals. Not Green card holders.
The bulk of farm work is provided by legal workers and supplemented by H-2A workers. The illegal workers are mostly handled through farm labor contractors and their supposed numbers vastly multiplied as they move from farm to farm and are counted repeatedly. For George Svelaz, that means the number of illegals working are inflated.
We do not require illegal immigrants who are mostly unfamiliar with the work at hand. Any such need not made up by American citizens can be filled with legal H-2A workers. This nonsense from George Svelaz pollutes the airways, but hopefully his disease will not be transmitted.
The fanatical cult members of the prog/left will not consider the cost as the ends justify the means and they are convinced the feds (the taxpayers) will eventually make them whole. The indoctrinated tools are unaware of the fiscal damage and just shout as they are told.
That’s why we name them in the lawsuit individually as well as corporately, just like they have been doing to us for years.
Watch the cockroaches scatter!
I do hope Trump can manifest all that we need to clean out this nest of vipers. It will be a hard slog since there are many (on both sides of the aisle – take Ernst for example) who will resist change and improvement as it may hamper their gravy trains. I would love to see each governor, Mayor and other elected/appointed public servants to be perp-walked in orange jumpsuits so that the traditional citizen can see that the rule of law still reigns in this nation.
These people in states and cities that preach the resistance seem to forget that their own citizens can turn against them. Even in California over 40 % supported Trump and even more in NY. The Mayor of NYC is already starting to wave the cooperation flag, the Mayor of Chicago was raked across the coals by citizens about the cost and disruption of illegals and just how much of an increase in taxes do these officials of resistant states think their citizens are going to bear.
Rich white liberals think it’s no big deal but when lower class and middle class whites and blacks see their jobs disappear and illegals get benefits that the citizen can never attain, the conversations start to get heated. Even as far back as Obama, I had black patients complaining of the monies given to illegals while the citizen was stretched paying bills and getting health care.
If there is anything that will turn the Blue part of America to the Red, it may be the resistance. It used to be quiet conversations but that day is past and the crescendo especially in the poorest areas is starting to build. And they have a right to be angry. The left screeches at election time but forgets them in between the elections.
And how did you feel about the January 6 “Resistance”? Bet you aren’t consistent.
Dear Johnny: Tell us how you REALLY feel about your fellow Democrats and your Four Years Of Mostly Peaceful Resistance that concluded with 540+ Mostly Peaceful Riots during the 2020 election campaign?
Bet you aren’t consistent, Johnny! Or do you live in the Democrat Borg world that demands that history only began January 6th?
” seem to forget that their own citizens can turn against them. Even in California over 40 % supported Trump and even more in NY.”
46.5% of NJ voters picked Trump, yet that idiot Bucky Beaver Murphy claims this state to be part of this “resistance”. Of course, he is liar as well as an idiot, because he is done as governor in 2025, so most of the damage that results from this policy won’t be laid at his door step.
Withholding federal funding is a form of collective punishment — what’s needed is to focus punishment on the illegal-harboring activists, not the public in these cities and states. Section 8.1324 should be the tool of choice (10 year sentence for harboring/protecting illegal immigrants from detection/removal.)
There was a big “resistance” in 1861. Didn’t work out so well for the resisters. Hope we’re not headed there again, but I can’t help but think we are.
“Other mayors are pledging to use city funds to pay ” Cities have no funds that are not taken from the citizens! I despise the use of the term “government money”.
Obama threw a Kentucky county clerk in jail for refusing to sign a marriage license for a gay couple. Obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration law by mayors and governors is no different. If hacks like the Mayor of Denver or the Governor of Wisconsin obstruct the enforcement of federal immigration law, they should be treated no differently than a lowly county clerk.
But Republicans were that clerk’s biggest backers and loudly cheered her on for her defiance. Does it mean Republicans are now in support of big government? Weird.
Obama did not throw the Kentucky clerk anywhere. The COURT did so, because she refused a court order to sign the damn license, as was her LEGAL DUTY.
State and local officials have NO duty to assist ICE in any way. All they have to do when ICE agents come is to stand aside and not obstruct them. They do not have to let them into state or city facilities without a warrant. They do not have to notify them when they are holding someone, or when that person will be released. They do not have to let them use the toilet. That’s the US constitution.
Why is nobody discussing enforcement of Federal law E Verify which if implemented would really help solve this problem, plus of course denial of all benefits to illegal aliens. Florida did it in 2023.
“California Attorney General (AG) Rob Bonta joined that alliance . . .” (JT)
When Kennedy sent federal troops to enforce federal law against then-governor Wallace, democrats cheered (as they should have).
Now they are Wallace.
Perhaps you need a history lesson, George Wallace was a democrat through and through. Democrats were the party of the KKK, slavery and segregation. Democrats cheered FOR Wallace! I was there, I remember well, history will not be rewritten through your gas lighting. In an attempt to rewrite history, Illinois even mislabeled Abraham Lincoln as a democrat on his statue
“Perhaps you need a history lesson . . .”
Perhaps you need to look in the mirror.
Kennedy was a democrat. As were the countless, non-racist democrats who cheered him on. (You might want to read some democrat editorials written at that time.)
Yeah, and Hitler had dogs.
Excuse me! Democrats didn’t cheer. They supported Wallace.
Trump needs to do nothing, and certainly not ask Homan to focus on these resistant states. Rather focus on states compliant with the directive. There are years of work in those alone. In the meantime, millions of illegals will “escape ICE” by moving to California, New York, et al, and finally, such states will cry out for salvation from those evil doers, ICE. “Take them away, we beg you,” they will cry out.
@gdonaldallen that is a very good point. And that way Greg Abbott can keep the Sanctuary Express rolling.
Trump needs to highlight that Obama led the way in expelling illegals and that this resistance is purely political. If Republican leaders are wise, which I doubt, they would use this as a campaign strategy to reinforce their hand in the house of representatives in the next election. This would give Trump an even stronger hand in completing his reforms.
Obama focused on deporting illegal immigrants who’d been convicted of crimes.
I think the number is about 3,000,000 deported during Obama’s terms. That’s a lot of convicted criminals.
“That’s a lot of convicted criminals.”
Which of course contradicts the D’s claim that criminals are a very low percentage of the immigrants.
Time to END Federal Aid to cities, states, non-profits and schools, also end public Unions
The Democrats use these funds to fund their Civil War Against America. Lets watch Democrats fund their illegals or crime ridden cities without Money from Texas and Florida!
It’s easy to suggest that the federal government could simply cut funding. However, what Turley overlooks is that it is much more complicated to cut funding outright when such funding is mandated by law. Cities and states have the option to refuse cooperation if they choose to do so. As Turley mentioned, when Republican states began enacting laws that explicitly instructed their law enforcement not to cooperate with the ATF and other federal agencies, they did so under the argument of ‘states’ rights.’ Turley seems to acknowledge, albeit briefly, that states’ rights are still important and that blue states can certainly choose not to assist the federal government in its immigration efforts.
Oh George, please be quiet. You are not an intellectual.
Oh Anonynous, you don’t have anything useful to say. Bummer.
Imagine that… George hopes at least one person here thinks he as something useful to post. As opposed to being a well known pathological liar.
Bummer of a failure, George.
George,
Federal funding mandated by law can be ended …
wait for it …
by law.
I think it’s a fine idea to clean out states that want to work with the federal government and concentrate illegals in a few idiot states.
The second half of the effort can be played where the densities are higher, reducing the unit cost.
If Congress passes a law making funding at the full discretion fo the president. Until then, certain funding cannot be denied without cause. It’s appealing to Trump an his supporters to wield the ability to deny funds as a form of punishment. But reality is not on Trump’s side. Certain procedures must be done and they often require congress.
What makes you thing illegals are going to concentrate in large cities? They can just move to another red state or to rural towns around the country. Keep in mind, they have been moving around for decades.
Funding doesn’t need to be under total control of the executive, it only needs to be made contingent upon compliance with federal immigration and employment law. Taking an opposition position to an imagined extreme as a way of dismissing it is lame
Even so, it CAN’T be made contingent on that, if the cut is so big that the state can’t afford to absorb it, and has no choice but to comply. Funding cuts are only valid if they’re small enough that the state still has a choice. Even then, Congress must make the condition explicit; it can’t simply give the executive discretion.
It’s easy for George to suggest that we overlook the proven fact he’s an overstuffed pompous ass. An ass who clearly believes that line after line of mindless blather proves that he is an intellectual heavyweight.
George is one of the turds floating in the punchbowl of adult discussion.
Trump won 2,552 Counties compared to Harris who won 382 Counties.
That’s a 85% win for MAGA.
Translation: Only 15% of the country wants to live with the open borders and high inflation.
Essentially, Democrats don’t govern very well.
Number of counties is irrelevant. Most of those 2552 counties have very few people. That means they’re entitled to very little say. The country is made up of PEOPLE, not square miles. And almost half of the PEOPLE voted for Harris.
Just take the resistance cities/states Gov’t $$$$ away for immigration etc. Stop funding the NGO’s/funding by US Gov’t agencies/cut off internal travel by migrants on little or no ID, and yes arrest those who resist such as the Mayor of Denver/Chicago etc.Liberals hate when you cut off their $$$$ and thrown in jail.
Especially the NGO’s, what a racket for raking in gov’t funds