Denver Mayor Willing to Use City Police to Thwart ICE, Create ‘Tiananmen Square Moment’
“It’s like the Tiananmen Square moment with the rose and the gun, right?”
In the weeks since President-elect Donald Trump’s sweeping victory, governors and mayors of sanctuary states and cities have voiced their firm opposition to his plans for the mass deportations of illegal immigrants. While they vow to do everything they can to protect the “undocumented” in their cities and states from deportation, most appear to realize there are limits to their authority.
Illinois Gov. Pritzker laments he can’t do anything to prevent the Trump from deporting the illegals in his state.
But Pritzker says he’ll do everything he can to protect his illegals.
If Illinois obstructs deportations in any way, then the state needs to lose federal funding. pic.twitter.com/W6gOhsfFal
— Paul A. Szypula 🇺🇸 (@Bubblebathgirl) November 14, 2024
In an interview with local media outlet Denverite last Friday, Michael Johnston, the mayor of Denver, Colorado, took his pledge of protection much further. Not only are we “gonna continue to be a welcoming, open, big-hearted city that’s gonna stand by our values,” he said, but “more than us having DPD stationed at the county line to keep them out, you would have 50,000 Denverites there.“
“It’s like the Tiananmen Square moment with the rose and the gun, right? You’d have every one of those Highland moms who came out for the migrants. And you do not want to mess with them,” Johnston added.
What an extraordinary statement for him to make. The Denver mayor is suggesting the use of force against ICE agents who are carrying out the lawful actions of the U.S. government. How many Denver police officers does Johnston really think would risk their careers or place themselves in legal jeopardy to carry out an unlawful request from their mayor?
The Democrat Mayor of Denver, Colorado Mike Johnston has challenged Trump to try to deport any illegal migrants from his city, saying he would deploy the Denver City Police and volunteers from the local community to use force against federal forces trying to deport illegals.… pic.twitter.com/sCRW86oKNG
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) November 21, 2024
Johnston also told Denverite he doubts Trump would actually send federal forces into Colorado. He said, “I do not believe that our governor is going to let them use our [Colorado] National Guard at the state level. Unless they were planning on bringing national guards mobilized from Texas or Alabama to come invade Colorado, I don’t know where they would find the forces to begin to do that.
“And that seems to me like a very, very bad idea from start to finish that no reasonable American would support,” Johnston noted.
Frankly, I don’t think many “reasonable Americans” would support a mayor using his city’s police force to thwart a U.S. president’s order to deport illegals.
Tom Homan, the incoming border czar, has addressed the issue of sanctuary states and cities harboring illegals and flouting immigration law on several occasions since his recent nomination. In comments to Newsmax, he said, “They [mayors and governors] don’t have to help us. But they need to get the hell out of the way because we’re coming. We’re prepared to take action.”
“There’s a statute under Title 8 U.S. Code 1324 that talks about harboring and concealing an illegal alien, knowingly harboring and concealing an illegal alien from ICE. They need to read that statute and become familiar with it. Because if they cross that line, there will be consequences.”
Homan emphasized that the administration will be prioritizing “the worst of the worst first.”
He appealed to sanctuary state and city leaders to, “help us do that. And help yourselves make your communities safer. That’s what you’re supposed to be doing.”
Tom Homan on Democrat sanctuary cities harboring illegal aliens from deportation: "They don't have to help us. But they need to get the hell out of the way because we're coming. We're prepared to take action." pic.twitter.com/RDGsNvtw84
— TheBlaze (@theblaze) November 21, 2024
In an appearance on Fox News, Homan was asked what happens to mayors and governors who obstruct ICE? He warned that it’s a felony to harbor illegal aliens.
WOAH! Tom Homan warns mayors and governors: “Review Title 8 U.S.C. § 1324 – It’s a felony to harbor illegal aliens. Don’t cross that line.” pic.twitter.com/XRKlGCjVE3
— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) November 19, 2024
In addition to running afoul of the law, the government has the power to reduce or strip federal grants to cities and states that refuse to cooperate with ICE.
It may also surprise the mayor to find that most Americans support the mass deportations of illegal immigrants. After nearly four years of an open border, it was a top issue for voters across the political spectrum this year. Might not be a hill to die on.
Are you listening Mayor Johnston?
Conspiracy.
Obstruction.
Assault on federal officers.
So many more very serious federal felonies. https://t.co/2R64uk5Uyl
— 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 (@mrddmia) November 21, 2024
Elizabeth writes commentary for The Washington Examiner. She is an academy fellow at The Heritage Foundation and a member of the Editorial Board at The Sixteenth Council, a London think tank. Please follow Elizabeth on X or LinkedIn.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
It’s going to be funny when every illegal in the nation floods to those cities.
Denver would deserve every damned one of those illegals. I’ll surrender my military retirement check to pay for the bus fare and air fare to ship them there for the next four years. A deluge of Noah so horrible, blue hair liberal women will go after Justin Trudeau lookalike.
Going to be more like a “101st Airborne Division Moment.”
Actually, I doubt most people in Colorado would guard the border to keep illegal aliens in like the Gov tried to keep black kids out of schools. I think the Mayor is posturing for his voters and while he might not help he will not hinder the Federal Officers and neither with that buffoon Pritzker. Too much federal dollars at stake and a President who will go down that road with no problem.
Popcorn will be ready o serve on 21 January 2025. Truckloads of it.
lol. Told the wife this morning I was going to buy a few more bags of it.
If you thought the Communists and the Franz von Papen Republicans were mad the first time Trump won, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet!
In Kiefer Sutherland’s ‘Designated Survivor A non-compliant governor was duped into coming to DC and arrested for treason
And he gave us the perfect 1-6 sarcasm meme….
Just send in one little girl to muss Johnston’s pompadour, and it will be all over.
The Denver cops ain’t showing up to fight the feds. They will just call in sick that day or days. The feds can arrest Johnston and the city council if they want to get in the way.
What a jerk. Charge the man with obstruction.
Thinking that the Governor won’t .let Trump muse the his National Guard …
how did that work for George Wallace.
He won’t have a choice if they’re federalized.
This is just his way of throwing his hat in the ring for a future bid for the Democrat Presidential nomination.
That’d be like 20 years down the road. If Trump gets to make all the changes we want him to, the dems will have to re-invent itself…again. lol..
Anyone who tries obstructing ICE in its work will be arrested and face federal time. Under this administration that’s guaranteed.
No, it doesn’t, or at least there are strict limits to such power.
The government, as opposed to Congress, cannot touch any funding.
Congress may reduce funding in order to persuade states and cities to cooperate with federal law enforcement, but only subject to the following strict conditions:
1. The link between funding and cooperation must be explicit. Congress must explicitly tell the states, do this specific thing, or lose this specific funding that is conditioned on your doing that thing. It can’t be ambiguous, or subject to interpretation.
2. The cut must be affordable. Congress cannot, even if it says so explicitly, cut all funding to a state if it won’t cooperate with ICE. That is unconstitutional. What it can do is make a cut to funding that is large enough for the state to notice, but small enough that the state has a genuine choice whether to do as Congress says, or to defy Congress and absorb the cut.
The key case here is South Dakota v Dole, in which Congress had enacted a 5% cut in highway funding to states that didn’t raise their drinking age to 21, and the Supreme Court upheld this only because it decided that 5% was small enough that a state could afford to pay it if it wanted to, so it was only being persuaded and not compelled. SCOTUS explicitly said that had the cut been too big for South Dakota to have a real choice, then it would have struck it down.
Is the government legally able to withhold funds from NGOs that provide various types of assistance to illegal immigrants? If so maybe that would force Denver and other so called sanctuary cities to absorb the true cost of their policy. A cost that would likely be passed on to taxpayers. Being told essential services must take a hit so illegal immigrants have sanctuary might just be the political suicide needed.
Yes, so long as it’s based on an authority granted to the government by Congress. It doesn’t have to be explicit; any time Congress gives the government discretion, it can use it to compel private entities to comply with government policy.
The constitutional right to refuse to do what Congress wants belongs only to states, not to anyone else. Cities derive that right from their states, and are therefore subject to their state telling them otherwise. Thus California has told all its cities that they may not cooperate with ICE, and Texas has told all its cities that they must. Both are 100% in accord with the constitution.
So NYC is a sanctuary city because it wants to be. It has the right to do so because it’s a division of NY state which has that right. Austin would like to be a sanctuary city too, just like NYC, but it can’t because Texas has made it illegal. Several cities in California don’t want to be sanctuary cities, but they have to be because CA has made it mandatory.
Thanks that is what I thought but I was not sure. This might be a bit off subject but does “Cities derive that right from their states, and are therefore subject to their state telling them otherwise.” apply to what is usually referred to as home-rule cities? Provided the state allows for such.
As far as the USA is concerned, cities are mere administrative subdivisions of states. They are created by the states, and can be abolished or altered by the states, and have no rights at all against their states.
Now some state constitutions grant cities rights. That’s a matter between the state and its cities. And of course the state constitution can be amended to take away such rights. But from the federal POV none of this matters.
Well that’s weird because when the Biden administration pushed out the Title IX changes allowing boys in girls bathrooms sports etc the stated punishment was losing ALL federal funds for school breakfast lunch snacks etc… not 5 % and not Congress saying so…
As I understand it the Biden admin’s position was that it was not making any changes, it was merely enforcing Title IX as it has always been, and reminding schools that they are not allowed to discriminate in these ways and never have been. And as I understand it Title IX doesn’t depend on funding, it’s the law for all schools whether funded or not. So the department can deny funding for schools that are breaking the law. Congress already told it to do that.
Sanctuary states and cities are not breaking the law, because Congress has no authority to make a law compelling them to assist ICE. Likewise Congress had no authority to compel states to raise their drinking age to 21. Therefore it can’t compel them by cutting existing funding more than they can afford.
(Obviously new funding can be conditioned on anything Congress likes, since every state can afford to turn down new funding. A state can’t already be dependent on funding that it has never yet received!)
Well the Federal government ISNT changing anything either simply reminding states and cities the power and authority to enforce current laws resides with them and then trying to
Actually follow the law…. If resources previously allotted to states and cities to assist with law enforcement, housing city and state management needed to be funneled in order to do their damn job then so be it…. See Milhouse just because you Dems do it doesn’t make it (D)ifferent
And there you go again, viciously lying about me.
States and cities cannot be compelled to assist ICE in doing its job. Even Congress itself can’t compel them by cutting resources on which they depend.
Congress can condition new funding on their cooperation, or make small affordable cuts to existing funding, but only if it does so explicitly and unambiguously, and the administration can’t do so at all.
So if there’s nothing in the act authorizing a specific grant that conditions it on state assistance to ICE, then the government can’t touch that funding at all. Sessions tried to do so and this was quite properly struck down by the first court to take a look at it, because it was obviously unconstitutional. If you want to make a grant conditional Congress must do so explicitly, and it must be affordable.
A long winded way to be wrong. Federal funding can indeed be stripped and SCOTUS ruled 7-2 in 1987 it could be during the court fight over cutting highway funding when the Feds raised the minimum drinking age.
The Court ruled the Feds could indeed cut funding if:
1 The spending must promote “the general welfare.”
2 The condition must be unambiguous.
3 The condition should relate “to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs.”
4 The condition imposed on the states must not, in itself, be unconstitutional.
All four of these conditions are met by expelling illegal aliens. Not only could the Mayor and anyone actively hindering Federal Immigration Officials from carrying out their lawful duties be arrested, Federal Funds could be withheld until they cooperate. It could get quite expensive, quite fast for Colorado.
The condition must not be coercive.
Diver64, why do you lie so blatantly? Do you think you sound clever, citing the very case I cited, but blatantly misrepresenting its key finding?!!! The key finding in S Dakota v Dole was that the cut was constitutional only because it was affordable. An unaffordable cut would be unconstitutional, even if Congress made it, and did so unambiguously. That’s what you so misleadingly cover up as “4 The condition imposed on the states must not, in itself, be unconstitutional.”
So no, any unaffordable cut in funding to sanctuary cities or states, which left them no choice but to start cooperating with ICE, would be unconstitutional. Congress can persuade, but not compel. And the government acting on its own, or on authority from Congress but without explicit instructions to do so, can’t even do that.
Denver Mayor wants a civil war
Nah. He just wants to grandstand. No one is going to mess with ICE and face arrest and federal time.
And I don’t think we’re going to send tanks rolling into Denver.. Now, Chicago, NY or LA, might need the tanks there.
It won’t need tanks. Just a few federal agents with handcuffs.
I don’t think we are going to need tanks in Chicago unless it’s to protect the Mayor from the populace, The people there seem pretty well done with paying for illegals.
I think your right on that one. Just face time before the camera like he is the new Civil Rights Hero. Harboring Illegal Aliens doesn’t rise to statue for the overwhelming majority of Americans.
Yup. If he actually did what he is threatening, the new admin would get a sealed indictment against him for obstruction or worse, and send in a strike team to arrest him. (E.g., catch him at an airport as he comes off a plane. And let his outnumbered, outgunned security detail know that if they interfere, they will also be arrested.)
More likely, the new admin would simply encourage Texas, Florida, and other states to send their illegals to Denver, and if large scale arrests / deportations start occurring elsewhere many illegals (especially those with additional criminal histories) will head there on their own volition. Of course, the feds should loudly refuse all requests from Colorado for additional financial assistance to deal with the influx. Cloward Piven them hard enough, and the Denverites he thinks will support him will be braying for his head.
What I’d like to see are indictments against the local politicos and NGO’s who have been actively involved in aiding / abetting / encouraging illegals to come into the country and/or to evade arrest.
Let’s give it to him good and hard
Things to do in Denver when you’re dead.
Sounds kinda seditiony and insurrectiony to me.
Doesn’t it though? A mayor ordering an armed force (the police) and volunteers to resist federal agents engaging in their lawful duties. Sounds like he’s raising a militia to engage in insurrection.
Nah, he’s just shooting his mouth off. If he actually tried doing anything like that, however….
Milhouse pretends he’s a mind reader now…..
Is that defined as pedantificating?
TREASON – giving aid and comfort to an invading enemy. Waging war on the United States.
Get a big tow truck and drag his disgusting fat azz off to jail
Nope. Not only is he not doing either of those things, he said he’d do everything he legally can. Not anything illegal. Even Polis hasn’t said he’d break the law; only that idiot mayor has.
He is all of them. Obviously. You know it, too. You just get a kick out of making retarded arguments merely for arguments’ sake.
LOL. He SAID so?? Oh, well … then I guess it must be legal.
You are a joke.
No, he is not. There is no invasion, no matter how many times you deliberately misuse that word. And he is not waging war.
All we have to go on is what he says. YOU have nothing else to go on. How do you know he’s going to do anything about this? Only because he said so. That’s your entire basis for your attack on him. So you have to stick to what he said. And what he said was he’d respect the law, but do all he can to help; that clearly means all he legally can. He’s not promising to break the law for them, and indeed he explicitly said he wouldn’t. Because he’s not an idiot and knows what would happen if he were to break the law.
Tens of millions of illegals is an INVASION.
You really have some chutzpah, trying to lecture me on the English language and correct wording, when you were just engaged in the most retarded argument that a guy running around in a dress should be referenced as “she”. You really lost all credibility at that point.
No, a man is not a “she” and tens of millions of illegals IS an “invasion”.
No, it is not an invasion, in any legally meaningful sense. Every court that has given the matter so much as five minutes’ consideration has dismissed the idea.
Legal schmeagel. There are number of nation states in history who would disagree with you about large numbers of “migrants” not being an invading force. Even if let in legally. Those states aren’t around today having been overthrown by the peaceful migrants. Someone coming across the border illegally is an invader in the moral and legal sense. We simply call them “criminals”. Many borders throughout the world are militarized to prevent such migration. Using deadly force. You try it out yourself. Buy a ticket to South Korea, then “peacefully” walk north until you get to North Korea and ask their opinion.
We are talking about the law here. The entire subject is the legal definition of treason. And Pritzker is not in violation of that definition.
““It’s like the Tiananmen Square moment with the rose and the gun, right? ”
Uhm, oh dear, he’s got his history ALL muddled up.
First the famous “Flower in a gun photograph was taken at a Vietnam War protest outside the Pentagon in 1967, and the flower wasn’t a rose; it was a carnation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower_Power_(photograph)
Next, there no guns (per se) at the Tiananmen Square incident and there were no flowers of any kind.
There was only one brave anonymous man, carrying two shopping bags facing off a tank.
https://www.history.com/news/who-was-the-tank-man-of-tiananmen-square
Finally, I suspect that this fella doesn’t know how the Tiananmen Square protest came out. I don’t don’t think that, judging from his photo, Mike Johnson is the martyr type.
First the famous “Flower in a gun photograph was taken at a Vietnam War protest outside the Pentagon in 1967, and the flower wasn’t a rose; it was a carnation.
_____________________________________________________________________________
was reminded also of the other famous ” flower photograph ” taken at kent state in ’70–a young lady was attempting to put one in the barrel of a guardsman’s rifle as the guardsmen stood there with fixed bayonets
Sounds like he wants to emulate Orville Faubus.
Sounds like sedition to me! Go for it, Mayor! Be first to test the waters!
What you call “sedition” is constitutionally protected speech. In order to avoid being struck down, the so-called “sedition act” is worded very narrowly and carefully, and it’s still on iffy ground.
Now if he were to act on his words, he should probably leave his belt and shoelaces at home.
“Your terms are acceptable”, Mr. Mayor.
Seem to have mentioned in passing- but it would be a George Wallace on the schoolhouse steps moment, not Tiananmen Square.
From Mr Homan,
https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=go+ahead+make+my+day&mid=7BDEDB705B1D1782227D7BDEDB705B1D1782227D&mmscn=stvo&FORM=VCGVRP
Gonna be interesting in Congress to see how all the funding shakes out with DOGE coming and asinine grandstanding Mayors and Governors. First kill all NGO/Charity funding both grants and contracts. Then place simple requirements on federal funding for Hospitals, Police, Schools to collect data re citizenship, names and address. Make it explicit that failure to comply results in zero funding. Release funds from Treasury on a monthly basis based on cooperation of prior month. If they bitch about it and file suit stop all funding for everything until September when they have to release it prior to end of fiscal year. The next budget cut off those programs from any Congressional appropriation. Make all this explicit so everyone knows how the events will play out. Veto the budgets if necessary, shut down the gov’t. Leave the political maneuvering BS to the d/prog and squishy types, just lay it out then follow through. End of the day they’ll fold b/c the won’t have an option not to.
As.for no cooperation with ICE detainers.. easy fix get bench warrants issued. That removes the fig leaf of ‘oh, it’s not a judicial warrant’. Then there’s no excuse for not holding and turning them over to ICE. That said ICE gonna have to plus up and get teams in place to accept them, can’t leave them and hope they’ll still be there to pick up when they get around to it.
That would have to be made explicit by Congress, and it would also have to be affordable. If it was funding the state already relies on, and Congress just zeroed it out, that would be unconstitutional.
Sure there is. They don’t need an excuse. A warrant merely allows the feds to arrest someone; it creates no obligation on state authorities to hold the person, or do anything other than stand aside when the feds come for them.
Since harboring illegal aliens is also a violation of federal immigration law, I guess we’ll see if any of the local cops there want to go to jail from following their corrupt mayor’s orders. Or do they all call in sick as a double-barreled middle finger to the stupid communist?
They’re not harboring anyone at the moment. If this mayor orders the locals to commit a federal crime they will obviously take legal advice and refuse the orders.
The mayor will be right behind them all.
“It’s like the Tiananmen Square moment with the rose and the gun, right?”
And then Antifa shows up and burns his city to the ground.
The Ghost of Jefferson Davis texts Mayor Mike Johnston:
“Listen pal, my advice is don’t get all insurrectiony. Trust me, it isn’t going to end well for you.”
I would think the Denver police are all for assisting ICE in enforcing immigration laws. The mayor, being a democrat, is probably anti-police anyway.
Very true!
Michael Johnson no se suicidó.
This fool Johnson sounds like a genuine…INSURRECTIONIST!
I’m old enough to remember Democratic governor’s standing in the doorway of colleges to keep black students out — until Federal troops escorted the students up the steps. Why is it that Dems are the ones who condemn “states rights” and the 10th Amendment and say it’s the Feds responsibility to enforce Fed law, but then insert themselves into the enforcement of Fed law. I’ve always thought the best way to combat this is for the Feds to say, “Fine, you won’t cooperate with us, we won’t cooperate with you — no access to Fed databases, no FBI support for bank robberies, serial killers, missing kids, no US Marshal fugitive task force support, etc.” It would be hell for the citizens of Denver, but they’d learn that their vote and elections have consequences.
Leave a Comment