NYC has been the center of attention for days now. But no one was expecting this kind of response.

And NYC’s shocking response has completely betrayed its own liberal policies.

In a major shift in New York City’s approach to immigration enforcement, council members are set to introduce a nonpartisan bill aimed at repealing the city’s sanctuary city laws.

This legislative move would empower local law enforcement agencies to collaborate with federal immigration authorities, marking a departure from the policies instituted under former Democrat Mayor Bill de Blasio’s administration.

The proposed bill comes as New York City grapples with an unprecedented influx of illegal immigrants, driven by what many describe as President Joe Biden’s lax border policies.

The situation has escalated into a crisis that city officials are struggling to manage, prompting calls for substantial policy changes.

The legislation, slated for introduction on Thursday, is being spearheaded by Council members Joe Borelli (R-Staten Island) and Robert Holden (D-Queens).

The bipartisan nature of this initiative underscores the urgency and broad-based support for addressing the city’s immigration challenges.

“Sanctuary city laws put all New Yorkers, both immigrants and longtime residents, in danger by preventing the NYPD and DOC from working with ICE,” Holden told the New York Post. “We do not need to import criminals, and only 23 years since 9/11, we have forgotten the deadly consequences of poor interagency communication. We must repeal these laws immediately.”

Holden highlighted the tragic case of Laken Riley, a Georgia nursing student allegedly murdered by illegal immigrant Jose Ibarra. Ibarra, a Venezuelan national, had been arrested in NYC on child endangerment charges six months before the murder but was released due to sanctuary city policies, which prevented his transfer to federal immigration authorities.

Under current NYC laws, local authorities can only assist federal immigration efforts if the individual in question is suspected of posing a serious public safety risk or is involved in terrorist activities. Critics argue that these restrictions hinder effective law enforcement and public safety efforts.

Mayor Eric Adams has been vocal about the detrimental impact of the city’s sanctuary laws amid the ongoing border crisis.

The influx of illegal immigrants has overwhelmed city resources, with hotels, schools, public parks, and streets being used as makeshift shelters.

Many of these individuals have been implicated in violent crimes, exacerbating the strain on the city’s infrastructure and law enforcement capabilities.

In February, Mayor Adams called for the revocation of sanctuary city laws to allow the NYPD to hand over illegal immigrants suspected of serious crimes to ICE.

Council member Borelli emphasized the necessity of bipartisan cooperation to address what he termed a “public safety crisis.”

He argued that enabling local law enforcement to work more closely with federal agencies is essential for maintaining order and protecting residents.

This legislative effort in New York City could signal a broader trend among other jurisdictions grappling with the consequences of sanctuary policies.

As cities across the nation face similar challenges, the outcomes of New York’s policy shift could influence national discourse on immigration enforcement and public safety.

These “sanctuary city” policies create safe havens for criminals and undermine the rule of law.

The proposed repeal of New York City’s sanctuary city laws represents a significant policy shift with far-reaching implications.

As the city council prepares to debate the bill, the outcome will be closely watched by both proponents and critics of sanctuary policies nationwide.

The decision will not only impact the city’s approach to immigration enforcement but also contribute to the ongoing national conversation about balancing public safety and immigrant rights.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Mayorkas has completely failed at his job of protecting this nation. He has also allowed the worst illegal immigration crisis this nation has ever seen.

But now, Mayorkas has made an alarming announcement on TV that no one saw coming.

During a recent interview with CBS News Immigration and Politics Reporter Camilo Montoya-Galvez, DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas made bold claims about the Biden administration’s handling of the ongoing migration crisis at the southern border.

Despite record numbers of illegal crossings and widespread criticism from both sides of the political aisle, Mayorkas asserted that the administration has “done an extraordinary job” in managing what he described as an “unprecedented level of migration.”

Mayorkas was quick to shift the blame for the border crisis away from the administration’s policies. “If we take a look at migration, not just at our southern border, but in context, the level of migration throughout the hemisphere is unprecedented,” he stated.

He cited global factors such as poverty, violence, extreme weather events, corruption, and suppression by authoritarian regimes as the primary drivers behind the mass exodus towards the United States.

However, critics argue that the Biden administration’s lax border policies and mixed messaging have acted as a magnet, encouraging more people to attempt the perilous journey.

Under President Biden, policies such as the reversal of the “Remain in Mexico” policy, the halt of border wall construction, and the promise of more lenient treatment of illegal immigrants have been seen as inviting illegal crossings.

In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Mayorkas maintained that the administration’s efforts have been nothing short of exemplary. “We have done an extraordinary job to deal with an unprecedented level of migration,” he insisted.

Yet, the numbers tell a different story. According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), there were more than 2 million encounters at the southern border in fiscal year 2021, a record high.

Republicans have been vocal in their criticism. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) called Mayorkas’ remarks “delusional,” stating that “the Biden administration has created the worst border crisis in U.S. history, and now they want to pat themselves on the back for it.”

Mayorkas also touched upon the recent failure of bipartisan legislation that he claimed would have provided the administration with “more tools to deal with those individuals who seek to game the system.”

The bill, which aimed to enhance border security measures and streamline the asylum process, was shot down in the Senate.

“The reality is that some people do, indeed, try to game the system. … And we deal with it accordingly,” Mayorkas said, without specifying what measures are in place to prevent such abuses. Critics argue that the administration’s approach has been reactive rather than proactive, with insufficient measures to prevent illegal crossings and address the root causes of the crisis.

While Mayorkas praised the administration’s efforts, border states continue to bear the brunt of the crisis.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott has repeatedly called for more federal support, deploying state resources to address the influx of illegal immigrants.

In Arizona, Governor Doug Ducey has taken similar measures, criticizing the federal government for its lack of action.

Local law enforcement agencies and border communities have been overwhelmed by the surge. The increase in illegal crossings has strained resources, from healthcare services to schools, and has led to a rise in crime in some areas.

Border Patrol agents, tasked with managing the unprecedented influx, have expressed frustration with the lack of support and clear policy direction from Washington.

The ongoing border crisis has significant implications for the Biden administration as it heads into the 2024 election cycle.

Immigration remains a top concern for many voters, particularly in swing states. The administration’s handling of the crisis could prove to be a significant liability.

Despite DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas’ assertions that the Biden administration has done an “extraordinary job” in handling the migration crisis, the facts on the ground paint a starkly different picture.

Record numbers of illegal crossings, strained local resources, and the failure of bipartisan legislative efforts highlight a situation that is far from under control.

As the 2024 election approaches, the administration’s handling of the border crisis is likely to remain a focal point of political contention and public concern.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics for all of your news needs.

Joe Biden and the Left do not care if the American people know the full story of things. All they seem to care about is getting people to vote for Biden.

But now, Biden has repeated shocking lies about Trump in an effort to push his Radical propaganda on the public.

President Joe Biden has once again reiterated a debunked narrative that former President Donald Trump ordered the tear-gassing of peaceful protesters in Lafayette Square to facilitate a photo-op with a Bible at St. John’s Church.

This claim, which has been consistently refuted, continues to be a talking point for Democrats seeking to criticize Trump’s actions during the height of the 2020 protests.

During a recent campaign event in Philadelphia, Biden questioned what Trump would have done if black Americans had stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021.

He used this hypothetical scenario to revisit the Lafayette Square incident, stating, “What do you think he would have done on January 6 if black Americans had stormed the…think about this. What do you think would have happened if black Americans had stormed the Capitol? I don’t think he’d be talking about pardons. This is the same guy who wanted to tear gas you as you peacefully protested George Floyd’s murder.”

Biden’s remarks come despite a June 2021 report from the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Inspector General, which exonerated Trump from the accusation that he had used tear gas to clear peaceful protesters.

The report confirmed that the clearing of Lafayette Park was pre-planned to install anti-scale fencing and was not intended to facilitate Trump’s walk to the church.

The Inspector General’s report provided a detailed timeline and rationale for the actions taken by law enforcement on June 1, 2020. It stated:

“Protests began in and around Lafayette Park on May 29, 2020. On May 30, the USPP [U.S. Park Police] and U.S. Secret Service established a unified command to coordinate the law enforcement response to the protests. From May 30 to 31, at least 49 USPP officers were injured while policing the protests, and Federal and private property was vandalized.

On the morning of June 1, the Secret Service procured anti-scale fencing to establish a more secure perimeter around Lafayette Park that was to be delivered and installed that same day. The USPP, in coordination with the Secret Service, determined that it was necessary to clear protesters from the area in and around the park to enable the contractor’s employees to safely install the fence. The USPP planned to implement the operation as soon as the fencing materials and sufficient law enforcement officers arrived at the park. Six other law enforcement agencies assisted the USPP and the Secret Service in the operation to clear and secure areas near the park.

The operation began at 6:23 p.m. and was completed by 6:50 p.m. Shortly thereafter, at 7:01 p.m., President Trump walked from the White House through Lafayette Park to St. John’s Church. At 7:30 p.m., the contractor began assembling and installing the anti-scale fence and completed the work by approximately 12:30 a.m. on June 2.”

The report concluded, “We did not obtain evidence suggesting that the USPP cleared Lafayette Park so the President could visit St. John’s Church.”

Despite these findings, the claim that Trump ordered tear gas against peaceful protesters has persisted in media narratives and statements from prominent Democrats.

For instance, Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Kamala Harris, and several media outlets perpetuated the falsehood, framing the event as an example of Trump’s authoritarian tendencies.

These statements have not been retracted, even in light of the Inspector General’s findings.

The U.S. Park Police (USPP) clarified in a statement that smoke canisters and pepper balls were used to disperse the protesters, not tear gas.

The USPP emphasized that protesters were given multiple warnings to vacate the area and that their response was to escalate violence from the crowd, which included projectiles being thrown at officers.

Interestingly, the use of tear gas in the vicinity was attributed to the Metropolitan Police Department under Washington, D.C.’s Democratic Mayor Muriel Bowser.

The Inspector General’s report mentioned that the D.C. police used tear gas, not the federal agencies involved in clearing the park.

Biden’s reiteration of this debunked claim appears to be a strategic move to galvanize his base by invoking the specter of Trump’s alleged misdeeds.

However, it raises questions about the integrity of the discourse surrounding these events.

The persistence of these falsehoods underscores a broader issue in political rhetoric where verified facts are often overshadowed by persistent narratives that serve partisan goals.

The Left will continue to prioritize turning voters away from Trump over the actual truth.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Left wants to hide as much of the truth from America as they can. But the American people will always find out.

And now, Democrats have been stabbed in the back by a former ally who exposed their shocking secrets.

As the Manhattan District Attorney’s prosecution of former President Donald Trump nears its conclusion, CNN’s top data analyst, Harry Enten, reported this week that the case has not significantly influenced public opinion about Trump.

Despite weeks of high-profile court proceedings and media coverage, the trial has not swayed voters’ perceptions of the former president.

Enten noted that the percentage of voters who believe Trump may have engaged in illegal activities remains unchanged.

Additionally, the proportion of Americans who consider the charges serious has actually decreased, dropping from 40% to 35%.

“Perhaps things might have changed with those 12 jurors, but when it comes to the larger American public, there has been no change, at least so far,” Enten explained during his analysis.

When questioned about why public opinion has remained static, Enten suggested that Americans are preoccupied with more pressing issues affecting their daily lives, leading to a general disinterest in the Trump trial.

“Well, folks like you and me, real news junkies might be paying really close attention to what is going on,” Enten said. “But the majority of Americans are more concerned with issues that directly impact them.”

According to Enten’s analysis, a greater percentage of Americans are following news related to the economy and inflation (65%), immigration (52%), election legitimacy (49%), and abortion (47%) compared to Trump’s court cases, which only 42% of Americans are closely following.

“When we are looking at these numbers, what we see is Americans’ minds aren’t changing and a big reason why Americans’ minds aren’t changing is at this particular point, they are tuned out of the conversation,” he added.

Enten also highlighted that Trump’s polling lead over President Joe Biden, which CNN previously reported as a +1 point advantage, has remained steady throughout the trial.

This indicates that the legal proceedings have not eroded Trump’s support base nor significantly bolstered Biden’s position.

This stagnation in public opinion can be interpreted as a reflection of broader voter concerns and the issues dominating the national conversation.

While the trial has undoubtedly been a focal point for media and political analysts, everyday Americans are more concerned with economic pressures, border security, and questions about the integrity of the electoral process.

The data suggest that Americans are feeling the strain of economic challenges more acutely than the political drama surrounding Trump’s legal battles.

Inflation continues to impact household budgets, and economic uncertainty remains a top priority for many voters.

Immigration also remains a hot-button issue, particularly in light of the ongoing crisis at the southern border.

Voters are increasingly worried about border security and the federal government’s handling of immigration policies, which they see as directly impacting national security and economic stability.

Additionally, debates over election legitimacy and the integrity of the voting process have kept the issue in the public eye, further overshadowing the Trump trial.

Concerns about voter fraud and the security of future elections are critical issues that many Americans believe have long-term implications for the country’s democratic processes.

Harry Enten’s analysis underscores a critical point: while the Trump trial may be a significant event in the political and media landscape, it has not substantially shifted public opinion.

Americans are grappling with a host of other issues that they deem more pressing and relevant to their lives.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Recent radical protests across the US have been shown to have backing from terrorist organizations. But recent developments reveal an even scarier secret.

And radical protestors in the US receive an endorsement that has shocked the nation to the core.

In a startling and deeply concerning development, the Islamic Republic of Iran, widely recognized as the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, has declared its support for the left-wing protests and the radical professors fueling anti-Semitic sentiments on college campuses across the United States.

This endorsement was delivered through a letter from Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, which was broadcast on state-run media.

The protests, which began in earnest in April, have led to the establishment of encampments at numerous prestigious universities across the nation.

Jewish students and law enforcement personnel have been subjected to attacks, while protestors have vehemently called for the destruction of Israel.

In some cases, the calls escalated to advocating for an “Intifada,” a term historically associated with violent uprisings against Israel and Jews.

Various law enforcement officials have reported the involvement of professional agitators in orchestrating the chaos, indicating a coordinated effort to disrupt campus life and spread anti-Semitic rhetoric.

Khamenei’s letter, addressed directly to American university students, expressed empathy and solidarity with their cause.

“Dear university students in the United States of America, this message is an expression of our empathy and solidarity with you. As the page of history is turning, you are standing on the right side of it,” Khamenei wrote.

He continued, “You have now formed a branch of the Resistance Front and have begun an honorable struggle in the face of your government’s ruthless pressure — a government which openly supports the usurper and brutal Zionist regime. The greater Resistance Front which shares the same understandings and feelings that you have today has been engaged in the same struggle for many years in a place far from you.”

Khamenei’s letter was rife with propaganda and false claims about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

It painted the Palestinian people as victims of terrorism, ignoring the fact that many Palestinians have joined terrorist organizations that carry out attacks against Israel.

This skewed narrative aims to bolster the anti-Israel sentiments already prevalent among the protesting students and faculty.

“The support and solidarity of your professors is a significant and consequential development,” Khamenei added.

“This can offer some measure of comfort in the face of your government’s police brutality and the pressures it is exerting on you. I too am among those who empathize with you young people and value your perseverance.”

The protests and the radical rhetoric on American campuses have attracted support from a range of extremist groups, including Al Qaeda and Hezbollah.

These endorsements underscore the dangerous intersection of radical left-wing ideologies and Islamist extremism.

The Iranian regime’s support for these protests highlights a growing concern about foreign influence on American soil.

It raises questions about the safety and security of Jewish students and the broader implications of such radical movements being endorsed by a known state sponsor of terrorism.

Moreover, the support from Iran casts a spotlight on the professors who have been instrumental in propagating anti-Israel sentiments.

Their backing from such a controversial and hostile regime brings into question the integrity and motives behind their teachings and actions.

Conservative lawmakers and commentators have been quick to condemn Iran’s interference and the radicalization of American campuses. They argue that this endorsement from Iran is a clear indication of the dangerous path these protests are taking.

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) stated, “The fact that Iran, a regime that sponsors terrorism and calls for the destruction of Israel, is supporting these protests should alarm every American. This is not about free speech or academic freedom; this is about the radicalization of our youth and the spread of anti-Semitic hate.”

The intersection of radical left-wing and Islamist extremist ideologies poses a profound threat to the fabric of American society, demanding a robust response from policymakers, educators, and the public.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics for all of your news needs.

The Left’s hatred for America has always been evident. But now people are actually scared.

Because Democrats have come out with a shocking treasonous policy that will destroy America.

In a disturbing development, a branch of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) known as the Red Star Caucus has openly declared their support for Hamas, a U.S.-designated terrorist organization, in an article posted on their website.

The far-left faction within the DSA has faced significant backlash from moderate Democrats following the brutal October 7 attacks against Israel by Hamas militants.

The Red Star Caucus published an article on Friday calling for the “defeat of the Israeli state” and advocating for the organization to take a firm stance in backing Hamas.

The Marxist-Leninist caucus stated, “We do not condemn Hamas, and neither should you.”

This brazen support for a recognized terrorist group has raised alarms about the DSA’s ideological direction and its implications for American politics.

The article from the Red Star Caucus justifies the October 7 massacre, which saw over 1,200 people killed in Israel, by framing it as a legitimate act of resistance.

They argue that true resistance often faces propaganda and backlash but is vindicated by history.

“Many people support the idea of resistance, and even support real resistance once it is safely in the past and the propaganda has withered away. But in the moment, when the actual resistance is disrupting the status quo, people are dying, and the propaganda machine is in full gear, some people falter, and leave support for the resistance to the historians,” the article states.

On October 8, the Red Star Caucus began organizing protests across the United States in response to the attacks.

Their Palestinian Solidarity Working Group released a “tool kit” to help coordinate pro-Hamas rallies nationwide, further amplifying their controversial stance.

The article criticized mainstream media for labeling the “Palestinian resistance” as “Hamas,” preferring instead to describe it as a “popular front involving several militant organizations.”

The Red Star Caucus glorifies several terrorist organizations, including Hamas, al-Qassam, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP).

They argue that these groups, despite ideological differences, unite against a common enemy: Israel. They commend Palestinian communists for fighting alongside Islamist factions, suggesting that doing so builds support and legitimacy for socialism in Palestine.

The article criticizes efforts to combat terrorism as counterproductive, asserting that supporting the Palestinian resistance inherently means supporting Hamas.

“To support a resistance without Hamas is to support something which does not exist. It is to support no resistance at all,” the article argues, dismissing any attempts to distinguish between militant factions and peaceful protestors.

The Red Star Caucus doesn’t stop at supporting Hamas; they extend their rhetoric to an outright rejection of Israel’s right to exist and criticize any form of American support for Israel.

They claim that distancing from Hamas would only serve Israel’s interests and weaken the overall resistance movement. The group labels all forces allied with Israel, including the United States, as enemies, advocating for an “Axis of Resistance” against what they perceive as imperialist forces.

This open endorsement of Hamas by the DSA has significant implications, and it highlights the growing extremism within the Democratic Party.

This development demands a strong response from both political leaders and the public to ensure that extremist views do not gain a foothold in American politics.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Trump’s recent trial is nearing an end. But Americans across the world are even more concerned with the process.

And now, a top GOP leader has publicly exposed Trump’s judge, and Democrats are scrambling.

In a bold move, Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) filed a formal complaint on Tuesday questioning the impartiality of the judge presiding over former President Donald Trump’s hush-money trial.

Stefanik raised concerns about whether the selection of Acting Justice Juan Merchan for this high-profile case adhered to the mandated process of random selection.

New York State Trial Court rules stipulate that criminal cases must be assigned to judges through a random selection process overseen by the chief administrator.

In her letter, Stefanik highlighted the unusual circumstance that Merchan not only presides over Trump’s current trial but also managed the criminal trial against the Trump Organization and is slated to oversee the fraud trial of Trump ally Steve Bannon.

Stefanik’s letter, addressed to the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, and Kay-Ann Porter Campbell, the inspector general for the New York State Unified Court System Office of Court Administration, urged an investigation into the assignment process.

She pointed to potential conflicts of interest, noting Merchan’s political donations to Democratic causes and his daughter’s role as a political consultant for Democratic candidates.

“One cannot help but suspect that the ‘random selection’ at work in the assignment of Acting Justice Merchan, a Democrat Party donor, to these cases involving prominent Republicans, is in fact not random at all,” Stefanik asserted.

She suggested that Merchan’s consistent assignment to cases involving Trump and his associates might be an intentional effort to increase the likelihood of convictions against them.

Stefanik called for a thorough investigation to ensure that the random selection process was genuinely followed in the assignment of Merchan to these cases.

“If Acting Justice Merchan or any other Justices of the Court are found to have violated these rules, I would hope that the Commission would subject them to the required discipline,” she wrote.

“And if any non-judicial employees of the Court are involved in such a scheme, I would hope that the Inspector General subject them to the appropriate sanction.”

The New York State Office of Court Administration (OCA) responded to Stefanik’s complaint by reiterating its previous statements about Merchan’s role.

OCA spokesperson Al Baker explained that Judge Merchan was assigned to supervise the special grand juries that investigated the Trump Organization, Allen Weisselberg, and Donald Trump.

“He was, in turn, assigned the indictments that arose from those investigations, which is common practice since the judge supervising the grand jury investigation already has some familiarity with these often-complex cases and can manage them more efficiently,” Baker stated.

This latest move by Stefanik underscores the deep political divisions surrounding Trump’s legal battles.

Critics of the Biden administration and the New York judicial system argue that these legal actions are politically motivated attempts to undermine Trump’s potential 2024 presidential bid.

Stefanik’s complaint echoes these concerns, suggesting that partisan interests may compromise the judicial process.

The unfolding drama around Trump’s legal issues continues to captivate the nation, with each development feeding into the broader narrative of political strife.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.