Staff Reports
Senator Rand Paul is sounding the alarm bells over Denver Mayor Mike Johnston’s audacious refusal to support President-elect Donald Trump’s plan to crack down on illegal immigration. Johnston, apparently taking a page out of the book of unwelcome sanctuary mayors, has pledged that Denver will be a “welcoming, open, big-hearted city” for illegal immigrants. This so-called “big-hearted” approach might just land him in hot water, as Paul suggests the mayor could face some serious legal consequences for his defiance.
Johnston isn’t alone in his reckless city governance; a slew of mayors have declared they will defy Trump’s deportation strategies. But while some mayors seem happy to turn their cities into open houses for illegal immigrants, Paul warns them that the long arm of the law—federal law, that is—might reach all the way to the top courts. The senator hinted that if Mayor Johnston continues on this insurrectionist path, he could find himself in the crosshairs of the Supreme Court and could risk losing his position altogether. That would make for quite the “you only get one chance to lead” moment.
JUST IN: Rand Paul gives Dems a dose of reality, says the Denver Mayor will be REMOVED FROM OFFICE if he resists federal law enforcement officials who are deporting illegals, "It's a form of insurrection."pic.twitter.com/vOpIDinAFM
— Chuck Callesto (@ChuckCallesto) November 24, 2024
Despite some critiques of Trump’s plan to utilize military force to assist in deportations, Paul is clear that resisting federal law is a risky game. The realm of local leaders opposing national policies has long since been deemed unacceptable in the eyes of history. It seems Johnston could end up being a case study in what not to do when it comes to local governance. After all, a mayor standing against federal law and flirting with insurrection isn’t exactly a recipe for political survival.
When it comes to how to carry out immigration enforcement, Paul proposed using the FBI, Border Patrol, or U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement instead of the military, which he deems unlawful for domestic deployment in immigration matters. One can almost hear him banging the drum for traditional methods—after all, “there’s a better way,” right? Not to mention, using the military in this capacity has been off the table for over a century, and perhaps it’s time for Johnston to pick up a history book instead of a social agenda.
Governor Greg Abbott of Texas joined the fray, cautioning Democrats who oppose Trump’s plan that they might be cementing their own losses at the ballot box. With voters increasingly upset about the ramifications of illegal immigration—crime, drain on resources, and general chaos—Johnston and his fellow mayors might find themselves in a tight spot come election time. It seems that in this national debate about immigration, voters are demanding their elected officials stand firm against illegal activity, leaving no room for sanctuary city theatrics.
