Trump Blows Up Democrat Resistance To ICE With Brilliant Move
The Trump administration has employed a new legal tactic that essentially bypasses so-called “sanctuary city” policies that forbid local police departments from assisting federal immigration enforcement.
Police agencies in sanctuary jurisdictions are barred from honoring Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainers for illegal migrants arrested by local authorities. However, as journalist Marc Thiessen pointed out during a Tuesday segment on Fox News, the Trump administration is now charging migrants who have illegally crossed the U.S.-Mexico border more than once with felonies, which local jurisdictions cannot ignore.
“Two elections now, Donald Trump has beaten the Democrats, powered by illegal immigration, and they still can’t seem to get it right,” Thiessen, a Washington Post columnist and former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, told anchor Shannon Bream. “You have people literally burning cars, throwing rocks at ICE agents, and the Democrats are siding with the protesters over the administration trying to restore law and order.”
Read more: Will Melania Trump Become America’s Greatest First Lady?
Continuing, Thiessen explained, “And what has the left riled up, and what’s causing all this, is that the Trump administration has figured out a way around sanctuary city laws. Local officials can refuse to honor an ICE detainer, but they can’t refuse to honor a federal felony warrant.”
He added, “So the Trump administration has this thing called ‘Operation Guardian Angel,’ where they are charging illegal migrants who reenter the country with felony illegal reentry, and then they are presenting the local jurisdictions with federal felony warrants, and they have to hand them over. So they’ve been handing over hundreds of illegal migrants to ICE, and this has set people off—they found a way to basically lock the sanctuary city policies.”
Meanwhile, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), a former state attorney general, believes there is big money financing the riots, and he announced on Wednesday that he’ll be looking into the matter.
Hawley, chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism, has requested internal communications and financial records from the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA). The request aims to investigate allegations that the organization is contributing to the ongoing unrest in California, The Hill reported.
Read more: New US Attorney Jeanine Pirro Announces First ARREST – Buckle Up!
“Credible reporting now suggests that your organization has provided logistical support and financial resources to individuals engaged in these disruptive actions,” Hawley wrote in a letter to the organization.
“Let me be clear: bankrolling civil unrest is not protected speech. It is aiding and abetting criminal conduct. Accordingly, you must immediately cease and desist any further involvement in the organization, funding, or promotion of these unlawful activities,” Hawley’s letter continued. “They have obstructed federal law enforcement, endangered public safety, and disrupted the rule of law. This lawlessness is unacceptable. It must end.”
“Who is funding the LA riots? This violence isn’t spontaneous,” Hawley also wrote on the X platform.
President Trump deployed thousands of National Guard troops, along with hundreds of Marines, to address the unrest in Los Angeles. The Republican leader said the move was essential to restore law and order, citing what he described as the failure of Democratic leadership in the city.
“If our troops didn’t go into Los Angeles, it would be burning to the ground right now, just like so much of their housing burned to the ground,” Trump posted to Truth Social on June 11, referring to the recent devastating wildfires.
“The great people of Los Angeles are very lucky that I made the decision to go in and help!!!” he added.
Read more: BIG NEWS: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is OUT – Stunning Development
California Governor Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, both Democrats, criticized Trump for escalating tensions and opposed the deployment of federal forces. They asserted that local and state authorities were capable of managing the situation without federal intervention.
