Hell Freezes Over: Left-Wing LA Times Condemns Sanctuary City Mayor for ICE Tip-Off

The Los Angeles Times issued the following editorial.

It is staggering that even the left-wing LA Times defended President Trump and his ICE raids against illegal aliens in California.

The editorial board also slammed Oakland mayor Libby Schaaf for tipping off violent criminals in the Bay Area.

It didn't turn out well for her, and it looks as though she will face a criminal indictment very soon.

It's one thing to oppose Trump's policies. It's another to undercut the law

The Trump presidency has, to put it mildly, challenged conventional norms of American society and governance. The president's intemperate tweets, irresponsible actions and extreme policy pronouncements have raised the hackles of pretty much everybody left of center, and a fair share of those on the other side. They also have engendered a broad backlash — a vaguely defined "resistance" — that has been trying to find its footing in the months since the inauguration. Sometimes it succeeds, sometimes it doesn't.

Actually, President Trump is giving Americans of all backgrounds hope.

Not only is he working to Make America Great Again, but he is setting the ground for all of us to keep fighting the good fight to ensure that we continue to Make American Constitutional Again.

Which bring us to Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf, who last weekend issued a public statement, based on "multiple credible sources" she didn't identify, that Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents were about to stage raids in the Bay Area. Her heart may have been in the right place in seeking to warn those at risk of incarceration and possible deportation. But some of those targeted by ICE agents could very well have been people with violent criminal pasts who can make no legitimate argument for avoiding deportation. And regardless, tipping off her community that immigration officers were about to enforce duly adopted federal immigration laws crosses a line that ought not to be crossed.

All of the people targeted in the ICE raid were criminals. They were in the country illegally. They were criminals on other levels, too, because ICE is rounding up murderer and gang-bangers of all backgrounds, too. They have "no legitimate argument for avoiding deportation."

Bingo, and Libby chose to protect those violent thugs. Not only do these corrupt Democrats stand with illegal aliens, they stand with violent criminals who harm our communities.

We agree that state and local officials should not involve themselves in enforcing federal immigration laws. The role of state, county and local police is to enforce criminal laws and protect communities. It works against that mission for them to be viewed by members of immigrant communities as just another arm of immigration enforcement. As a society, we need everyone, regardless of legal status, to report crimes, stand as witnesses when necessary and otherwise engage in the criminal justice system as warranted. But local officials should not actively impede or interfere with immigration enforcement for the same reason they should not aid in rounding up the undocumented — it's not their responsibility. Further, if we want people to engage with the legal system, trying to subvert lawful enforcement of immigration codes sends the opposite message. Local subversion of federal rules would be justified in only the most dire circumstances.

The Los Angeles Times is way, way off on the argument that state officials should not be working with ICE. They have no idea what law enforcement is for, then. We need all levels of law enforcement working together to provide full-on public safety, and that includes getting rid of illegal aliens. The rampant lawlessness overwhelming local communities

In a related vein, Los Angeles labor leader Maria Elena Durazo, who is running to succeed Democrat Kevin de León in the state Senate representing parts of Los Angeles, has posted campaign billboards declaring, "Disobey Trump." But it's not clear what that means. Disobey in what way? Defy federal law? Certainly there are Trump policies — OK, nearly all of his policies — that deserve strong political opposition and pushback, but it's dangerous ground to declare that because one disagrees with a federal (or even state) law that it should be disobeyed.

I just wrote an expose post on Maria Durazo. She is pushing sedition and treason. This woman has no business serving in the state legislature, just as the mayor of Oakland should be arrested right now for obstruction of justice.

There are, of course, laws that must be opposed and, yes, disobeyed, because they are morally repugnant. The Fugitive Slave Act, which required non-slave states to cooperative with slave-catchers seeking runaways, was one, as noted by Harold Meyerson on The Times' op-ed page Thursday. Jim Crow laws that undercut the fundamental rights and liberties of African Americans are also examples (such as the ordinance that required blacks to sit at the back of the buses in Montgomery, Ala.). But the federal immigration codes the resisters oppose aren't inherently inhumane or morally repugnant, despite the Trump administration's enforcement policies. Nations have a right to protect their borders and set rules about who may come into the country.

Wow! Did the Los Angeles Times just write that?

I will quote it for everyone a second time, in case you missed it:

"[F]ederal immigration codes the resisters oppose aren't inherently inhumane or morally repugnant, despite the Trump administration's enforcement policies. Nations have a right to protect their borders and set rules about who may come into the country."

I want everyone who has the time and resources to post and repost these comments.

To press the point further, were the president to live up to his own promise to "take care of" those covered by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program by reviving the protections, would the resisters say no, just because the initiative came from Trump? If Trump were to overrule Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and restore the now-shrunken borders of the Bears Ears National Monument in Utah, would the resisters reject the new boundaries? There is more than semantics at work here. By all means, fight Trump at the polls and in the courts with every legal tool at hand, but to advocate disobeying properly enacted laws and regulations is more likely to make the situation worse than better.

Congressman Brad Sherman admitted that he opposes everything that President Trump does because ... his voters expect him to. This is insanity! Democrats don't care about

The Resistance has turned into the Falangists, the socialist rebels who overthrew the Spanish constitutional monarchy in the 1930s, who then ushered in the fascist Francisco Franco.

The Brown Supremacy movement doesn't even care about the illegals whom they claim to care for. Even the Los Angeles Times has to admit that the pro-illegal elected officials in the state ... are endangering everyone's lives.

This is really serious. When the left-wing propagandists have to signal their concern, you know that a movement is in trouble.