Staff Reports
Kentucky Representative James Comer, the chair of the House Oversight Committee, showed up for battle this week as he took on mayors from four major Democratic sanctuary cities regarding their blatant refusal to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The mayors of Chicago, Boston, New York City, and Denver found themselves cornered as Comer unleashed a barrage of questions about their complicity in harboring illegal aliens, effectively putting their “sanctuary” declarations under the microscope.
Each mayor faced Comer’s rapid-fire interrogation concerning their cities’ sanctuary policies, particularly in light of President Trump’s vigorous efforts to deport illegal immigrants. It seems these city leaders have perfected the art of wordplay, veering into the murky waters of political double-speak rather than providing direct answers. When asked point-blank if their cities were designated as sanctuaries, the mayors responded with everything from evasive bureaucrat jargon to thinly veiled deflections about being “welcoming” to residents. Comer, unphased, interpreted the answers as a resounding yes, and who could blame him?
🚨 CAUGHT 🚨
Boston and Chicago Mayors said they’d only turn over an illegal alien to ICE on a criminal warrant…
But ICE has statutory authority to issue administrative warrants for removable aliens.
Citizens of Boston and Chicago, know that through wordplay, your mayors are… pic.twitter.com/m7JQkg4PIu
— Oversight Committee (@GOPoversight) March 5, 2025
Take Denver’s Mayor Mike Johnston, for example. When pressed, he immediately dodged the question, leaving one to wonder if he believed “sanctuary” was synonymous with “place to hide from the long arm of the law.” Chicago’s Mayor Brandon Johnson didn’t do much better, opting instead to tout a 40-year tradition of “welcoming” individuals, which translates to offering a cushy environment for lawbreakers rather than adhering to federal law. Meanwhile, New York’s Mayor Eric Adams finally conceded that yes, his city is indeed a sanctuary. It’s almost as if they’re in a competition for who can butter up the illegal immigrant lobby more adeptly while ignoring their responsibilities to the citizens they were elected to protect.
The absurdity continued as Comer pointed out real-life examples to these mayors, where illegal aliens indulged in heinous crimes. He shared harrowing stories such as an illegal alien preying on a twelve-year-old girl in Boston and another in Chicago who was part of a gang responsible for murder but was traded back into society without any repercussions. In a shocking turn of events, the mayors found themselves flailing for answers on whether they’d comply with ICE for such criminals. The smokescreen wasn’t quite thick enough to hide the uncomfortable truth: these so-called sanctuary cities harbor dangerous individuals under the guise of compassion.
The reality is these mayors are endangering their own citizens by refusing to cooperate with federal law enforcement. Does being a so-called “welcoming city” really mean allowing illegal aliens to run amok, committing horrifying crimes against locals? It certainly doesn’t pass the common sense test, nor does it uphold any moral obligation to protect the innocent. Their failure to clearly acknowledge their sanctuary status should signal to everyone that these policies are as outdated as they are reckless.
Comer underscored a critical point: cooperation with ICE is not just a suggestion; it’s a federal mandate. The fact that these mayors would obstruct such cooperation is nothing short of disgraceful. They’re putting political posturing ahead of public safety, and it’s high time that they be held accountable for their actions. As comical as their dodging may be, citizens in these cities deserve better than to have their safety sacrificed on the altar of progressive politics.
