And blue cities not working with ICE didn't cause any of this. And Biden expanding the CBP One app to be used just for commercial purposes to asylum seekers had nothing to do with the immigration surge either.
And once again you are pivoting claims, belying that you don't actually understand or even care about the particulars, but rather
just feel entitled to your conclusion that it "
must be Biden's fault", which you evidently think would necessarily make ICE's 2025-2026 actions justified as an equal and proportionate response.
You want to talk about using CBP One? That was used to
help schedule asylum appointments. Which is to say:
Going through the proper channels.
You want to talk about Sanctuary Cities? Given your invocation, I have my doubts that you even know what that term means. See, its frequent usage is that of not just a vague buzzword, but genuine slander, with the speaker falsely insinuating that the city either refuses or even actively impedes immigration law. In actuality, the term is used to describe cities with very simple policies that typically amount to things like prioritizing the preservation of the broader rule of law and
refusing to break it just for ICE's convenience.
Quite literally, the typical qualifiers are thus:
- Local police do not proactively enforce federal immigration law. (Which should not be controversial, as local police generally are not tasked with enforcing civil federal immigration law unless operating under specific authority or agreements. To put it simplistically, it's simply not their jurisdiction.)
- City employees are limited in when they can ask about immigration status. (Which is to encourage residents to report crimes, seek medical care, or cooperate with local government without fear of immigration consequences)
- Local jails may decline to hold people past their release date solely for ICE unless there’s a judicial warrant. (As without a judicial warrant that's a Fourth Amendment violation, which is to say against the law)
- Local resources and budgets are reserved primarily for local public safety priorities. (Again, basic legality. The federal government generally cannot require states or municipalities to use their own personnel/resources to administer federal regulatory programs)
That's
literally how low the bar is, but even then it's more frequently used as a buzzword and dogwhistle to bullshit that a political rival has flooded their area with 'undesirables'. Take 2008, for instance, in which Mitt Romney accused Rudy Giuliani of running a Sanctuary City and Giuliani retorted that Romney was running a Sanctuary
Governor's Mansion.
And regardless - even when focusing on the more defensible usage rather than the rhetorical buzzword usage -
that's a local government decision. Moreover, it typically amounts to little more than "a city that follows ordinary constitutional limits and reserves local resources for local governance".
So, even if we did take your assertions at face value, trying to pin it on Biden would
still be ridiculous, as that would amount to accusing the
federal government of being responsible for
local governance decisions. And that does not hold up to scrutiny.
So once again: The claims you have now pivoted to
are irrelevant to the point that you invoked them to support.
