Michelle Malkin appeared on "Hannity" on Friday to discuss President Donald Trump's pardon of former Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio. (Screenshot/Twitter)
© 2023 Blaze Media LLC. All rights reserved.
Conservative author and commentator Michelle Malkin appeared on "Hannity" on Friday to discuss President Donald Trump's pardon of former Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who was convicted of criminal contempt for defying a court order saying his department must quit detaining illegal aliens.
Upholding the law
During the interview, Sean Hannity brought up one prominent fact: Arpaio worked to secure the border when the Obama administration was actively failing to uphold federal immigration laws.
"He [Arpaio] did uphold the law of the land and he did it — as did the governor at the time, Jan Brewer — they did it in face of tremendous pressure and opposition not to enforce the laws," Hannity said. "Now, if you want to change the laws you can change them but not enforcing them shouldn't be an option for anybody, correct?"
"That's exactly right," Malkin responded. "This was on overzealous, open borders persecution and prosecution and I think people need to remember the context here because you had the Obama administration officials who have open borders as their motto, as their agenda, as their end goal."
According to Malkin, a number of open border activists were providing illegal aliens with guides to evading the United States Border Patrol.
"These were the ideologues populating the Department of Homeland Security. Of course, they went after Joe Arpaio, because he was doing the job the Obama administration officials and the federal government refused to do," Malkin said.
About the charges
Arpaio, the former sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, which includes Phoenix, was convicted of criminal contempt for allowing his department to continue detaining illegal aliens despite a court order telling him to halt the practice.
The misdemeanor is punishable by up to six months in jail but President Donald Trump pardoned Arpaio's sentence, calling the sheriff an "American Patriot."
The actual role of government agencies
Government agencies were established to enforce our laws, not cherry pick which ones they like and which ones they don't. Why are we, as Americans, allowing unelected officials to decide which laws are applicable?
If federal, state and/or local governments decided a law was important enough to establish — and yes, I'm giving the government the benefit of the doubt in this case — why are we sitting by as bureaucrats rewrite our laws by picking and choose what laws they shall enforce?
Want to leave a tip?
We answer to you. Help keep our content free of advertisers and big tech censorship by leaving a tip today.