Tucker Carlson presented some remarks on Thursday about the insanity of the left’s anti-borders movement and the anarchy it would create.

What’s frightening is that the Abolish ICE rhetoric is becoming more mainstream among Democrats. Anything to attack President Trump.

TUCKER CARLSON: There was an ideological revolution on the left this week, and hardly anybody noticed it. For months, you may have noticed, members of the progressive fringe had been calling for abolishing ICE — that’s the agency responsible for enforcing our immigration laws. That’s not a mainstream position obviously, and Democratic leaders seemed embarrassed by it. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer opposed the idea; so did many others. And then everything changed.

Two days ago, a self-described socialist called Alexandria Acacio-Cortez unexpectedly won a Democratic primary in New York. Acacio-Cortez ran on abolishing ICE. Suddenly, in days, getting rid of ICE is something many Democrats say they are for. Now midterm elections are approaching, so it’s time for the rest of us to take this idea seriously.

What exactly would happen if the left killed ICE? Well here’s some of the facts about ICE. ICE is responsible for all immigration enforcement within the United States. Last year, ICE arrested 32,958 illegal immigrants with criminal records; almost 5,000 of those were members of violent gangs. Without ICE, all of those criminals would still be at large within our borders. Last year ICE also seized 2,370 pounds of fentanyl: that’s the narcotic that is driving the single deadliest drug crisis in the history of this country. That’s enough fentanyl to kill every single American citizen by overdose. Without ICE that fentanyl would still be in circulation.

And of course ICE is also the body responsible for deporting anybody illegally inside the United States. Last year ICE removed more than 226,000 people who broke American law. ICE did that because ICE is the only agency we have to do it. Without ICE, criminal aliens could stay in this country with impunity; that would include gang members, drug smugglers, child molesters, convicted murderers — they could not be deported. Companies, meanwhile, could bring in an unlimited number of illegal workers that would crash wages for American citizens, even more than it already has. It would be a disaster, but it’s the point.

The campaign against ICE is a campaign for open borders, and some are honest enough to admit that. During protests against the administration, activists have chanted this: “No borders, no nations, stop the deportations.” No borders, no nations — one leads to the other, always. Without borders, nations are impossible.

If we passed a law tomorrow allowing strangers to live in your house would it still be your house? No it would not be; it would be everybody’s house. Soon it would be nobody’s house.

That’s the left’s plan for America. Finally they are saying it out loud.

By contrast, Chicago and belligerent Democrat Mayor Rahm Emanuel was compared and contrasted as the negative example of how not to run a city regarding local illegal immigration enforcement. The mayor remains very stubborn about keeping his “sanctuary” policies that protect illegal alien criminals and endanger citizens. Earlier this month, Chicago sued the Department of Justice, referring to the feds’ effort to reinstate the rule of law as “blackmail.” Funny how Democrats always get things upside down.

Tough enforcement against illegal alien criminals is quite popular, as shown by a 2015 Rasmussen poll that found 80 percent of likely voters supported the deportation of all illegal immigrants convicted of a felony; only 11 percent were opposed.

The map below from November 2016 shows how many large cities prefer to protect illegal aliens rather than maintain public safety for citizens.

Jeff Sessions discussed the issue of sanctuary cities on Sean Hannity’s radio show on Wednesday. It lasts a little over 11 minutes and has some informative statistics:

You can watch Sessions’ whole speech in the video below.

Following are the pre-published remarks from the DoJ:

Attorney General Sessions Delivers Remarks on Sanctuary Policies, Miami, FL ~ Wednesday, August 16, 2017

Remarks as prepared for delivery

Thank you Tom, for that introduction. I have great respect for the work you are doing. We have many members of your team here and I want to thank each and every one of you. Thank you. And thank you to all the law enforcement personnel I see out here.

Mayor Carlos Giménez, thank you for your tremendous hospitality and thank you for your commitment to the rule of law and tireless work to keep the people of Miami-Dade safe.

I also want to recognize our acting United States Attorney Ben Greenberg. Your team here has done a fabulous job.

Miami-Dade State Attorney Kathy Fernadez Rundle is here. You have been a great partner in combatting violent crime and I am so pleased to see you.

I’m honored to be in Miami-Dade with all of you today. I’m always so impressed when I visit: the city keeps getting bigger, business is booming, and I recently read that Miami-Dade is one of the safest major jurisdictions in the country.

As you know, this was not always the case. In the 1980s, Miami-Dade was plagued by drugs. Violent crime followed. Police regularly recorded upwards of 500 murders a year. The city seemed to be crumbling.

But the people of Miami-Dade refused to tolerate this level of violence. And last year, Miami-Dade’s homicide count was barely a third of what it was in the 1980s.

How many hundreds of lives were saved in this city because of the proactive, community policing from your police force. It wasn’t easy, but this place has truly earned its nickname today “The Magic City”.

Your success is even more remarkable since violent crime is surging in most places across the country – including a historic rise in the nation’s murder rate of nearly 11 percent.

Miami-Dade is an example of what is possible through hard work, professional policing, and a rededication to the rule of law.

It is proof that the entire nation can do better.

During the last administration, the Inspector General sent 10 letters to jurisdictions that they had reason to believe were not complying with federal immigration law. Last week, we sent a letter to your mayor and today I’m here to announce that Miami-Dade is now in full compliance and eligible for federal law enforcement grant dollars.

This is wonderful news for law enforcement and the citizens of Miami-Dade. It means more money for crime fighting. And it means we are partners in keeping everyone here safe.

Unfortunately, some cities – like Chicago – refuse to follow your example.

In Chicago – a city with almost exactly the same 2.7 million person population as Miami-Dade – more than 433 people have been murdered since the beginning of the year. More than three times as many as Miami-Dade.

Last year, Chicago’s 2.7 million residents experienced more murders than the 12.5 million people who live in New York and Los Angeles – combined. The Chicago Police Department also reported more than 4,300 shooting victims. In the first half of last year, violent crime across the nation increased 5 percent, but in Chicago it surged 24 percent.

The most fundamental duty of government is to ensure the safety and liberty of its people.

Respect for the rule of law has broken down. In Chicago, their so-called “sanctuary” policies are just one sad example.

Every year too many Americans lives are victimized as a result of sanctuary city policies whether it be theft, robbery, drugs, assault, battery, and even murder.

Here’s how it works right now. After the police arrest an illegal alien and charge him with a crime, they fingerprint and book him into their jail.

When federal immigration authorities learn that this criminal alien is in Chicago’s custody, they can issue an arrest warrant and ask the city to either notify them before the criminal is released or to transfer him to federal custody.

But Chicago’s leaders have made this a political issue and direct their police to refuse both requests.

Instead, the police are forced to release the criminal alien back into the community without regard to the seriousness of the crime or how long the rap sheet.

This is a serious problem for the people of Chicago. A few years ago, an alien was arrested and had his license revoked for driving under the influence. Shortly after, he was arrested again for driving with a suspended license.

After Cook County ignored ICE’s detainer request, the alien drove under the influence once again just a few months later and this time struck and killed a skateboarder. Another senseless death caused by a dangerous policy.

Tragically, in another case, an illegal alien was convicted of aggravated domestic battery. ICE lodged an immigration detainer, but again, the county did not honor it.

After his release, that same alien murdered a 15-year-old girl and shot her mother. She was only 15 and she could be alive today if Chicago’s leadership had prioritized her safety over politics.

Sadly, we know Chicago isn’t alone. Just three weeks ago, Sergio Jose Martinez was arrested in Portland, Oregon. Martinez is an illegal alien who has been deported at least 20 times, and police reports show that he was arrested at least 10 times just this year– accused of everything from possessing drugs to stealing a car.

Federal immigration authorities properly lodged a detainer against Martinez just a few months before, asking to be notified when he was set to be released. But authorities in Oregon refused.

According to allegations, Martinez then broke into the home of a 65-year-old Portland woman by crawling through her bedroom window. Once inside, he reportedly forced this woman to the ground, used scarves and socks to blindfold, bind, and gag her, and then raped her and slammed her head into the wooden floor.

How can these politicians hear this story and do nothing?

How can they look her in the eye and tell her they did nothing to stop this from happening? This is not an aberration. It’s too common.

These policies of sanctuary cities do far broader damage to the country than many understand. At its root, it is a rejection of our immigration laws and a declaration of open borders.

It says if you enter the country last week with a criminal record and get to Chicago, we will not even support deporting you even after you commit a serious crime against one of our citizens. This is lawlessness.

And these lawless policies do more than shield individual criminal aliens – they also shelter and protect lethal gangs and transnational criminal organizations like Latin Kings and MS-13.

These predators thrive when crime is not met with consequences. This state of lawlessness allows gangs to smuggle guns, drugs, and even humans, across borders and around cities and communities. Sanctuary jurisdictions provide safe harbor for some of the most dangerous criminals in our country.

That makes a sanctuary city a trafficker, smuggler, or predator’s best friend.

Now, I want to be clear about something: local police are not the problem. They risk their lives each day in service of the law and the people they protect.

The problem is these sanctuary jurisdictions tie our police officers’ hands and endanger federal immigration officers as well when they are forced to pursue these criminal aliens outside of the jails and prisons.

Yet, these sanctuary jurisdictions have the gall to feign outrage when their police departments lose federal funds as a direct result of their malfeasance.

We want to do everything we can to help state and local law enforcement, which is why we have federal grants to cities designed to aid in crime reduction.

But we cannot continue giving federal taxpayer money to cities that actively undermine the safety and efficacy of federal law enforcement and actively frustrate efforts to reduce crime in their cities.

So if voters in Chicago are concerned about losing federal grant money: call your mayor.

The city’s leaders have even gone so far as to claim that these “sanctuary” policies help reduce crime by encouraging illegal aliens to report it when it happens. But no evidence supports this claim.

To the contrary, Chicago has consistently had one of the lowest murder investigation clearance rates in the country.

Only in one out of every four murders is a suspect even identified.

Far from making Chicago safer, these policies likely make cooperation with law enforcement more difficult: if there are no real consequences for the criminal, no witness will risk their life to report the crime. That means criminals walk free and victims suffer in silence.

And what does it say to the most vulnerable communities when even the police are unable to help keep repeat violent offenders off their streets?

Rather than acknowledge soaring murder counts or the heartbreaking stories told by victims’ families, Chicago’s mayor has chosen to sue the federal government.

He complains that our focus on enforcing the law would require a “reordering of law enforcement practice in [the city].”

But that’s exactly the point! For the sake of their city, Chicago’s leaders need to recommit to policies that punish criminals instead of protecting them. They need to protect their citizens and not the criminals.

Americans – all Americans – have a right to full and equal protection under law.

No one understands this better than the Cuban-Americans here in Miami-Dade.

When they came to America, they saw firsthand that only the rule of law and the equal application of that law can preserve our God-given rights.

They understand that no single person – whether a dictator or a mayor – should determine whose rights are protected and whose are not.

The people of Miami-Dade know that the rule of law guarantees equality and opportunity.

Protecting this guarantee is why the government of Miami-Dade made its decision to work with federal law enforcement, not against us.

And that is critical because it shows that this jurisdiction is serious about protecting its citizens from danger and its law enforcement officers from unnecessary risk.

In fact, the majority of the country believes that all cities should do the same. According to one poll, 80 percent of Americans believe that cities should turn over criminal illegal aliens to immigration officials.

Leaders in jurisdictions like Miami-Dade, Lansing, and Westchester County, New York, believe it too, which is why they have stood up for the people they serve by choosing the rule of law.

So to all “sanctuary” jurisdictions across the country, I say this: Miami-Dade is doing it, and so can you. Work with us to enforce a lawful immigration system that keeps us safe and serves our national interest.

The Department of Justice will not concede a single block or street corner in the United States to lawlessness or crime.

Nor will we tolerate the loss of innocent life because a handful of jurisdictions believe that they are above the law.

I know that Miami-Dade will be an example of the good that comes from following the law.

We have already seen that: the same Independence Day weekend when Chicago suffered more than 100 shootings and 15 homicides, Miami-Dade also had a historic number of shooting deaths – zero.

I hope more jurisdictions follow Miami-Dade’s leadership by choosing to follow the law, because we all want to do the same thing: protect our families and defend our country.

So thank you, Miami-Dade.

And to all the law enforcement here—state, local, and federal—I look forward to working with you to do just that. This Department of Justice has your back and you have our thanks.

Thank you, and God bless you.

And if President Trump should get cold feet about tough immigration law enforcement, he should note that a November Rasmussen poll found that large majority of voters favors deportation of illegal alien criminals:

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 81% of Likely U.S. Voters favor a plan that calls for mandatory deportation of illegal immigrants who have been convicted of a felony in this country. Just 13% are opposed. These findings are nearly identical to those measured in August of last year.

The governments of many American cities believe that protecting foreign lawbreakers is more important than providing public safety for the citizens.

Most sanctuary cities don’t mind sheltering foreign gangsters and violent thugs along with mere job thieves from across the border.

On Wednesday, Congressman Culberson appeared on Fox News  to discuss the issue:

ERIC SHAWN: With the imminent arrival of a new administration and a new attorney general to enforce immigration laws, sanctuary cities across the country have potentially to face the risk of losing federal funds if they refused to cooperate with immigration officials. But one congressman took action last July in the Appropriations Committee that uses the power of the purse to deny some Department of Justice funds and he says all that waits to go into action is a simple signature. That congressman joins us now; he is John Culberson of Houston, he is the chairman of the House Appropriations, Commerce, Justice and Science Subcommittee. Congressman, good to see this morning. So you say this fund cutoff could actually be implemented on day one?

CONGRESSMAN JOHN CULBERSON: Yes Eric, in fact using existing law and the power of the purse, I have seen to it that the top 10 sanctuary cities in America have already been certified as violating existing federal law and therefore everything is pre-positioned for these 10 cities — including Chicago, New York, the entire state of California — they will lose all their federal law enforcement money, if President Trump chooses to, the president can cut off their money at noon on January 20th of 2017. If they do not change their sanctuary policies and hand over criminal illegal aliens in their custody to be deported, their days of receiving federal law enforcement money are over.

SHAWN: Obviously this is something that the Obama administration has not agreed with.

CULBERSON: In fact I, as chairman of the subcommittee in charge of all the money for the Department of Justice, I quietly persuaded Attorney General Loretta Lynch to implement this new policy this past July seventh, so it’s already done. I did it as subcommittee chairman using existing law and the influence of the power of the purse that the founding fathers so wisely entrusted to Congress. I did it quietly and and thoughtfully, and I didn’t embarrass anybody so it’s already done, pre-positioned.

SHAWN: I’m sorry — pre-positioned but hasn’t gone into action?

CULBERSON: Attorney General Lynch has already notified every city and state in the country that unless they cooperate 100 percent of the time with requests for immigration information about criminal aliens in local custody, then those local jurisdictions lose all their federal law enforcement money. That’s already up on the Department of Justice website. It has been official policy since July seventh. I just didn’t make any noise about it because the purpose of this election — America wants us to get it done, to get the job done, so I’ve taken care of it the job is done and President Trump can now cut off their money at noon on January 20th because it’s been policy. . . [cut off]

Breitbart has an explanation of the legal details:

Sanctuary Cities Risk Losing DOJ Funds in 2017, Texas Congressman Says, Breitbart.com, November 21, 2016

Sanctuary cities and other jurisdictions will now have to choose between protecting illegal aliens and receiving federal law enforcement grants thanks to the work of a Texas congressman.

Texas Representative John Culberson (R-TX) used his position as chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science and the congressional power of the purse to force the Department of Justice (DOJ) to enforce existing law requiring state and local law enforcement agencies to cooperate with immigration officials. Culberson announced in February an agreement with outgoing Attorney General Loretta Lynch to block federal law enforcement grants to jurisdictions with sanctuary policies, Breitbart Texas reported. Since that time, the Texas congressman has been working with DOJ officials to certify the top-ten jurisdictions not in compliance with the law.

Citing his committee’s power over the DOJ’s budget, Culberson stated in February:

Any refusal by the Department to comply with these reasonable and timely requests will factor heavily in my consideration of their 2017 budget requests, and whether or not I will include language in the fiscal year 2017 CJS appropriations bill prohibiting the award of law enforcement grants to jurisdictions that harbor illegal aliens. I will include language in this year’s bill requiring the DOJ to amend the application process for Byrne JAG, COPS, and SCAAP grants so that grantees must certify under oath that they are in compliance with section 1373 of title 8 of the United States Code.

The law was passed in 1996 during the administration of President Bill Clinton to force local and state jurisdictions to cooperate with immigration officials or risk losing federal funding. Part of the process requires the federal agency’s office of inspector general to certify that a jurisdiction is not in compliance in order to block funding.

“The law requires cooperation with immigration officials 100 percent of the time,” Culberson told Breitbart Texas in an exclusive interview. In February, Culberson provided Attorney General Lynch with a list of more than 300 sanctuary cities compiled by the Center for Immigration Studies.

From that list, the Department of Justice’s Office of Inspector General compiled a top-ten list of sanctuary jurisdictions. Those jurisdictions receive about 65 percent of federal law enforcement grants managed by the DOJ he said. Those jurisdictions include the entire states of California and Connecticut; Orleans Parish in Louisiana;  New York City; Philadelphia; Cook County, Illinois; Miami-Dade County, Florida; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and Clark County, Nevada. These jurisdictions have received more than $342 million in federal payments.

The 16-page report from the inspector general’s office was completed in May 2016, but was initially marked as “Law Enforcement Sensitive,” Culberson told Breitbart Texas. This marking prevented making the information public. Since that time, he used his power over the agency’s budget to force the inspector general to remove the classification. This was accomplished late last week, the congressman said.

He stated that the DOJ has notified these jurisdictions that unless they become 100 percent compliant with the law, they will not be eligible to receive these grants for the next fiscal year. The grant process begins in January 2017, Culberson explained. “The applications are taken in February and March and the awards are announced early in the summer months,” he stated.

While the law was passed in 1996, it took Culberson’s actions to force the DOJ to finally enforce the law for the first time in July 2016. “I had to stand on their ‘air hose,’” Culberson explained referring to Congress’ power to cut a federal agencies’ funds. “For those on the top-ten list, it is done.”

“The critical steps have already been taken,” Chairman Culberson stated. “President Trump and Attorney General Sessions will, on day one, be able to strip the funding from these sanctuary jurisdictions simply by enforcing existing law.”

Culberson said the action taken by the DOJ sets a precedent that can be used by other agencies to cut funding to sanctuary cities and other similar  jurisdictions. “The days of receiving federal money while protecting illegal aliens are over,” he said.

In addition to blocking future federal grants, the incoming administration can use this same law to recover funds that have already been paid to these jurisdictions, the congressman explained. “This means, the State of California could be forced to repay the more than $3 billion in grants received over the past 10 years,” he told Breitbart Texas.

“I have encouraged the chairmen of other appropriations committees to take the same actions in their areas of jurisdiction,” Culberson said. “The timing on this action by the DOJ is perfect. The new administration can go right to work to force these jurisdictions to comply or simply choose to stop receiving federal money.”