Illinois has now joined California and Connecticut in barring federal immigration agents from conducting “civil arrests” of illegal aliens in or around state courthouses. The sanctuary law appears largely performative since it also appears unconstitutional. It is difficult to see how a state can bar the exercise of federal jurisdiction, at least after the Civil War.
Gov. JB Pritzker has been ratcheting up the rhetoric against ICE and the Trump Administration for months, including analogies to the Nazis and claims that democracy is dying. The new law, however, crosses the constitutional Rubicon by not only limiting the operation of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) but also establishing a 1,000-foot “buffer zone” outside of buildings.
The law makes courthouses equivalent to churches, where suspects can claim sanctuary not only when they cross the threshold but also within 1000 feet, unless, of course, ICE ignores the law.
Recently, the chief judge in Cook County issued an order with the same prohibition. A few other judges in other states have issued similar orders.
The authority for the orders is highly dubious.
The federal government can cite laws mandating the arrest of certain individuals for immigration violations. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) (mandatory detention of certain aliens who are removable due to criminal convictions or terrorist activities); id. § 1231(a) ( detention and removal of aliens with final orders of removal).
The most immediate problem for Illinois is the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof[] . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land[] . . . any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2.
The second problem is the Supreme Court, which has repeatedly rejected such state authority to dictate federal enforcement or policies. See, e.g., Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580, 588–89 (1952) (the United States has the “exclusive[]” control over “any policy toward aliens”); see also South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505, 523 (1988); Mayo v. United States, 319 U.S. 441, 445 (1943).
Ironically, as I have previously pointed out, these blue states will face an unusual authority cited against them: Barack Obama. It was President Obama who went to the Supreme Court to strike down state laws that interfered with federal immigration enforcement (even in assisting that enforcement). In Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 394 (2012), he largely prevailed and the Supreme Court affirmed that “[t]he Government of the United States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens.”
This recognized authority goes back to the Nineteenth Century. The Court has ruled that “Congress [has] the right, as it may see fit, to expel aliens of a particular class, or to permit them to remain,” and “has undoubtedly the right . . . to take all proper means to carry out the system which it provides.” Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698, 714 (1893).
The law also creates the ability to sue federal authorities for false imprisonment under state law.
Keep in mind that the law creates a 1,000-foot circle around any state court, creating safe zones for illegal immigrants.
The provision in the Senate legislation stated:
Section 15.
Civil arrest prohibited; certain locations.
(a) A person duly and in good faith attending a State court proceeding in which the person is a party, a witness, a potential witness, or a court companion of a party, witness, or potential witness is privileged from civil arrest while going to, remaining at, and returning from the court proceeding, including:
(1) at the place of the court proceedings;
(2) within the courthouse building;
(3) on the premises of the courthouse, including parking facilities serving the courthouse;
(4) on any sidewalk, parkway, and street surrounding the courthouse and its premises; and
(5) on any public way within 1,000 feet of the courthouse including a sidewalk, parkway, or street.
Presumably, if you rent an apartment within one of those zones, you would be able to create effective immunity by simply signing a lease. As long as you stay within the specified public areas, you will be protected from civil arrest. With Illinois and other states pushing apps tracking ICE operations, a suspect could step outside onto a sidewalk or public space to claim protection from any civil arrest. It is unclear whether landlords will raise their rents in light of the new immunity amenity.
Keep in mind, if this were constitutional, the state could add to the list of sensitive places from city services to clinics. The result would be a mosaic of safety zones that would be maddening for federal authorities. Notably, blue states have attempted the same tactic to circumvent Second Amendment rights.
The legal infirmities behind these laws is irrelevant for politicians seeking to virtue signal. However, it will come at a real cost for individuals who mistakenly rely on these assurances and assume that they are protected within safe zones.
Many states during the desegregation period challenged federal authority in the fight against civil rights. They also failed.
Of course, the greatest irony is that the two figures who will be cited against this move are the two favorite sons of Illinois who became presidents: Lincoln and Obama. Both reinforced the supremacy of federal jurisdiction.
Indeed, the bill was passed just a couple days before the anniversary of Lincoln’s election as the 16th President of the United States. He then faced states that claimed that they could take the ultimate step of removing themselves from federal authority and jurisdiction.
Illinois now claims the right to dictate where federal authority can be exercised and makes federal authorities liable for violating specified state safe zones.
Good luck with that.
This column also appeared on Fox.com
Professor Turley, when are you going to publish your commentary and analysis on how your fellow Democrat lawyers involved in Arctic Frost (with Jack Smith and your best friend Merrick Garland at the center) deprived over 430 American Senators, journalists, Trump supporters, or Trump employees of their 1st and 4th Amendment rights through color of law?
You pride yourself as being a very public national and international defender of civil rights, fighting government abuse of those rights, don’t you? Why are you hiding from these felonies committed by your fellow Democrat lawyers in government to focus on far less meaningful issues? Nothing To See Here, Please Believe Us, Don’t Believe Your Lying Eyes™?
Civil Rights Division, Department Of Justice: Deprivation Of Rights Under Color Of Law: 18 U.S. Code § 242
https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law
For the purpose of Section 242, acts under “color of law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official’s lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.
And when can we expect you to announce your coming out party? The one where you announce that you have just realized that it is your fellow Democrat lawyers in elected office, the justice system, and in the bureaucracy that are the cancer on this nation?
“Why are you hiding from these felonies committed by your fellow Democrat lawyers in government to focus on far less meaningful issues? ”
The most common reason for hiding from evident truth probably suffices to answer your question: plain and simple cowardice.
If a states can harbor criminals from federal law enforcement the southern states were justified in defying federal law to continue slavery. The philosophy is just the same. George Wallace stood at the courthouse door to deny the implementation of equal rights for all. What do the two have in common you might ask.
They both defied federal law to get reelected.
The Mayor of Chicago’s oath of office requires the individual to “solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Illinois, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of Mayor of the City of Chicago according to the best of my ability”.
There is one line that is missing. And I shall not make up the law myself.
We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for Independence, and that, or extermination, we will have
–
Jefferson DavisDemocrats in 1861 & 2025I’m waiting for Trump to enforce the federal cannabis prohibition in states like California, Colorado, and Massachusetts.
Creekan: you’re the first Democrat Doper I’ve seen complaining that Trump is giving you a pass to maximize federal enforcement resources focusing on criminal Illegal Aliens importing far more lethal drugs than you pothead’s cannabis.
And you complain about Trump enforcing laws against Illegal Alien fentanyl traffickers on the other hand.
So strange that most would assume you were stoned while posting that.
I’m waiting for Trump to enforce the federal cannabis prohibition in states like California, Colorado, and Massachusetts.
CA, CO, MA, are prototypical liberal states. Cannabis use = adverse cardiovascular events. It’s apparent that left wing states are on a fast track to self-destruction.
Myocardial Infarction and Cardiovascular Risks Associated With Cannabis Use: A Multicenter Retrospective Study
Discussion
This analysis provides evidence linking cannabis use to adverse cardiovascular events, including MI, ischemic stroke, HF, and mortality. Notably, cannabis use appears to pose a substantial and independent risk for these outcomes, even in a population without traditional cardiovascular risk factors. These findings suggest cannabis as a novel and underrecognized risk factor for cardiovascular diseases.
Our study results are consistent with prior research documenting acute coronary syndrome following cannabis use.4 Studies suggest that cannabis use can precipitate MI, particularly within an hour of consumption, with the risk increasing nearly 5-fold.1 This effect is pronounced in young, healthy individuals, who present with chest pain.1,5 Cannabis has also been implicated in endothelial dysfunction, proinflammatory cytokine release, and oxidative stress, all of which contribute to coronary microvascular dysfunction and plaque destabilization.1,2
Kamel, I., et al. (2025). Myocardial Infarction and Cardiovascular Risks Associated With Cannabis Use: A Multicenter Retrospective Study. JACC: Advances, 4(5), p.101698. doi.org/10.1016/j.jacadv.2025.101698
In a society of laws, the laws must be strictly adhered to. Secession was not and is not prohibited by the Constitution and is a flawless manifestation of the 10th Amendment. However unfortunate, reprehensible slavery was licit by the legislation of valid representative self-governance. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. It is safe to presume that Southern states would have legally seceded, ultimately failed, and reunited for their own benefit. It is factual to say that Lincoln was an egregious high criminal and the law required the compassionate repatriation of unassimilable (i.e. sans the political emulsifiers inherent in the welfare state) freed slaves.
President Trump, start here in accordance with Lincoln’s response to “rebellion.”
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Article 1, Section 9
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
Millions of people who enter the nation without permission constitute an invasion. If someone enters your home without permission it is an invasion of your private property. Would you allow an invasion of your private property and do nothing about it? Would you allow them to abuse your wife or daughter and illegally take your possessions? Is this really that complicated?
No one did anything about it TiT. American companies and corps were sold to Mexico and the owners left.
President Trump, don’t follow Lincoln’s example of forgiving Democrat Kluxxer Insuurectionists and attempting to reach out a healing hand. Remember what bitter enraged Democrat insurrectionists did to Lincoln in response to his charity – they murdered him.
Ah, charity, a word that does not exist in the Constitution.
Please do correct me where I am wrong; this individual just obliquely threatened the life of the president.
You are wrong. There is no threat at all in the comment before yours.
And there’s no such thing as an “oblique threat”. A threat, to be outside the first amendment’s protection, must be clear and credible. A reasonable person hearing it must be able to seriously suppose that the speaker has both the intent and the means to carry it out. Without that it’s protected speech and can’t be criminalized.
In particular, claiming that if the president behaves in a certain way he’s likely to be killed, or even that if that were to happen the speaker himself would kill him, is protected speech.
So, you are one of the few who can read and comprehend the Constitution and its “manifest tenor.”
The freedom of speech is absolute, cannot be abridged, and laws such as those criminalizing defamation are unconstitutional.
Very good.
Now move on to the absolute 5th Amendment right to private property and let everyone know that wage, price, and rent controls are unconstitutional, along with so-called “fair housing” and “non-discrimination” laws; bakers may refuse service to any and all, including homosexuals, on and related to their private property.
Very good.
laws such as those criminalizing defamation are unconstitutional.
No, they are not. Just as laws criminalizing true threats are not unconstitutional. What planet did you just come from that you don’t know this?
And no, there is no “absolute 5th Amendment right to private property”. The 5th amendment merely protects property from being confiscated as a criminal penalty without due process of law, and from being taken for public use without just compensation. That’s all. Any argument against the laws you cite can only rest on the 14th amendment, not the 5th. Cf Lochner.
Article 1, Section 9
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist spent 300 pages explaining and dealing with Confederate Commie GeorgeX’s Marxist wet dreams and revisionist historical and Constitutional analysis of both Lincoln and the Confederate Democrat Civil War (as seen through the eyes of today’s Democrat Kluxxers who have now turned to communism when their Civil War ended in a crushing FAFO).
Given that GeorgeX daily appears to prove his reading comprehension has never gotten beyond what he developed in kindergarten, Justice Rehnquist’s work and explanations may as well be laying on the surface of the moon as far as George is concerned. For everybody else who are normal Americans:
ALL THE LAWS BUT ONE: CIVIL LIBERTIES IN WARTIME
https://www.amazon.com/All-Laws-but-One-Liberties/dp/0679446613
“If you’re taking flak, you’re over the target.”
– Unknown WWII Bomber Pilot
“If you’re taking flak, you’re over the target.”
And if the target is desperately deflecting and shooting elsewhere, then the targets are almost certainly Democrats.
– Tom Holman, Border Czar bombing Democrat accomplices of criminal Illegal Aliens before and after the fact.
I’m going to look at it as a possible plus for ICE. The illegals will go to these locations with a false sense of security and ICE can pick them up without issue. One thing for sure it shows how little confidence one should have in judges. The average citizen goes before them and they throw the book at them but say “no comprendo” and maybe they’ll take you home for dinner.
OT
Arrest Boasberg.
There are calls for it.
https://twitchy.com/samj/2025/11/02/this-is-actually-real-boasberg-jack-smith-arrest-them-all-n2421158
If he robbed a bank or murdered a conservative journalist he could be arrested, no doubt.
But if he unlawfully used his judicial authority to commit crimes it gets stickier. We don’t want to open the can of worms that results in prosecuting judges because we disagree with a judicial ruling.
But there must be some point where prosecutorial restraint is unbound. Maybe Boasberg extremism is giving us an opportunity to discover that breaking point. Something must be done because impeachment is only performative these days.
If nothing else, I suspect Congress must act to define federal court jurisdiction, particularly equity jurisdiction, much more narrowly. And maybe limit the DC courts’ jurisdiction to the equivalent of traffic enforcement. The courts are become tyrannical.
Hear, hear!
If you live in Illinois and this action bothers you, please investigate newillinoisstate.org. It’s time to separate from Chicago and a governor who only supports Chicago.
Stupid and useless. You would need the state legislature’s consent to separate, and why would it ever consent?
1. Arresting people at court is evil.
2. The Constitution means nothing so not worried about the whole “unconstitutional” stuff.
You would prefer they broke down doors at home and arrested people?
Reading this, I realize I have been under the mistaken impression that bots get smarter all the time.
There’s a fundamental programming error. Bots are like people with faults.
There is nothing special about a courthouse. A person subject to arrest may be arrested in a courthouse just as anywhere else. And the same is true of churches. I don’t know where Turley got the idea that people can’t be arrested in church, let alone in a buffer zone around it, but it’s wrong. Churches are not sanctuaries, nor do they have any special legal status at all.
Demokkkrats are the same from state to state.
https://torrancestephensphd.substack.com/p/the-national-association-for-the
Even those with a jaundiced view of the Left are shocked at their defense of illegal immigration. Ther are not bothered by the lives cost by environment regulations, they are not bothered by political assassinations, they are not bothered about people being pushed in front of subway trains. In fact they are hardly bothered by anything except deportation of illegal entrants to this country. Why? Maybe Tucker Carlson is correct that their passion is based on the political motive of changing the demographica of the country.
The political parties that have always said that the are for the forgotten man as their never ending mantra have had a track record of enslaving and murdering the forgotten man to implement their
programs . They have even said that they would like to put two bullets in their political opponents head so the man’s children could watch him die in their mother’s arms. The man who said this was the introductory speaker at the recent Obama forum. It’s obvious that they learned their lessons well when they heard Stalin say, “You have to break a few eggs if you want to make an omelette.”
Millions were killed by a man who basically uttered the exact statement made by a man who is prominently given the task of introducing Obama. C’mon in brother. You think just like me but don’t forget that pan you got that is designed for specifically making omelettes and scrambling brains.
You can sit right next to the guy with a Nazi tattoo on his chest. We welcome you with open arms.
Did you get one of the free guns we hate at the door?
The Democratic Party is plainly in favor of giving free medical care to every citizen of Mexico if they just come to The United States to get it. Why don’t they just cut the red tape and dangers of making the trek to this nation and just pass a bill to send the funds needed directly to the Mexican treasury if a promise is made by the Mexican government to only use the appropriations to provide free healthcare in Mexico.
Do you think this is a crazy proposition? Gavin Newsom is already providing free healthcare to any illegal alien in California. Here’s a good way to think about it. What if the government in your city brought a child that you did not parent and forced you to support that child. As the saying goes, and you didn’t even get a kiss. Just shut up, lay down and take it anywhere the want to put it and you even get the privilege of paying for it with your tax dollars.
Deficit Spending (State or Fed) = Fiat Money (Fiat Spending) …. to fuel the Bankrupt system (a.k.a.: California et.al)
Gavin Newsom doesn’t care about economic, He just want’s to be ‘Lookin Good!’ for 2028
They have. Mission accomplished, duh.
“What if the government in your city brought a child that you did not parent and forced you to support that child. ”
Please don’t give the @h013$ any ideas…
President Obama said something else that bears on this discussion. Elections have consequences. States like Illinois are telling the voters across the whole USA that they can veto the current national policy of removing people who do not have a right to to be within our borders. That claimed veto rests on unreasonable law enforcement interference with state courthouse operations. Why is there no hue and cry from red states that their courthouses are impacted? Does the emperor have a no clothes problem?
Dear Prof Turley,
Given the long and bloody struggle for civil rights within the U.S. (see e.g. the Civil War), ‘civil arrests’ today is an incredibly difficult, dangerous and demanding job (ask any well-trained cop). ICE is NOT qualified.
ICE, as the name implies, should be restricted to the borders preventing illegal immigration. Not performing domestic law enforcement. Ditto the U.S. armed forces and ‘fat generals’.
The question of whether immigration is ‘legal or illegal’ seems to be contingent upon the sitting President. President Biden, e.g., ‘allowed/invited’ in 10-20million immigrants; President Trump has ordered the deportation of over 30million.
(see U.S. v Nixon ~ if the President does it, it’s not illegal.)
Btw, Judge Ellis ordered the meetings [with ICE chief Bovino] after a hearing on Tuesday in federal court over alleged violations by Bovino and other federal agents of her temporary restraining order largely prohibiting the use of tear gas and other riot control measures on journalists, protesters and clergy during Operation Midway Blitz in Chicago.
Afaict, the 7th Circuit rescinding that meeting order, does not address Judge Ellis’ ‘temporary restraining order largely prohibiting the use of tear gas and other riot control measures on journalists, protesters and clergy during Operation Midway Blitz in Chicago’.
*the one that got away .. .
ICE = Immigration Customs and Enforcement. They are enforcing criminal immigration law. The fact that Biden and other presidents ignored immigration law (Biden the Worst) does not mean the law cannot be enforced. The casual approach by Biden gave all of his followers the belief that they were exempt from the law. Big surprise, they are not.
dgsnowden, according to your logic the FBI which is federal law enforcement should no be allowed to make any arrest outside of Washington D.C. The IRS should have no enforcement capabilities throughout the nation. ICE is properly given the authority to remove people who have entered The United States illegally from any state in the nation especially if they have committed crimes. Often these are crimes of a heinous nature. Would you have it be that these criminals remain to prey on the innocent? Maybe you should consider that their next victim could well be your wife or daughter. ICE is not the border patrol. You confuse the two. Your call callousness is showing.
dgsnowden, Constitutional expert: ICE, as the name implies, should be restricted to the borders preventing illegal immigration. Not performing domestic law enforcement.
In dgsnowden’s Weird World, violations of law by Illegal Aliens, cease the moment their entire body is across the border. If they’re living happily on federal taxpayer largess anywhere within the United States, ICE has no Constitutional authority to arrest and deport them.
Oh… and existing immigration laws are not domestic, and thus it is not constitutional for ICE to enforce those laws inside America – they should be lined up shoulder to shoulder along the border like the front line at a football game.
*dgsnowden is still in his childhood years, still playing tag where you can be “home free”.
CBP manages the border and ports of entry.
ICE exists to carry out the laws created by Congress, and in this case, they enforce the laws in the interior of the country.
Your ideas don’t seem to recognize the Rule of Law.
“ICE—alongside Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)—was established on March 1, 2003, to carry out government functions previously performed by the U.S. Customs Service and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), which were formally disbanded.” ~ copilot
IMO, that was a mistake. Just because the CIA and 50-ish top Intel officials allowed the 9/11 hijackers into the country did not justify disbanding CSI and INS .. . nor justify the creation of a dystopian and excessively centralization Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS).
Still .. . ICE and CBP had distinct yet complementary missions. ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) targeted serious offenders in the interior; CBP’s Border Patrol protected the border. Each had apparent oversight, trained professionals and accountability lines that ran through their respective chains of command.
“The new structure under Bovino upends that approach. Under his leadership, select personnel from both agencies have been integrated into what’s officially branded a “joint enforcement initiative.” Still, DHS officials describe it as politically controlled, rather than law enforcement-controlled. It doesn’t answer to ICE or CBP leadership — it reports directly to DHS political appointees.” ~ attribution withheld due to MAGA Madness
*as Turley might say. .. ‘good luck with that’.
dgsnowden opined: “IMO, that (ICE) was a mistake. Still .. . ICE and CBP had distinct yet complementary missions.”
CBP jurisdiction ends 100 miles inside the US border. Meanwhile, you demand that ICE must remain with the toes of their shoes touching the American border, waiting to repel Illegal Aliens the moment one inch of their body crosses that line.
That leaves a LOT of America that you demand have no enforcement of immigration laws and removal of the Democrats criminal Illegal Alien invasion once they get past that 100 mile limitation.
Your opinion that the creation of ICE after 9/11 was a mistake is just childishly wrong. Just as much as your original opinion that ICE should do nothing more than stand shoulder to shoulder with the tips of their shoes touching that border was also a mistake.
*IMO, many would believe your mother coming to term rather than aborting her pregnancy with your Never Trumper TDS was the original and greater mistake.
Skip the history lesson and your true intent. The law is clear. The INA requires the removal of those here illegally, and ICE exists to carry that out. All the rest of your talk is political nonsense.
The law instructs ICE to remove illegal aliens. Not doing so is not following the Rule of Law.
This issue of thumbing noses at federal law is but a single cog in an entire wheel of recent concerted and coordinated effort to roll America down the hill so that new, “enlightened” progressives can take over, and better control and direct its future.
Each “cog” includes subliminal components to influence and suggest that America (the greatest nation/leader in the modern world) –is not really that great after all, and needs major surgery.
These “cogs” each rely on sensitive and divisive areas of a functioning world power: race, economy, education, free speech, separation of powers, voting rights and elections, immigration, mass communications, the use of “religion,” “victimhood,” and jurisprudential authority/supremacy.
From Dustoff’s earlier reference to Obama calling for more governmental regulation of speech…to television commercials and programs representing/showing more persons of color (not just blacks) than whites (in reality, @33 to 67%)…to highly-visible Sunday morning political shows that almost always strategically interview conservative/Republican guests first, followed by Democrat/progressive guests who proceed with carte blanche speech to discredit the preceding guests– with no fear of rebuttal,
(-or Kristen Welker/Martha Raddatz/George Stephanopoulos/Jonathan Karl overloading their “panel discussions” 3 or 4 to 1 with left-wing voices), to undermining the president while remaining silent and deferential to the previous president, to strategically-manipulating and selectively reporting “news” stories, followed by today’s announcement of “polls” reflecting/predicting major political election wins for one party.
—-these are all but a few examples of subtle messaging that if the Boat is rocked enough, it will tip. I greatly appreciate that our founders provided ways for Improving this country’s laws and policies, -but not by tactical control of one-sided political ideology with the subliminal discrediting and depressing of opposing views or voices.
ICE should also be accountable to state laws when they engage in illegal conduct. No one is above the law except for Trump according to the United States Supreme Court.
It just cannot work that way.
ICE should also be accountable to state laws when they engage in illegal conduct.
Can you be more specific about what you claim is illegal conduct? How about the Obama FBI and DOJ with their felonies in using the criminal Clinton/Obama ‘Russia Dossier’? Or the Biden DoJ/FBI felonies in the ‘Arctic Frost’ investigation? State as well as felony laws apply to perjury and deprivation of rights by color of law.
No one is above the law except for Trump according to the United States Supreme Court.
You managed to be unique as the first person to claim that there are specific and limited Executive immunities that only apply to Trump, not any other president. Meanwhile, your fellow Obama and Biden fangirls are claiming this administration can’t prosecute either Obama or Biden.
Others you forgot to mention as being above the law include Biden White House Crime, LLC, the Senior partner in Biden White House Crime LLC, according to The Oval Office House Plant’s hand picked Special Counsel, Obama and the felon henchmen he directed to perjure themselves to Judge Boasberg’s FISA courts, etc.
Surely you got something better than this tired old trope? So is this the point where you conclude your seagull political theater: where you briefly land, defecate on this forum, and then quickly disappear when people see what you consider to be your finest political theater ever?
What about Trump who has been convicted of felonies and been found to have committed sexual assault in civil court and continues to hide the Epstein files? What is your answer to all of the at least 26 women who have made credible allegations against Trump for sexual misconduct? Clearly there has been misconduct in all administrations but the misconduct in the Trump administration is breathtaking. {An example of this is murdering Venezuelans and Columbians without due process) You are acting as a defense attorney for the Trump administration by saying everyone does it. Use of name calling and bad language shows your clear lack of credibility.
None of these allegation against Trump is even slightly credible. They’re all obviously fabricated.
And foreigners who are outside the USA have no constitutional rights. The constitution does not protect them. That is as firmly established as any constitutional principle. So they are not entitled to due process.
Even US persons are not entitled to due process when engaged in war against the USA. US forces are entitled to kill them wherever they may be found, in or out of the USA, by whatever means is most convenient, and without any process whatsoever. No court can interfere; it is simply not the courts’ business
Federal officers, in the exercise of their duties, are NOT subject to any state laws whatsoever. If charged or sued in state court, they are entitled to remove the case to federal court, where it will be dismissed. That is the federal law, which the constitution calls the supreme law of the land.
Virtue signalling by fighting the laws of the United States, while knowing that won’t work, so they can scream to their kiddies “It’s Tyranny!!” the media net for filtering out context works as long as someone’s dumb, mad and haven’t read the constitution or understand basic stuff. statistically non-zero, so a ‘win’.
The same guys who once had all the power to stop the ‘carnage’ of immigration laws. This is their strategy now. Manipulation of the ignorant.
Democrats are currently losing SNAP recipients. SNAP recipients! There’s going to be many of them who will read the headlines “Trump Starving you” and think “Do they really think I’m that stupid??…”. This has been happening over and over as the dems drop in popularity or lose another demographic over the current insane idea. They have not reached bottom yet. The world now has drugs that are doing wonderful things for people, making them lucid and calm, thinking beings. Once they lose the unhinged, they are an empty vessel.
They whine about supremacy because their thirst for power over others clouds their idea of equality, fairness, and justice.
Individual rights is their greatest enemy. Individuals are not mobs for them to manipulate, they are individuals with individual (only) rights.
Communists promote ‘group’ rights because it wields the power of group hatred to their true goal of absolute power (see history of communism).
Democrats adoption of rage politics driven by untruths, have led to the communists coming out of the woodwork.
It’s not ignorance on their part, they pretend X is true so someone takes their side. strength in numbers is a mob to them, not individuals.
Trump just said there isn’t much difference anymore between Democrats and Communists. He’s right. And the communist takeover of the democrat party is what has got all the old school democrat power-weilders so upset and AOC cosplaying as Fidel Castro.
Looking back it’s clear the US Constitution has been history’s greatest weapon againt communism and those against what it defends.
The more of these laws that get to the Supreme Court and are declared unconstitutional, the better it will be for law enforcement in the future.
The federal government had the jurisdiction to enforce ending the riot on January six but somehow it doesn’t have the jurisdiction to enforce immigration laws now. When states in the south during the civil war era defied federal law it was correctly considered to be acts of insurrection. According to the logic of Democrats in Illinois it should have been perfectly acceptable for any state in the south to declare that they were justified in defying the federal law that ended slavery. They just don’t have the intestinal fortitude to just come out and say that they are in favor of an open border without any restrictions.
They won’t just say it because they know that an open border is not popular with the citizenry.
Think about it. If your voting Democrat you are supporting an open border policy with know restrictions
The evidence of this policy is illustrated by the protection of illegal immigrants who have participated in human smuggling and the distribution of deadly drugs in Chicago Illinois. Who are the lawless?
I understand the economic impact of illegal immigration. Essentially we have lots of parasites in our system. Illegals abusing public resources and business interests benefiting from illegal labor, all on the taxpayer’s dime(or Benjamin).
Time for systemic ivermectin, fluconazole, even some carum carui(an ancient anthelminthic) to clear the system and allow healing to begin.
“(or Benjamin)”
Do you think invoking Benjamin makes your argument truer, or did you just hope the name would do the thinking for you?
Don’t be shtupitt. I was just pointing out, with exaggeration, the level of currency devaluation since that saying was coined. A real dime is now worth about $3.75 in fiat TP.
It’s not a matter of being “shtupitt”. Here and elsewhere, you chose your own words. Put together, it seems there was more to the Benjamin reference than you might like to admit. Good cover for a one-time statement, but not so good for multiples.
Huh? What has the Benjamin reference got to do with anything? Exactly which Benjamin do you imagine is being referenced? Do you not understand that the only Benjamin involved is the picture on the $100 note??????
Blue states deliberately made life intolerable for conservatives. Lefties are all for diversity, except for whites, Christians, and conservatives–then, not so much.
The downside to all this hazing and trolling was that conservative voters who were sequestered in blue states vacated and took their votes with them to purple states, shifting the nation’s political map into the red.
The Left didn’t anticipate these unintended consequences, but in this instance, they had a ready-made solution: illegal immigration. The Great Replacement Theory is a thing.
But the Left has run into two more problems: first, many illegals are not known for punctiliousness, so getting citizenship took a back seat to avoiding taxes, arrest warrants, and other unpleasantries.
The second problem was ICE. Thanks to Trump, ICE has had a chilling effect on Democrat corruption. As a result, even self-deportations are way up.
Now desperation is setting in, so the Left is threatening outright nullification of federal law. If they actually act on that, Trump can invoke the Insurrection Act (irony of ironies), meaning fat governors and city hall witchdoctors go to prison at point of bayonet.
My guess is that these Democrat threats are just performance art, but I’m still hoping they go through with it. It would be hilarious to see Pritzker and Johnson getting frisky with each other in Jeff Davis’s old cell. It’s a museum exhibit at the moment, but the HVAC can still be removed just for them.
Since when, exactly, did stupidity and unconstitutionality restrain Democrats, and in particular, Democrats like Gavin (“more-hair-gel-please”) Newsom and JB (“No Neck”) Pritzker? I’ll wait. What disciples of leftist barf these specimens are.
I’ll try to explain why these State are fighting ICE to protect the Immigrant’s sanctuary.
“It’s the Economy Stupid” The Immigrant’s create a Black-Market economy by making money under the radar (in a variety of ways both Legal and Illegal).
That money is spent in the White-Market economy as: Rent, Goods, Financial Transfers (Check Cashing. Wire transfers), Auto Loans, ….
When ICE comes in and deports the Immigrants or they are driven off, the economy collapses (the Black-Market economy collapses), and the in turn the White-Market economy suffers the loss of income, making to harder to pay the fixed expenses like: Mortgages, Insurance, Property Taxes, and Bank Interest.
So the Democrats solution to maintaining the Cash Flow of the Rentier Economy was to allow Immigrants into the areas (Major cities and States facing huge deficits) to fill and sustain the economic relationship between the Renter>Rentier [Immigrant($) >>$>> Owner/Landlord($)].
Bottomline is that Bankers, Reps, Govenors (etc.) know that if this relationship collapses they will suffer the losses. So any-means to prop it up (Fighting ICE) is necessary to keep the flow concurrent.
Bottom Five Sinkhole States: (page 13 of 140)
46 California
47 Massachusetts
48 Illinois
49 Connecticut
50 New Jersey
https://www.truthinaccounting.org/news/detail/financial-state-of-the-states-2025
PDF Link: https://www.truthinaccounting.org/library/doclib/Financial-State-of-the-States-2025.pdf
Repose:
Allow me a question: Have you ever heard or seen a Banker say no to Immigrant Sanctuary status?
The answer is You haven’t because They know where the real money comes from. Congressional Representative, Governors, State Legislatures know the reality of this as well, so They keep ‘The Show’ going – because ‘The Show’ must go on.
Fiat Fakes (Governmental Reps, Bureaucrats, etc.) – As long as we have fiat economics (Federal, State, Local) the curtain is up and the ‘The Show’ is on. The moment the fiat funding stops the Curtain drops and ‘The Show’ is Over.
“It’s the Economy Stupid” = “It’s the ‘Deficit Spending’ Economy Stupid”
They will do anything to protect Deficit Spending/b>.
Because without ‘it’, They are out of a Job.
“Allow me a question: Have you ever heard or seen a Banker say no to Immigrant Sanctuary status?”
If you have a 401K, assure us that you are only invested where you have proof that your investments are with banks, corporate shares, investment funds, etc that have all said no to Illegal Aliens. You’ve done that, right?
And they’re Illegal Aliens – the complete opposite of what Democrats prefer that the gullible will accept them referring to as “immigrants”. If you’re an immigrant, you legally entered this country with a pre-approved visa in your hands to show at the border to be allowed entry.
Why don’t banks get involved? Michael Jordan explained it this way: Republicans also buy tennis shoes.
The shareholders who own the banks are supposedly all reliably Republicans?
Or otherwise care one way or another about Illegal Aliens rather than how their shares in those banks are doing?
No, I don’t think so.