Sanctuary cities rebel against calls to enforce the law...

Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston, and other cities are suggesting that they simply will not cooperate with any new federal attempts to increase efforts to find and deport undocumented Americans who have criminal records, or engage in criminal behavior.

You can dress this up in any manner of being inclusive,  being tolerant, or being whatever... but at the end of the day, what it boils down to is whether your law enforcement is willing to enforce the law. As has been pointed out by many, the very oaths that are taken by law enforcement in most agencies involve not only a sworn promise to upload local and state laws, but also uphold federal and constitutional laws as well.  One would think that our law enforcement agencies take these oaths seriously? If not, what other parts of their oaths do they not follow through with?

Let's be clear about something else. Enforcement of the law is not a new policy that should otherwise be debated (such as creating a new health care law like we did eight years ago). This is not up to congress, or up to anyone besides the executive branch of the Government, who has full autonomy as it pertains to enforcement. Obama choose to "not" enforce certain laws. Trump can choose "to" enforce those same laws. Those who work directly for or otherwise answer to federal law enforcement are required to follow those new rules. Certainly states and municipals can choose their own paths, but we all know that the Federal Government has means to put pressure on them.

We'll see how this all goes, and whether or not Trump will (or can) follow through on his promises to not provide any federal funding for sanctuary cities. But one has to believe that at the end of the day, if it boils down to federal funding, that the money will talk and that the political rhetoric will walk. These mayors have an obligation to take care of their constituents first. Will they allow their cities to suffer to prove their political points?