As reported by Breitbart, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt forcefully pushed back against a CBS News suggestion that President Donald Trump should limit deportations to illegal immigrants convicted only of violent crimes.
During the exchange, a CBS reporter pressed Leavitt on whether the administration would prioritize deporting individuals convicted of violent offenses, implying that those guilty of so-called “non-violent” crimes might warrant leniency. Leavitt rejected that framing, arguing that immigration law does not distinguish between “acceptable” and “unacceptable” violations based on media-defined categories.
The debate underscores a growing divide between the administration and establishment media over how to define public safety and the rule of law. While corporate outlets often focus narrowly on violent crimes, federal law makes clear that unlawful entry and unlawful presence themselves are violations. Moreover, many offenses categorized as “non-violent” by legal technicality still carry devastating consequences for American communities.
Drug trafficking, distribution of child pornography, burglary, fraud, DUI, embezzlement, solicitation of a minor, and human smuggling are all categorized as “non-violent crimes.” Yet few Americans would consider these offenses harmless. Families torn apart by addiction, victims of financial ruin, and children exploited through trafficking or pornography understand that “non-violent” does not mean victimless.
Leavitt emphasized that President Trump’s administration remains committed to enforcing immigration law as written. The position reflects a broader conservative conviction that government’s first responsibility is to protect its own citizens and uphold the integrity of national borders. From a biblical worldview, civil government is ordained to punish wrongdoing and protect the innocent (Romans 13), not to excuse lawbreaking based on shifting political narratives.
The exchange also highlights how terminology shapes public perception. By suggesting deportation should apply only to violent criminals, critics implicitly redefine justice around emotional optics rather than statutory clarity. But supporters of broad enforcement argue that selective application of the law undermines equal justice and incentivizes further illegal entry.
Under President Trump, the administration has consistently argued that sovereignty and border security are foundational to national stability. Weak enforcement, they contend, strains public resources, burdens local communities, and diminishes accountability.
Leavitt’s rebuke signals that the White House is unlikely to narrow its deportation priorities to satisfy media narratives. Instead, the administration appears committed to a comprehensive approach—one that treats immigration violations and associated criminal conduct with seriousness, regardless of whether pundits label them “violent” or “non-violent.”
At stake is more than a policy dispute. The debate touches on competing visions of justice: one rooted in strict adherence to law and ordered liberty, the other shaped by selective moral urgency. For many Americans concerned about border security, the distinction matters profoundly.
One Response
It is sinful to enter a country against the will of the citizens, imposing on the citizens, demanding accommodations. There are several sins involved. And it’s not just the illegals who are sinning, but also those who aid and defend them. Which includes the apostate RCC and several apostate protestant denominations such as the UMC. Ultimately, they are justifying sin, which is itself an abominable sin (Prov. 17:15), and are perverting the grace and love of God into a license to sin. They are saying “sin is good”. And they’re bent on imposing their will on everyone else, in violation of the law. They also engage in very wicked false accusation of others, as it pertains to racism, yet they are themselves the ones who are committing the sin of partiality by holding people to different contrived standards based on skin color and ethnicity.
It is also sinful to pity the one who suffers the consequences of his sin. (Deut . 19, etc.) It is essentially telling God that He is wrong, and that His commandments are mean and unloving. Yet we must first love the Lord. And if we love Him we will keep His commandments (John 14:15). And so we then are able to love others by keeping God’s commandments (1 John 5, etc.). Ordo Amoris evident in scripture dictates that we must first love and take care of those nearest to us, beginning with our own household and relatives (1 Tim. 5:8, Matt. 15:1-9, etc.). And this is our moral urgency. First our household, then relatives, then neighbors, …… , then citizens, … , then somewhere near the bottom of the list of priorities is people from other countries.
Meanwhile, the countries these supposed oppressed people are fleeing are all majority Roman Catholic. But rather than cleaning up their own mess in those countries, the RCC tries to manipulate, guilt, and shame US Citizens. Even the cartels and gangs claim to be Catholic. But rather than calling out the sins, which includes trafficking, drugs, slavery, murder, and all manner of wickedness, the so-called “church” instead chastises the righteous for supposedly having no compassion for the wicked.
Every year there are many legal immigrants who enter at the southern border, including some who legitimately seek asylum. Those who have obeyed the law are not being deported, and will not be deported until they’ve had their day in court, provided they show up for court.
Nobody voted for CBS. Nobody voted for the rioters. Nobody voted for those who are aiding, abetting, encouraging, and rewarding. If they truly are trying to save democracy, then they need to sit down, shut up, respect the will of the voters, and quit aiding and abetting wickedness. Trump ran on deporting illegals, and he’s doing what he said that he would do. Like it or not, that’s how things work in a representative government. And they’re certainly not going to save democracy by destroying democracy. Nobody died and made them supreme dictators of the world.