The ICE Drawdown In Minneapolis Is Probably A Surge To California
The Department of Homeland Security has been rapidly growing its footprint across the country, but California is high on the list of new and expanded ICE offices.The Department of Homeland Security has been rapidly growing its footprint across the country, but California is high on the list of new and expanded ICE offices.This is what ‘abolish America’ looks like in practice
Federal prosecutors in Los Angeles announced that four members of an anti-capitalist extremist group were arrested on Friday for plotting coordinated bombings in California on New Year’s Eve.
According to the Department of Justice, the suspects planned to detonate explosives concealed in backpacks at various businesses while also targeting ICE agents and vehicles. The attacks were supposed to coincide with midnight celebrations.
Marxists, anarchists, and Islamist movements share a conviction that the United States, like Israel, is a colonial project that must be destroyed.
The plot was disrupted before any lives were lost. The group behind the plot calls itself the Turtle Island Liberation Front. That name matters more than you might think.
When ideology turns operational
For years, the media has told us that radical, violent rhetoric on the left is mostly symbolic. They explained away the angry slogans, destructive language, and calls for “liberation” as performance or hyperbole.
Bombs are not metaphors, however.
Once explosives enter the picture, framing the issue as harmless expression becomes much more difficult. What makes this case different is the ideological ecosystem behind it.
The Turtle Island Liberation Front was not a single-issue group. It was anti-American, anti-capitalist, and explicitly revolutionary. Its members viewed the United States as an illegitimate occupying force rather than a sovereign nation. America, in their view, is not a nation, not a country; it is a structure that must be dismantled at any cost.
What ‘Turtle Island’ really means
“Turtle Island” is not an innocent cultural reference. In modern activist usage, it is shorthand for the claim that the United States has no moral or legal right to exist. It reframes the country as stolen land, permanently occupied by an illegitimate society.
Once people accept that premise, the use of violence against their perceived enemies becomes not only permissible, but virtuous. That framing is not unique to one movement. It appears again and again across radical networks that otherwise disagree on nearly everything.
Marxists, anarchists, and Islamist movements do not share the same vision for the future. They do not even trust one another. But they share a conviction that the United States, like Israel, is a colonial project that must be destroyed. The alignment of radical, hostile ideologies is anything but a coincidence.
The red-green alliance
For decades, analysts have warned about what is often called the red-green alliance: the convergence of far-left revolutionary politics with Islamist movements. The alliance is not based on shared values, but on shared enemies. Capitalism, national sovereignty, Western culture, and constitutional government all fall into that category.
History has shown us how this process works. Revolutionary coalitions form to tear down an existing order, promising liberation and justice. Once power is seized, the alliance fractures, and the most ruthless faction takes control.
Iran’s 1979 revolution followed this exact pattern. Leftist revolutionaries helped topple the shah. Within a few years, tens of thousands of them were imprisoned, executed, or “disappeared” by the Islamist regime they helped install. Those who do not understand history, the saying goes, are doomed to repeat it.
RELATED: The right must choose: Fight the real war, or cosplay revolution online
This moment is different
What happened in California was not a foreign conflict bleeding into the United States or a solitary extremist acting on impulse. It was an organized domestic group, steeped in ideological narratives long validated by universities, activist networks, and the media.
The language that once circulated on campuses and social media is now appearing in criminal indictments. “Liberation” has become a justification for explosives. “Resistance” has become a plan with a date and a time. When groups openly call for the destruction of the United States and then prepare bombs to make it happen, the country has entered a new phase. Pretending things have not gotten worse, that we have not crossed a line as a country, is reckless denial.
Every movement like this depends on confusion. Its supporters insist that calls for America’s destruction are symbolic, even as they stockpile weapons. They denounce violence while preparing for it. They cloak criminal intent in the language of justice and morality. That ambiguity is not accidental. It is deliberate.
The California plot should end the debate over whether these red-green alliances exist. They do. The only question left is whether the country will recognize the pattern before more plots advance farther — and succeed.
This is not about one group, one ideology, or one arrest. It is about a growing coalition that has moved past rhetoric and into action. History leaves no doubt where that path leads. The only uncertainty is whether Americans will step in and stop it.
Biden turned American airports into migrant flophouses — forcing taxpayers to foot the bill
During the peak of the Biden administration’s open-border chaos, reports surfaced that foreign nationals were sleeping on airport floors around the nation, mainly due to over-capacity at local shelters.
In June 2024, more than 100 people reportedly camped out at Boston Logan International Airport. There were also reports that immigrants were sheltering at the San Diego International Airport and Chicago O’Hare International Airport.
'This report exposes how the Biden Department of Transportation conspired with local leaders in New York, Boston, and Chicago to house migrants in airport facilities at taxpayer expense.'
A new report by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation found that the Biden administration played a role in this situation by directing multiple federal agencies to identify airports to serve as shelter space or processing facilities for foreign nationals, Fox News Digital reported on Monday. This action was directed to the Department of Transportation, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and the Federal Transit Administration.
The DOT and the FAA were reportedly instructed to “inventory available facilities,” including airports owned by the federal government and those owned locally, to “divert federal resources” to support the influx of arriving foreign nationals.
The committee found that at least 11 of the nation’s airports were pressured to allow migrants to shelter inside terminals, hangars, and auxiliary buildings, Fox News Digital reported. This pressure campaign included Boston Logan, Chicago O’Hare, and John F. Kennedy in New York.
Massport told Blaze News that it informed federal officials that the airport was “not designed or resourced to manage the intake of migrant populations,” warning that it “would create a host of unintended safety and security consequences.”
RELATED: Massachusetts to ban illegal aliens from sleeping at Boston’s Logan Airport
The committee highlighted an incident at the JFK Airport in 2024 in which a national from Ecuador “ran past a security post into ‘the secure area' ... toward two runways.” Security apprehended the individual, who was found in possession of a box cutter and scissors.
The report claimed that FAA officials were aware that such actions may require federal approval under grant-assurance rules, but they “ignored them most of the time when airports used their facilities to house aliens.”
“The Biden-Harris administration made airports and aviation less secure,” the committee’s report stated. It argued that the administration allowed and even encouraged “aliens to shelter at U.S. airports, by allowing improperly vetted aliens to fly into and throughout the United States, and by diverting needed federal air marshals to the border.”
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), the chairman of the committee, told Fox News Digital, “This report exposes how the Biden Department of Transportation conspired with local leaders in New York, Boston, and Chicago to house migrants in airport facilities at taxpayer expense.”
“Their decisions — to transport illegal aliens through airports without identity checks, even those with felonies — shows in new detail how Biden’s open-border policy co-opted government agencies to put American citizens at risk,” Cruz said.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Blaze News original: San Diego County's 'super' sanctuary vote reveals deep divides within community
As the United States prepares for a new presidential administration focused on mass deportations, leaders in San Diego County have chosen to defy these plans by passing a controversial policy that fortifies and expands sanctuary protections for illegal aliens. This decision has ignited a fierce backlash from both local law enforcement and residents.
Following President-elect Donald Trump's election victory in November, many liberal leaders vowed to stand in the way of his administration's mass deportation efforts.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) pledged to "Trump-proof" the state by pushing through bills that would serve as roadblocks to the incoming administration. Newsom has also ensured that Attorney General Rob Bonta has the funds to sue the administration. During Trump's first term, California filed more than 100 lawsuits against him.
In later November, the Los Angeles City Council rushed to pass a "sanctuary city" ordinance to send "a very clear message" that the city refuses to "cooperate with ICE in any way," according to council member Hugo Soto-Martinez (D). The measure passed unanimously.
San Diego County Board of Supervisors Chairwoman Nora Vargas introduced a similar measure following Trump's victory.
On December 10, the board approved Vargas' proposal to double down on the county's sanctuary status. Despite the board's 3-1 vote, the public remained deeply divided on the issue.
Public comments
More than 100 residents signed up to speak on Vargas' proposed policy, listed as Item 29, "adopting a board policy on immigration enforcement to enhance community safety." Further, the policy received more than 500 electronic comments.
‘You guys are protecting child sex traffickers.’
Leading into the public comments, Vargas warned that some residents and even fellow board members would likely share "a lot of misinformation" about her proposal.
Residents advocating for the policy — several of whom introduced themselves by their pronouns — argued that county resources should not be used to aid the federal government with mass deportations. Numerous individuals expressed concerns about family separation and possible human rights abuses. Others contended that failing to pass the measure might undermine the community's trust in local law enforcement.
Reverend Lenny Duncan told the board of supervisors that he supported the policy.
"As a Christian, I'm taught that Jesus has to run from political violence to Egypt. It's actually part of the story, Councilman [Jim] Desmond," Duncan stated, addressing the sole Republican supervisor present at the meeting. "We need to vote 'yes' on this and continue to be a Madisonian democracy. Maybe the slim majority of Americans wanted this, but the majority of Californians don't."
As Duncan stepped away from the microphone, a resident in the crowd corrected him, shouting, "It's a constitutional republic."
Robert Hicks, the assistant regional director for the Anti-Defamation League's San Diego branch, also voiced support for the measure on behalf of the organization.
"Immigrants and refugees are an integral part of our San Diego community. We are grateful that the county has decided to advance protections for immigrants that will keep families together and ensure immigrants are treated with humanity, dignity, and respect," Hicks told the board.
Multiple individuals in support of the measure seemed to repeat a near-identical phrase claiming that the San Diego County Sheriff's Office has been using local resources to assist federal immigration officials with deportation efforts.
The board of supervisors abruptly called for a recess when a male resident started shouting over a speaker who had just regurgitated the same line.
Upon reconvening after the recess, the county proceeded to hear from residents opposed to the measure.
While one local was speaking, another resident held up a thick stack of papers, flipping through what appeared to be headlines documenting crimes perpetrated by illegal aliens.
"Man who shot at California cop previously deported, arrested but cops wouldn't honor ICE detainer, feds say," one paper read.
"Illegal immigrant accused of raping 13-year-old at knifepoint," another stated.
‘The Sheriff's Office does not coordinate with, nor will it delay an individual's release to accommodate immigration officials.’
Eli Komai, a San Diego resident, called Vargas' policy "toothless."
"I'd like to make you aware of why these immigrants are coming to the United States in the first place. They're seeking out a homeland that has more law and order; that is safer, is not run by gangsters or cartels, or communists," Komai stated.
"If you cross in here illegally, you're a criminal," he remarked.
Intermittent disruptions from the audience prompted Vargas to order everyone to clear the chamber as the board concluded the public comment section by listening to those who had called in remotely.
Resident Natalie Hayes openly criticized the numerous religious leaders who had spoken during the meeting in favor of the measure.
"You guys are protecting child sex traffickers," Hayes stated. "I don't hear you out here speaking for them, veterans, or any American children that are also being affected by what's coming into this border."
The vote
Vargas argued that her policy aligned with state legislation passed under former Gov. Jerry Brown (D). She specifically mentioned Brown's California Assembly Bill 4, which prevents local law enforcement from honoring ICE detainer requests, and California Senate Bill 54, which prohibits the transfer of illegal immigrants to ICE custody and forbids notifying the federal agency about inmate release dates.
Vargas' policy read, "Today's actions will adopt a resolution and Board Policy L-2 to affirm the County shall not provide assistance or cooperation to ICE in its civil immigration enforcement efforts, including by giving ICE agents access to individuals or allowing them to use County facilities for investigative interviews or other purposes, expending County time or resources responding to ICE inquiries or communicating with ICE regarding individuals' incarceration status or release dates, or otherwise participating in any civil immigration enforcement activities."
The policy forces county officials to obtain a warrant signed by a state or federal judge to communicate with ICE.
Ahead of the vote, Desmond voiced his concerns about the measure.
‘California's policymakers are more focused on “Trump-proofing” the state than addressing the needs of everyday Californians.’
Desmond argued that the policy went "beyond California's existing sanctuary laws by adding an additional layer of bureaucracy that hinders local law enforcement from directly notifying ICE about illegal immigrants who are currently in our jails, and they have committed heinous crimes."
He noted that such crimes included "child abuse or endangerment, driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs — but only if this conviction is for a felony — possession of an unlawful deadly weapon, gang-related offenses, a crime resulting in death or involving personal affliction or great bodily injury, possession or use of a firearm in the commission of an offense, torture, rape, and kidnapping."
Desmond's objections were disregarded, and the rest of the board voted to pass the policy.
In an unexpected turn of events, the San Diego County Sheriff's Office quickly released a statement announcing its refusal to adhere to the newly passed policy.
The sheriff's office argued that the board of supervisors does not have the authority to set its policy.
"The sheriff, as an independently elected official, sets the policy for the Sheriff's Office. California law prohibits the board of supervisors from interfering with the independent, constitutionally and statutorily designated investigative functions of the sheriff, and is clear that the sheriff has the sole and exclusive authority to operate the county jails," the statement read. "The Sheriff's Office will not change its practices based on the board resolution and policy that was passed at today's meeting."
Sheriff Kelly A. Martinez, a Democrat, also released a statement regarding the office's decision not to comply with the board's measure.
"As the sheriff of San Diego County, my number-one priority is protecting the safety and well-being of all residents of our diverse region. While protecting the rights of undocumented immigrants is crucial, it is equally important to ensure that victims of crimes are not overlooked or neglected in the process. Victims include undocumented individuals — these vulnerable individuals express to me that their legal status is used as a weapon against them when offenders from their community victimize them," Martinez wrote.
In a statement to Blaze News, the sheriff's office confirmed that it "will not be expanding or changing anything we have been doing."
"We will continue to follow state law and maintain the way we have been operating for several years. The Board Action sought to impose restrictions well beyond those already provided for in-state law regarding how local law enforcement can work with immigration officials."
A spokesperson explained that the sheriff's office believes the "current state law strikes the right balance between limiting local law enforcement's cooperation with immigration authorities, ensuring public safety, and building community trust."
‘There was really no listening to the voice of the people.’
In response to residents' allegations about the use of county resources to assist federal immigration officials, the spokesperson provided clarity on the specific situations in which the sheriff's office can lawfully communicate with ICE.
"State law allows for the Sheriff's Office to share release dates for individuals who are in Sheriff's custody only if they have qualifying convictions for specific serious, violent, or sex crimes," the spokesperson said. "If an individual has a qualifying conviction, state law authorizes local law enforcement to notify immigration authorities of that person's release date. Immigration officials decide whether they will be present when the individual is released from custody."
"The Sheriff's Office does not coordinate with, nor will it delay an individual's release to accommodate immigration officials," the office remarked, referring to ICE's detainers, which request local law enforcement hold individuals up to 48 hours after their scheduled release date.
The sheriff's office told Blaze News that it has no plans to seek legal action against the county over the policy.
Community response
Following the sheriff's announcement, Komai told Blaze News, "I am relieved that Sheriff Martinez and her staff are aware of state law and aren't so easily hoodwinked, they must have plenty of experience dealing with false pretenses!"
Komai continued, "The aspect of the resolution that demands the greatest clarity is how it has no bearing whatsoever on state law, even though it 'claims' to fly in the face of it. The board, their staff, and many members of the public (including those in the Americanist cause) seem to misunderstand state law. The California state constitution creates the office of the sheriff. Sheriffs are elected independently of County Supervisors and retain their autonomy under the California state law."
Desmond also told Blaze News that he felt relieved by the sheriff's office's refusal to adhere to the new policy. Nevertheless, the vote highlighted how disconnected lawmakers are from their constituents, he pointed out.
"California's policymakers are more focused on 'Trump-proofing' the state than addressing the needs of everyday Californians. They're rolling out the red carpet with free benefits like health care and in-state tuition for those here illegally, while also providing $5 million for legal defense fees," he stated.
"Yesterday's vote is part of that radical agenda. Ending ICE coordination on serious crimes like rape, child abuse, and gang violence leaves our communities vulnerable," Desmond continued. "This isn't just a theoretical issue. Last year in San Diego County, there were 25 ICE transfers involving crimes like kidnapping, burglary, and DUI. Thanks to coordination between local law enforcement and ICE, those dangerous individuals could be deported."
Homan has called Vargas' policy '10 times worse.'
He stated that his constituents are grateful to him "for being the lone 'no' vote and for standing up for common sense in an increasingly radical political environment." However, he noted that residents are profoundly worried about the impacts the policy will have on the safety of their community.
"The message I'm hearing is clear: San Diegans want leadership that prioritizes public safety over partisan politics," Desmond declared.
Kim Yeater, a San Diego County resident and co-founder of the Take Our Border Back alliance, told Blaze News that she felt the decision to pass the policy was determined before locals had a chance to share their thoughts with the board of supervisors.
"It was almost as if the decision was already made. So there was really no listening to the voice of the people," she stated. "I'm really shocked, but I'm not surprised."
Yeater voiced concerns over how open border policies are fueling the fentanyl crisis and allowing unvetted, violent gang members to enter the country. She labeled the situation a "national security breach" and warned that residents might be "putting way too much trust in the people we've elected."
"We, the people, have got to stand up and come together and show up because it's the only way we can hold these elected officials accountable to do the work that we have hired them to do," Yeater said.
Trump's incoming border czar, Tom Homan, has pledged to bring the hammer down on sanctuary jurisdictions like San Diego County. Homan vowed to accomplish Trump's mass deportation mission with or without help from local politicians, noting that Democratic leaders' refusal to cooperate with ICE would only lead to more federal immigration officers on the ground in their communities.
Homan has called Vargas' policy "10 times worse" than the state's existing sanctuary laws.
The San Diego Sector has emerged as one of the most heavily trafficked sections of the southern border. In fiscal year 2024, the sector saw a 40% increase in encounters compared to the previous year, which experienced a 31% rise from fiscal year 2022.
El Cajon Mayor Bill Wells (R) has consistently raised concerns regarding the effects of the Biden administration's immigration crisis on the county.
Wells said in a statement to Blaze News, "The feds cannot ignore the lawless decrees of the San Diego Board of Supervisors. If they do, they will be sanctioning anarchy. I don't see President Trump and Tom Homan allowing Nora Vargas to circumvent the will of the American people. Public safety is not a game, and elected officials should not play with lives for political stunts."
California County Votes To Stop Turning Violent Illegal Immigrant Criminals Over To Feds
The San Diego County Board of Supervisors approved a resolution Tuesday to protect violent illegal immigrants in order to maintain “public safety.” The board voted 3-1 to become a “Super Sanctuary” county, which means under the resolution illegal immigrants accused of things like rape would be protected by the county from federal immigration authorities, said […]Border Patrol braces for gunfire after Mexican cartel reportedly puts out hit against agents
The United States Border Patrol issued a warning to its officers to prepare for potential gunfire following reports that a Mexican cartel had issued a hit against agents.
A Border Patrol memo from Thursday, obtained by NewsNation, stated that the San Diego Sector Intelligence Unit received an alert on December 4 "regarding a possible threat" to agents stationed at the Imperial Beach and Chula Vista Border Patrol Stations.
'They fear no one anymore, especially the US law enforcement.'
"Information received indicated top cartel leaders ordered the shooting towards agents in response and retaliation for an incident that occurred," it read.
The memo referred to a November 27 incident in which a Border Patrol officer struck an illegal immigrant with a patrol vehicle. According to the agency, the individual was a cartel member.
Video footage of the incident showed a group of men attempting to scale the border wall. NewsNation reported that these men were aiding another person in unlawfully crossing the border when a Border Patrol agent, responding to the breach, struck the alleged cartel member.
The agency stated that the driver was fixated on two other individuals who were actively scaling the wall when he hit the man.
"Therefore, cartel leaders are angered, claiming the incident occurred without cause or remorse," the Border Patrol's memo stated. "The information received indicated the shooting could possibly occur over the next few days."
The agency advised agents to remain vigilant.
NewsNation's Ali Bradley reported that activists have called for the Border Patrol agent who struck the suspected cartel member to be fired. The incident is still under investigation by the U.S. Attorney's Office and Customs and Border Protection's Office of Professional Responsibility.
"Sources within border patrol leadership tell me that anytime the cartel threatens to shoot an agent it should be taken seriously and the san diego Sector should be on high alert," Bradley wrote in a post on X.
The man who was struck "got up and ran back to Mexico," according to Bradley.
CBP confirmed that two of the men were arrested in connection with the "human smuggling incident." It is unclear if the man who was hit by the patrol vehicle was one of those detained.
The Sinaloa Cartel previously issued an order for its members to shoot at Border Patrol agents in Texas after its co-founder Ismael "El Mayo" Zambada was arrested.
Victor Avila, a former Department of Homeland Security agent, told NewsNation, "This is the difference of the evolution of the cartels. They fear no one anymore, especially the U.S. law enforcement."
"We know that they have no regard, and they do whatever they want in Mexico, and they're running a parallel government over there," he stated. "In fact they do have the resources, and in fact they do have the capabilities and will use them against us."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Today's top stories
thefederalist.com
www.theblaze.com
www.theblaze.com