Denver Mayor Mike Johnston has thrust his city into the national spotlight with an audacious pledge to resist federal immigration enforcement, vowing to protect undocumented immigrants from deportation—even those with potential gang affiliations. Johnston, a Democrat, has promised to mobilize local police and residents to actively obstruct federal operations, portraying his stance as a defense of Denver’s core values and identity.
In a recent interview with Denverite, Johnston doubled down on his commitment to making Denver a sanctuary for migrants, irrespective of federal directives. “We’re not going to sell out those values to anyone,” he declared. “We’re not going to be bullied into changing them. Denver is a welcoming, open, big-hearted city.”
However, Johnston’s strategy extends far beyond policy declarations. He envisions deploying law enforcement and rallying tens of thousands of Denver residents to physically block federal deportation efforts. Citing the iconic image of a lone protester standing in front of tanks during the Tiananmen Square protests, Johnston suggested that Denverites would form human barriers to thwart federal officers.
“Imagine 50,000 Denverites standing together,” Johnston said. “It’s like the Tiananmen Square moment with the rose and the gun. You’d have all these Highland moms who came out for the migrants. You do not want to mess with them.”
Johnston went so far as to claim that enforcing federal immigration laws in Denver would necessitate an extreme federal response, such as deploying National Guard units from other states. “I don’t believe our governor would allow the Colorado National Guard to be used for this purpose,” he said. “Unless they bring in units from Texas or Alabama, I don’t see how they would gather enough forces to make it happen.”
The mayor’s defiant rhetoric has sparked widespread controversy and legal warnings. Mike Davis, president of the Article III Project (A3P), warned that Johnston’s actions could constitute multiple federal crimes, including conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and assault on federal officers.
“Conspiracy. Obstruction. Assault on federal officers. So many more very serious federal felonies,” Davis tweeted in response to Johnston’s remarks.
The potential for legal consequences comes as former President Donald Trump prepares for a possible return to the White House, signaling a hardline stance on immigration enforcement. Trump’s nominee for “border czar,” Tom Homan, dismissed similar resistance from other Democratic leaders, such as Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker, who recently reaffirmed Illinois’ sanctuary status for undocumented immigrants.
“If you come for my people, you come through me,” Pritzker declared defiantly.
Homan, however, was unfazed. “Game on. We’ve got no problem going through him,” he responded, underscoring the administration’s determination to enforce immigration laws.
Homan elaborated on the federal position, stating: “Congress has enacted laws to protect this country. People need to understand that entering this country illegally is a crime. Every illegal alien here committed a crime to get here. So they’re all criminals.”
Johnston’s stance has positioned Denver as a potential flashpoint in the ongoing clash between federal immigration policy and local governments. Critics argue that his approach undermines the rule of law and risks putting Denver residents in harm’s way.
Johnston’s rhetoric, which involves both law enforcement and citizens in potential physical confrontations with federal agents, marks an unprecedented escalation in sanctuary city policies. Critics warn that such actions could lead to dangerous consequences, including violence and strained relations between local and federal authorities.
Supporters, however, see Johnston’s defiance as an act of moral courage. They argue that protecting vulnerable populations aligns with Denver’s values as a sanctuary city, even if it means opposing federal directives.
By doubling down on his promise to obstruct federal enforcement, Johnston risks alienating some residents who view his actions as prioritizing undocumented immigrants over broader community safety. Critics also point out that involving police in these efforts could divert resources away from addressing local issues, such as crime and homelessness.
Moreover, legal experts suggest that Johnston’s comments may expose him and the city to federal lawsuits or intervention. Should Denver police and residents actively obstruct federal operations, the legal fallout could set a precedent for how far local governments can go in opposing federal immigration laws.
Johnston’s approach reflects the growing divide between local and federal authorities over immigration enforcement. While sanctuary city leaders across the nation have resisted federal policies, Johnston’s call for physical resistance is a notable escalation.
As Trump’s administration prepares to ramp up immigration enforcement, Denver may become ground zero in the battle over sanctuary policies. The outcome of this conflict could have far-reaching implications for the balance of power between local and federal governments.
For now, Johnston remains steadfast, framing his resistance as a moral imperative. Whether his strategy will galvanize support for sanctuary policies or provoke a legal and political backlash remains uncertain. As the debate unfolds, Denver’s role in this contentious chapter of American politics will undoubtedly be one to watch.
This man, the Denver mayor must be removed by his constituent’s because in my opinion he is a traitor to his state constitution and to his citizens of that state and to the U S of A and its CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS!!!!!