Immigration policy is not a local preference. It is not a city ordinance. It is not a state experiment. Under the Constitution and federal statute, immigration law is national law under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4. It is written by Congress, enforced by the executive branch, and applied uniformly across the country.
City councils and statehouses do not get to decide immigration policy for the rest of the nation. Congress does.
That distinction matters, because much of what now defines the immigration debate is not coming from Congress. It is coming from municipalities and state governments attempting to carve out “sanctuary” regimes that limit cooperation with federal enforcement, restrict information sharing, and in some cases actively obstruct federal immigration operations.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement is not a private agency. It is an enforcement arm of the federal government. Entering the U.S. without inspection is a federal offense. Overstaying a visa is a civil violation. In both cases, the legal remedy established by Congress is removal from the country.
Cities and states are free to advocate changes to that law. They are not free to nullify it.
Yet across the country, local governments have adopted policies that do exactly that. They refuse to honor immigration detainers. They prohibit local law enforcement from notifying ICE when individuals in custody are subject to removal. They decline to transfer individuals already arrested for separate crimes into federal custody. These choices do not repeal federal law. They do not stop federal enforcement. They simply change where and how it occurs.
When local governments block cooperation inside jails and court systems — where arrests can occur smoothly and without danger to the public — enforcement does not vanish. It moves outward. It moves to homes, workplaces, parking lots, and streets. It forces federal agents to conduct arrests in public spaces that would otherwise mostly occur in controlled environments.
That shift is not accidental. It is the direct operational result of non-cooperation policies.
The consequences are predictable. There are more visible confrontations. There are more chaotic encounters. There are more bystanders. There are more opportunities for escalation. And more individuals are swept up who would never have been part of an enforcement action, had local authorities transferred custody in the first place.
When ICE executes operations and encounters multiple individuals unlawfully present, federal agents are not granted discretion to ignore the law because of bad optics. They are sworn to enforce the statutes Congress passed. They will carry out removal proceedings as the law requires.
This is the contradiction that sanctuary policies create. Local leaders publicly condemn enforcement while structurally forcing it into more disruptive forms. They restrict jail cooperation, then express outrage when arrests occur in neighborhoods. They refuse transfers, then criticize the outcomes that refusal produces. The system is not de-escalated. It is displaced.
Another consequence follows. When enforcement shifts to broad field operations, non-violent individuals who might never have entered the system through jail transfers are more likely to be encountered through association. This widens the scope of enforcement while simultaneously fueling the very images and narratives local officials claim to oppose.
The next question is not rhetorical. It is political. Why are Democratic city and state governments increasingly willing to ignore or obstruct federal immigration law rather than work to change it?
The answer does not appear to lie in legislative realism. Congress remains the only body empowered to rewrite immigration law. Yet coordinated municipal non-compliance creates national consequences without national debate. It allows elected officials to signal moral positioning while avoiding the burden of passing enforceable federal reform. It shifts accountability away from Congress and onto frontline officers, local police departments, school systems, hospital networks, and taxpayers who must absorb the operational effects.
Media dynamics amplify this approach. Enforcement carried out quietly through custodial transfers inside jails rarely generates headlines. Enforcement carried out in neighborhoods does. Images move voters. Confrontations move polls. Family separations on television produce far more political utility than statutory rewrites in committee rooms.
This is not a new tactic. Americans saw it during the Elián González case in 2000, when federal agents forcibly removed a Cuban child from relatives in Florida to return him to his father in Cuba. Many Democrats then defended federal authority and enforcement. Many Republicans condemned the images. Today, the alignments have reversed. The playbook has not changed.
What has changed is the scale. The current posture of many city and state governments is not simply humanitarian concern. It is an attempt to unilaterally relax immigration law through obstruction rather than legislation, while positioning future electoral advantage over present legal reality.
None of this alters the fact that immigration policy remains federal. None of it changes the laws already on the books. And none of it removes the consequences from the communities forced to live inside the governance gap.
The alternative now being pursued is not reform. It is fragmentation. A patchwork of municipal resistance that weakens national coherence while creating the very enforcement conditions it claims to oppose.
City councils do not govern the border. Governors do not set immigration codes. Immigration policy belongs to Congress because immigration is not a local issue. It is a national one.
If the law is wrong, change it. If the system is broken, rebuild it. But stop pretending that obstruction is compassion, and stop forcing federal law into the streets while denying responsibility for the results.
The Constitution already gave us the tool.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.