A recent four-day immigration enforcement operation in Massachusetts swept up 19 illegal immigrants who had either been charged or convicted for drug offenses, authorities say.

According to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) news release, those caught in the course of the operation — which was aimed at "criminal aliens who have been convicted or charged with fentanyl, heroin, and other drug-related trafficking crimes" — were from seven different countries.

Those arrested include:

• A Cape Verde national with multiple prior convictions for crack cocaine, breaking and entering, possession of cocaine and heroin, and vandalism prison property.
• A fugitive alien from Cape Verde with a conviction for cocaine distribution and a previous removal order from 2011.
• A Cape Verde national with prior drug and firearms convictions.
• A Dominican national facing charges for cocaine trafficking who was removed from the U.S. in 2018 but illegally re-entered.

The release also states that many of those caught in the operation "were released from local law enforcement custody into Massachusetts communities with no notification to ICE."

“ERO deportation officers are committed to enforcing immigration laws fairly and professionally, while protecting the neighborhoods of the Commonwealth,” ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Boston deputy field office director Todd Lyons said in the release.

“It was all part of an operation to focus on the opioid crisis mainly in Suffolk County,” Lyons told the Boston Herald. He also explained that agents used fingerprint data to help track down the criminal aliens, who "were going back into the city and trying to blend back in.”

Lyons also noted the difficulties of trying to combat a drug crisis while dealing with sanctuary policies that often shield offenders who are getting their supply from Mexican drug cartels: “Many politicians are focusing on the opioid epidemic but not the strategic use of law enforcement that must go along with it."

The extent to which the Bay State's current drug problems stem from illicit drug trafficking is highlighted by a recent study of Massachusetts drug deaths by Boston University associate professor Alexander Walley, which found that just 16.8 percent of opioid-related deaths between 2013 and 2015 involved prescription opioids and just 1.3 percent of those deaths involved people with valid prescriptions. But, as Conservative Review's Daniel Horowitz explained in an article about the Walley report last month, "Massachusetts is a state that is friendlier to criminal alien drug networks than perhaps any other state besides California" due to a combination of sanctuary policies and weak-on-crime enforcement.

Very few people in America realize the extent to which Democrat-controlled areas are now harboring the worst illegal alien sex offenders and dangerous criminals. Republicans barely talk about it and never use any legislative leverage point to expose the issue and force a resolution. The latest budget deadline is a perfect opportunity for them to either end sanctuary cities or expose the open-borders supporters to the American people. They’d be dumb not to pick a budget fight over this issue right now. Case in point? Montgomery County, Maryland.

Hillary Clinton carried Montgomery County 75-19. Local Democrats couldn’t lose office if they tried. Yet a sustained focus from just a few reporters and one Trump administration official on how its sanctuary policies harbored scores of illegal alien sex offenders has brought County Executive Marc Elrich to the negotiating table.

WAMU reports that after meeting with ICE officials on Wednesday, Elrich is considering changing his policies on notifying ICE when local police release criminal aliens from local jails. Frank Madrigal, ICE’s Baltimore deputy field office director, said in a statement, “We are pleased that we were able to come together with Montgomery County officials today to speak more clearly and candidly about our goals for public safety.” While stopping short of touting any policy breakthrough, he noted that in general, “This kind of open dialogue is welcome, productive, and more supportive of our public safety practitioners and the communities they serve.”