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
If any president can bypass the constitutional-amendment process through executive order to overturn the 4th Amendment, 14th Amendment and 22nd Amendment what about 2nd Amendment gun rights?
If judges allow Trump to bypass the constitutional-amendment process, what prevents a future president in January 2029 from simply overturning the 2nd Amendment through executive order?
Maybe Trump means well but he needs some good constitutional advisors. Trump’s hurting his own supporters.
Huh?
What exactly are you babbling on about?
Gigi, is that you?
Apparently, whoever that is expects us to understand that Trump is attempting, by executive order, to overturn the 4th, 14th, and 22nd amendments, and that it’s now up to judges to allow him to do so or to stop him.
I have no idea which orders this person thinks purport to do that. I think we’re supposed to just take their word for it.
@Milhouse…
Perhaps you should actually learn to read and try to understand the Amendments to the Constitution.
No Trump is not trying to overturn anything.
Perhaps you should give a more detailed explanation of why you think what you do.
Please give yourself several hours of non-bong usage before making comments on this site. Clear your head!
If judges allow Trump to bypass the constitutional-amendment process
Maybe we need judges that don’t allow Obama and Biden for TWELVE YEARS to overturn the 1st, 4th, First and other Amendments. Along with better commentators who aren’t those that stopped shrieking “Trump is Putin’s agent” to now scream “Trump is now bypassing the constitutional amendment process to abuse the 4th Amendment”.
Who wrote anything about Trump bypassing the Constitution? We’re talking about 3 Democrat-run states.
The Supremacy Clause also means that federal laws enacted by Congress must “circumscribe” the U.S. Constitution and therefore federal laws that subvert constitutional due process can be quickly overturned.
That whole double-edged sword thing;)
The Supremacy Clause also means that federal laws enacted by Congress must “circumscribe” the U.S. Constitution
Huh? I think you’ve heard a long word and are using it without any idea what it means. Perchance.
The Supremacy Clause clearly says the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land and the local, state and federal officials (of all 3 branches of government) are “subordinate” to the U.S. Constitution. Article VI of the Constitution.
The Supremacy Clause does NOT say that any federal official is superior to the U.S. Constitution.
Article I of the U.S. Constitution does clearly say that Congress has the authority to protect the constitutional rights of Americans if violated by local, state or federal officials.
In real practice, that should mean that if a local government were violating the constitutional rights of Americans, that Congress has the authority to “enforce the U.S. Constitution” under Article I powers. But Congress also has the duty and authority to check federal officials violating constitutional rights.
Fast forward to 2025:
Local, state and federal officials are legally required to obtain a judicial-warrant from a judge in order to perform longterm surveillance on any person using GPS or cell tracking technology under U.S. Supreme Court rulings “U.S. v. Jones” and “Carpenter v. U.S.”. The surveillance itself requires a judicial-warrant.
It’s quite likely that many – if not most – of the people ICE has picked up we’re done so using GPS or cell tracking technology. ICE was legally required to go to court and obtain a judicial-warrant PRIOR to using the GPS or Cell Tracking Technology.
ICE leaders likely simply purchased this information from third parties in order to obstruct and subvert 4th Amendment law and constitutional due process. This would be a great opportunity for the U.S. Supreme Court to close this 20th Century loophole. This third party loophole was created when no Americans had computers, cell phones or the internet.
100% of government officials/contractors swear supreme loyalty to the U.S. Constitution – local, state and federal officials under their oath of office.
If ICE is violating 4th Amendment rights under rulings like “Carpenter v. US” it seems completely proper for a local or state official to “check & balance” any ICE official being disloyal to their oath of office.
The “Supremacy Clause” makes the U.S. Constitution the supreme law of the land, not federal officials subverting 4th Amendment laws.
Please direct me to this with specificity: “Article I of the U.S. Constitution does clearly say that Congress has the authority to protect the constitutional rights of Americans if violated by local, state or federal officials.”
The Supremacy Clause clearly says the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land and the local, state and federal officials (of all 3 branches of government) are “subordinate” to the U.S. Constitution. Article VI of the Constitution.
No, that’s not what it says. It says the US constitution AND ALL FEDERAL LAWS are the supreme law of the land, and override all state constitutions and laws, and that all state judges are bound by them.
The Supremacy Clause does NOT say that any federal official is superior to the U.S. Constitution.
No one claims that it does. For instance, Barack 0bama and Joe Biden were not superior to the constitution, OR to federal laws, though they behaved as if they were.
Article I of the U.S. Constitution does clearly say that Congress has the authority to protect the constitutional rights of Americans if violated by local, state or federal officials.
Really?! Where does it say that? Which section, which paragraph, and which words?
Congress has the authority to “enforce the U.S. Constitution” under Article I powers.
The word “enforce” does not appear anywhere in the original constitution, and first appears in the 13th amendment.
Local, state and federal officials are legally required to obtain a judicial-warrant from a judge in order to perform longterm surveillance on any person using GPS or cell tracking technology under U.S. Supreme Court rulings “U.S. v. Jones” and “Carpenter v. U.S.”. The surveillance itself requires a judicial-warrant.
Jones doesn’t say that. Jones only says they need a warrant to attach a device to your car. Even the minority concurrence in Jones only requires a warrant for long-term GPS surveillance, not for brief surveillance. The line is not defined, except that it’s under 28 days.
Carpenter says they need a warrant to obtain historical cell tracking records from the phone company, except in an emergency or in a case of national security. It does not apply to tower dumps, or to other real-time information.
It’s quite likely that many – if not most – of the people ICE has picked up we’re done so using GPS or cell tracking technology. ICE was legally required to go to court and obtain a judicial-warrant PRIOR to using the GPS or Cell Tracking Technology.
Only to attach a device to a car, or to get historical cell location records. There is not the slightest reason to suppose they did either of these things. Why would they care where a suspect was yesterday, let alone weeks ago? All they want to know is where is he right now, and they don’t need a warrant for that.
ICE leaders likely simply purchased this information from third parties
And they have every right to do that. Though why they would want it is a mystery. How does it help them?
If ICE is violating 4th Amendment rights under rulings like “Carpenter v. US” it seems completely proper for a local or state official to “check & balance” any ICE official being disloyal to their oath of office.
No, it isn’t. There is no argument — even you have not attempted any argument — that ICE officers effecting an arrest are acting pursuant to a valid federal law. That law is the supreme law of the land. Even supposing the officers violated the 4th amendment in locating their suspect, that would not affect the validity of the arrest, and thus interfering with that arrest is a felony.
The question remains in my mind. If a “person” comes in to the US without vetting, does that person have any right to protection from removal? Seems to me, once proven here illegally, deportation should happen without delay or concern.
The ONLY reason i can think of as to why dem politicians support sanctuary laws is because they are funded by cartels.
@Old guy…
Uhm no.
The illegal alien is granted due process by having the right to an administrative hearing in front of an immigration judge.
So they do have some rights to due process and this does take time.
Asylum claims get heard. But because of the log jam of cases… it can take years and while here they are granted the right to work.
So effectively… even if they miss their hearing(s) it will take years to hunt them down to deport them. And its a low priority.
Dims support Sanctuary laws because they get counted on the census… 😉
-G
I think you are reaching improper conclusions that ICE is using GPS trackers. WHERE, EXACTLY is this info to be found?
Hear, Hear! Prof. Turley, you have built an AIRTIGHT case re: Federal vs State Authority in these immigration related matters.. with the pièce de résistance of the Obama precedents. Indeed, reading your column, the Absurdity of Pritzker’s folly jumped off the page…! ..do you think he will put little flags around the perimeter of the 1000′ circle?
Pritzker is inciting rebellion and insurrection. He and others like him know that this rhetoric will result in violence.
@EM…
Too late, we’re already there.
Go watch some of the YT videos about what’s going on around Chicago and in Evanston.
-G
No, he isn’t inciting, because incitement is defined very narrowly in Brandenburg. He isn’t doing that. He is predicting that state officers will commit crimes, but that’s not itself a crime.
@18th hole…
Did you really have to read Turley’s piece to know how absurd this IL law is?
Now the reality is that inside the courtroom, the judge rules. But outside of that… nope.
El Fatzo is a lousy lawyer and should be disbarred.
-G
Even inside a courtroom, it’s only courtesy that prevents officers from effecting an arrest, just like in a church. There’s no law requiring such restraint, in a courthouse or a church.
Actually I believe there are laws governing the courtroom.
(While court is in session)
This is one of those FAFO moments… care to try disrupting a court room during session?
As an Illinois resident, myself, I find this OUTRAGEOUS!! #MyGovernorIsAnIdiot & he does NOT speak for me
I second that!
-Gumby
Immigrants & Illegal Aliens are the underbelly of the Big-City economy. White Collar Rentiers and REITs etc. need them to pay the Debt Services (Mortgage Loans, Taxes, Insurance,…). Bankers care very much about what that sector of the economy does.
So when ICE and the Other Agency deport the Banker’s debt service cash flow by eliminating that sector’s portion of the economy which provides it, they have plenty to say to the Governmental Officials (City and State) to protect Their monetary interest.
(Basically: Don’t Kill the Golden Goose by Deporting It!)
You pretty much nailed it. And now that the food stamp fund has run dry, it is easier to spot the massive fraud and abuse, though 21 states refuse to release this information. Mmm…
Also, why do we have a housing shortage? Equity funds were sucking single family dwellings up during and after COVID. Who was their customer? Someone had to house the 10-15,000,000 illegals who poured through the southern border.
This only scratches the surface of what is lurking below. Our schools and medical infrastructure are overwhelmed. If one thought about it for a second, they would think someone wants to wreck this nation.
Tyrant Trump, President-for-Life!
Sounds about right, does it not?
David B. Benson… proud fascist and full throated communist Democrat supporter of 12 years of Obama/Biden Soviet Politburo -style totalitarian police state fascist rule! Only a phone and pen required!
Using the DoJ and FBI their and their party’s personal STASI to take your felonious “Russia Dossier” to supportive judges in order to deprive THOUSANDS of Americans of their civil rights through color of law. Then doubling down with Version 2.0 with Arctic Frost.
Just like Stalin and Lavarentiy Beria (minus the bullet to the back of the head in the basement of a prison after the political show trial ended).
Sounds about right, Tovarisch Benson?
Yep, it does.
David, only those with severe TDS believe Trump was serious and don’t recognize that he was trying to get you to act silly.
Only those with severe TDS can believe his followers would permit him a third term. He is limited to two terms and no more.
Trump is in the well-deserved driver’s seat. Relax and enjoy the ride.
S. Meyer– “only those with severe TDS believe Trump was serious and don’t recognize that he was trying to get you to act silly.”
Yes, and part of his genius is that it always works!
“Yes, and part of his genius is that it always works!”
Yes, and not only that, especially when he first ran, he would make statements that were a little opaque. That would cause the left to react negatively, generating a lot of press. He would then use the press to push his position, which was different than the one the left was complaining about.
For all the leftists out there ,Trump will not only seek a third term, but a fourth as well.
There are many many many Trump supporters who fantasize about a 3rd Term – possibly including Trump.
But it is a dream, a fantasy, and it is a fantasy that massively yanks the chain of left wing nuts – that is the best kind.
Yet John the lib reporters keep asking Prez Trump the same question, and the Prez enjoys driving them bonkers.
Rabble:
Dusty, the reporters think they have their finger on the pulse, but they are as ignorant, defunct, and puppeteer’d as those they mislead. They keep asking because they want to be the one to say “See? The President- no, the Dictator said to my face, the face of [insert MSM rag here] that he wants to ban elections!” If you want real hilarity, look at the cut bits from yesterday’s 60 Minutes (of Torture) interview. They treated Trump almost as bad as they treated Kamala.
@John Say…
Nope.
Most in the MAGA crowd … heck most of the Republicans too … follow the law and Constitution.
They know as well as Trump knows… twice is it. But we also know that just joking about a 3rd term causes those w TDS to go crazy.
But lets keep that our little secret. Ok?
-Gumby
David B Bensen, will you show up when Trump steps down after his term to tell us what a childish stupid statement you just made. Rest assured, when Trump steps down at end of his term I will make sure that every one will recall what you said. True to form you’ll just say that you never said it.
That pushed the expected buttons. 🙂
“That pushed the expected buttons.”
That was you being recognized for what you are. Act in character – what else would you expect?
Just until Jan 20, 2029 after that unless democrats have gotten their hear out of their a$$ he will be followed by another republican.
Rabble:
He said he’d be president in 2028. Trolls on them; the new president won’t be sworn in until 2029.
What is it with you left wing nuts and idiotic conspiracy theories ?
No Trump did not collude with Russia in 2016.
But Obama was the first american president to try to sabatoage his successor.
No Hunter Biden’s laptop is not russian disinformation.
No J6 was not an insurection.
No Joe Biden was not competent.
No masks do not work against covid.
As selena Zito said a long time ago.
Trumps supporters take him seriously but not litterally.
Trump’s enemies take him litterally but not seriously.
Those of you on the left have displayed an endless chain of abysmal judgements.
Your a bunch of tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists.
No it is not fascist to cut government spending and programs – it is “antifascist”.
But god forbid any left wing nut should ever use any word correctly – rather than as the exact opposite.
DB Benson,
I was going to suggest that you are off your meds but I don’t think there any meds that can help you. You are so weak, so easily trolled.
PS I voted for Trump three times and he won three times. Think about that.
Smelly Fish — There is no sanoty check for voters, only age and residence.
david (only age)
It appears you have not aged since you hit 12 years old.
One only needs to read these remarks by you.
MORON david B speaks
David,
Those w TDS have Trump living rent free in their heads.
So yeah. He’s going to be your POTUS for life!
But back in reality… at the end of his term… he’s going to retire and return to playing golf.
Then it will be Vance. Probably for another 8 yrs.
There are no Dims capable of running against them.
Fetterman is the only Democrat that is making any sort of sense.
-G
The prohibition is for civil arrests only. If the federal agents have a criminal warrant signed by a judge, they can arrest the suspect.
Executing civil arrest warrants at municipal or state courts is theater.
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.
https://jonathanturley.org/2025/11/02/illinois-bars-ice-arrests-in-state-courthouses-and-safe-zones/
Professor Turley knows his craft better than most JDs. As for you Sean, you’re adept at using a keyboard and wifi. Congrats?
Trolls begone
They don’t need a warrant.
That depends on the circumstances. They either need a warrant or probable cause for an arrest.
Yes, but not a criminal warrant, or probable cause of a crime. Being in the USA illegally is not a crime, and yet ICE can arrest someone for it.
What they probably can’t do without a warrant from an Article 3 judge, is to enter property without the owner’s permission, including state property without the state government’s permission. So state law can keep them out of the courthouse itself, but not out of the streets around it.
Milhouse said “Being in the USA illegally is not a crime.”
8 U.S.C. § 1302 (Registration of Aliens) and §1306 (Penalties) (a) Willful failure to register
Federal law requires all aliens, including Illegal Aliens, to register their presence and be fingerprinted if they intend to remain in the United States for 30 days or longer.
Willful failure to register: Any alien required to apply for registration and to be fingerprinted in the United States who willfully fails or refuses to make such application or to be fingerprinted shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not to exceed $1,000 or be imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
Yep, they’re criminals subject to arrest for the crimes they committed and continue committing from the first moment they illegally enter the country.
And then there’s the rest of their ongoing personal crime waves:
8 U.S.C. §1324. (Bringing in OR harboring certain aliens)
Any person whether US citizen or Illegal Alien who brings to or harbors Illegal Aliens in the Unites States in any manner whatsoever other than at a designated port of entry commits a felony punishable by 10 years in jail.
8 U.S.C. § 1325 (Improper Entry by Alien):
Where an illegal alien enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers. Yep, it’s a crime punishable by up to two years in jail as well as a fine. And civil penalties can be levied on top of that.
18 U.S.C. § 911 (False Personation of a U.S. Citizen):
Illegal aliens presenting themselves as U.S. citizens. For example, an illegal alien claiming U.S. citizenship while applying for and/or after being employed. A felony, punishable by up to five years in jail.
18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Fraud and False Statements):
Illegal aliens making false statements to the government or on official documents submitted to purchase a firearm, obtain a driver’s license, benefits, employment, etc. An example would be completing and submitting the I-9 Employment Eligibility form or a form where required to purchase a firearm. A felony, punishable by both a fine and up to five years imprisonment.
18 U.S.C. § 1028 (Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with Identification Documents, Authentication Features, and Information):
Otherwise known as “false ID” as the most common criminal example of this. Simple possession is enough. A felony, with up to fifteen years in jail as the penalty.
26 U.S.C. § 7203 (Willful Failure to File Return, Supply Information, or Pay Tax):
If an illegal alien is working, not filing tax returns, and not paying taxes, that is a crime for them just as it is for legal residents and Americans. Fines and jail…
42 U.S.C. § 408 (Social Security Fraud):
This offense occurs when an illegal alien provides a false Social Security number for the purpose of acquiring a job, to acquire a driver’s license, in order to obtain Section 8 housing, as just a few examples. A felony, punishable by both a fine and up to five years imprisonment, as well as the court possibly ordering restitution. Fines and jail…
50 U.S.C. App. 462(a) and 18 U.S.C. 3571(b)(3) (Refusing or Evading Selective Service Registration):
Illegal aliens, male, between 18 and 26. A felony, punishable by five years in prison and up to $250,000 in fines.
Yes, they do.
Suppose you’re walking down the street.
They can’t stop you and demand your papers. That’s a 4A violation. No probable cause.
Now w an administrative warrant, they are going after a specific individual. If you’re a fellow illegal alien and in the presence of their target… you can then be detained and if you’re found to be here illegally, you get deported too.
If you impede or obstruct the arrest… you can be arrested as well. Most are detained and released because of the pain it is to actually arrest you w/o other federal officers to take you into custody from them. If you are arrested for obstruction, and you’re also an illegal alien… you too will be deported.
But the bottom line… they need a warrant. They don’t have to show it to anyone except the target’s attorney.
-G
Sean – deportations are non-criminal proceedings. That’s why the involve civil arrest warrants. Deportations are not merely “theater” – where did you get that insane notion?
So the states in question are trying to block the federal government from enforcing federal immigration law in the places designated by the state legislation.
The Supremacy Clause covers every kind of federal law, not just criminal. It refers in general to federal laws being the “supreme law of the land” – any kind of federal law.
OMFK – while generally correct – it is actually a crime to enter the US illegally.
It is not a very serious crime. But it is a crime.
Not only is it a crime – but it has consequences. One of those is that it bars you from ever entering the US again.
And if you do and you are caught you can be deported almost instantly.
Because it is a crime – it must be prosecuted, and you must be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt, and you are entitled to full due process.
This is leveraged heavily by ICE/CBP – if you agree to allow yourself to be deported, there is no conviction and you may try to enter the US legally (or even illegally) again.
Anyway deportations are a mix of civil and criminal law. On balance most deportations are civil. But the possibility of criminal charges is used as leverage to get people to not fight deportation to the death.
Illegal entry is a crime. But illegally remaining is not itself a crime. The mere fact that someone is here illegally is not enough to prove that they committed the crime of entering illegally. So they can’t be tried for it. And many illegal aliens didn’t enter illegally; they entered on a legal visa and then illegally remained after it expired. They have committed no crime.
That’s why deportation is a civil procedure, not a criminal one. The alien may never have committed a crime, but he has no right to be here so he can be deported. And arrested in order to deport him. Without a criminal warrant, because he hasn’t committed a crime.
Rabble:
Breaking into your house is a crime, but sitting in your living room after the fact, and helping myself to a beer, isn’t.
Actually it is. Sitting in your living room is trespass, and stealing your beer is theft. But being illegally in the USA is not a crime. Someone who enters legally and then remains illegally has committed no crime. If a criminal warrant were needed, it would be impossible to arrest him, and yet the law is clear that he can be arrested. Hence there’s no need for a criminal warrant to arrest him. An administrative warrant will do just fine.
Deporting him is a civil procedure, not a criminal one, so the fact that he’s committed no crime is irrelevant.
Federal law allows agents to arrest suspected illegal aliens without a criminal warrant, even if they’re not even suspected of a crime in the first place. State law cannot prevent that.
What agents probably can’t do is enter state property without a search warrant. So state law probably can exclude them from the courthouse itself, but not from any public place around it.
Mostly correct ICE can go anywhere the general public can go – a State can NOT say that ordinary citizens can come to the courthouse but ICE can not.
ICE can also arresst people on an administrative warrant almost anywhere.
What they can not do is disrupt of proceeding to do so.
State jusdges can attempt to filibuster ICE agents outside their doors, but the moment the court is adjourned ICE can act.
Mostly correct ICE can go anywhere the general public can go – a State can NOT say that ordinary citizens can come to the courthouse but ICE can not.
I think as a property owner it can do that. Just as you or I can invite the general public to our property but exclude certain people whom we don’t like. Including law enforcement without a warrant.
I think federal agents probably can disrupt state court proceedings if they want to; they don’t out of respect, not because it’s the law. The same is true of churches; they will generally refrain from arresting someone during a church service, but that is purely a courtesy, not a law.
Nope.
They can go into the courthouse because that is still public property.
They can arrest anyone in the hallways because its public. Court rooms while court is in session are not. There are actual laws/rules on this.
As to private property… if they are in active pursuit… they can chase the person down while affecting a warrant. However, they cannot go on to your property to search for someone if they are not already in pursuit.
This is why they will need a federal warrant to go after illegals in apartment complexes since it is private property. Administrative warrants only can be used in public spaces.
@Milhouse… nope.
I think you’re an illegal alien. I arrest you and take you into custody without probable cause other than you walking down the street and acting like an A hole. Turns out you are not an illegal alien but just your every day jerk.
Now I just violated your 4th Amendment rights under the color of law.
You can sue me and the US Government.
So no.. you need both probable cause and an administrative warrant. However… there are exceptions to this…
Sean – you are innaccurate.
While it is generally correct that a warrant that is not issued by a judge has less power than one issued by a judge.
This is not really a civil vs. criminal issue.
An ICE administrative warrant allows ICE to arrest the person named in the warrant – even in a municipal or state court.
Whether by convention or federal law it does not allow disrupting court proceedings to do so.
I would further note that should ICE actually use a civil warrant beyond the authority of that warrant – it is NOT up to state courts and state judges to determine that. A state judge does not have the authority to rule on a federal warrant – even administrative ones.
Federal warrants must be challenged in federal courts.
>Legal< theater. Increase the deportation rate to 1,000,000/month. That will almost clear the problem by the end of Trump's term. Vance can finish the job.
Its an administrative warrant.
And yes they can arrest them in public areas. Hallways in the courthouse are public areas. Courtrooms are not.
Even the judges know this, which is why this state law is a joke.
Hows that case against the Wisc Judge going? Seems to no longer be news.
Lincoln deployed an inimical 4-million-man foreign standing army on U.S. soil, and his communist successors progressively enhanced their electorate and just brought in 20 million new reinforcements from Latinoland, etc. Quislings gave them the right to vote, and they vote (D) for DINERO en masse. Lincoln ostensibly resolved reprehensible slavery but actually destroyed the Constitution and ultimately America.
Lincoln deployed an inimical 4-million-man foreign standing army on U.S. soil.
For normal Americans, “foreign standing army” in George’s Confederate Kluxxer Democrat false flag talk means black Americans who were no longer draft animals serving as slaves belonging to Kluxxer Democrats.
Lincoln defeated George X’s forefather Confederate Kluxxer slave state insurrectionists. In doing so, he recognized 4 million black Americans as human beings – not as farm draft animals that George X prefers to refer to as “a foreign standing army”. When he isn’t calling them Darkies who should have been “compassionately repatriated” to countries they had never set foot in.
The tell is that George X and his current day Kluxxer brethern like Senators Byrd and Biden, never criticize their Kluxxer Confederates for NOT “compassionately repatriating” black Americans while they were still valuable to them as their property: farm animals.
Now that Kluxxer Democrat insurrection has failed, today’s (still Kluxxer) Democrats from FDR forward have turned to “progressive” communism – while trying to link Lincoln who dealt them their first FAFO to that communism.
If “compassionate repatriation” to a country you’ve never seen is a thing, can we compassionately repatriate George to North Korea or Communist China, where he’ll fit right in if he can get a government job?
How about that as a modern FAFO for police state fascist Democrats like George, to follow up Lincoln’s FAFO to George’s forefather Confederate Kluxxers who started their Civil War insurrection?
George is back. A good old Democrat from the south who doesn’t like it that Lincoln freed the slaves.
Hmm, a Democrat that doesn’t like that the slaves were set free. Lincoln must have burned his family mansion and set the family slaves free. The night they burned old Dixie down and George is still singing that song.
A paid up and in good standing member of the George Wallace fan club.
So you posit that secession is not prohibited, comports with the 10th Amendment, and is fully constitutional?
So you posit that secession is not prohibited, comports with the 10th Amendment, and is fully constitutional?
Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868)
Affirming the perpetual nature of American federalism, and that the USA is an indestructible union from which no state can unilaterally secede.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/74/700/
The Union of the States was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to “be perpetual.” And, when these Articles of Confederation were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained “to form a more perfect Union. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States.
When those states became one of the United States, they entered into an indissoluble relationship. The union between individual states and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of all the States to amend the Constitution.
And, of course, the absurdity and corruption of Roe v. Wade was wholly incorrect and struck down by Dobbs, and secession is not prohibited and is fully constitutional per the 10th Amendment.
Texas v. White was simply crony venality perpetrated by the “progressive” successors of Comrade Lincoln solidifying their fallacy.
You are simply wrong and nonsensical when you say that because secession is not prohibited, secession is prohibited.
Texas v. White was simply crony venality perpetrated by the “progressive” successors of Comrade Lincoln solidifying their fallacy. You are simply wrong and nonsensical when you say that because secession is not prohibited, secession is prohibited.
Mad Kluxxer King George regulary posts his admiration for Chief Justice Taney’s utterings while Chief Justice of SCOTUS. Primarily because Taney told Kluxxer George’s Confederate slave state ancestors that those Darkies like Dredd Scott were just another type of farm animal – not actual human beings with rights the same as the Confederate Kluxxers who claimed they owned them.
When SCOTUS tells Mad Kluxxer King George that he’s a stupid shyte whose prefrontal cortex managed to escape adult development and he’s wrong, he stamps his feet and says SCOTUS is now wrong and he is right.
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.
If this were constitutional, what would prevent the sate from passing a law saying that federal agents cannot arrest illegals anywhere in the entire state? That’s undoubtedly what they want, so maybe these little laws are tests of whether it’s enforceable, on the theory they’ll start small and if that works, go full-blown.
…. “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.”
Dem/Pritzker and Obama hypocrisy on parade: Federal jurisdiction when it’s good for me, but not when it is for thee.
When did Obama: born and raised between Hawaii and Indonesia become a native son of Illinois? When he adopted Saul Alinsky’s “Rules For Communist Revolutionaries”?
No one said anything about “native” son. Neither Lincoln nor 0bama were born in Illinois. Both moved to Illinois in their early 20s and settled there, thus becoming sons of that state.
Obama never set foot to live in Chicago until he was 25, spent three years getting pumped up to attend Harvard where he started at age 28. He was 30, not in his early 20’s, when he took up permanent residence in Chicago.
Up until then he spent more time in other American states than Illinois – if any of them actually want to claim him based on him earlier being a son of their state.
0bama moved to Illinois when he was 23. Only two years older than Lincoln was when he moved there. If Lincoln is a son of Illinois, then so is 0bama.
two favorite sons of Illinois who became presidents: Lincoln and Obama. Both reinforced the supremacy of federal jurisdiction.
When the hell did Obama reinforce the supremacy of federl jurisdiction with his phone and his pen and knowledge of how to use them in tyrannical Royal fashion like a Communist King?
I’ll take door number 2, When he was busy droning US citizens and their kids without due process. Obamacare comes to mind also but that’s door number 3.
There is no such thing as “due process” in warfare. Enemy combatants have no right to due process, or to any judicial process at all. The US armed forces, commanded by the president, are entitled to kill them wherever they may be found, by whatever means is convenient, and it makes no difference whatsoever what passport they happen to hold.
In the 250 years that the USA has existed it has never been the case that US forces must check the enemies’ passports before killing them, or that a US passport is any kind of protection against being killed in warfare. Those who raise such a claim now against 0bama are just being dishonest.
The US armed forces, commanded by the president, are entitled to kill them wherever they may be found, by whatever means is convenient, and it makes no difference whatsoever what passport they happen to hold.
Milhouse, you’ve already shit the bed twice today by claiming Illegal Aliens remaining in America are not committing criminal offenses by doing so. Now – as a lawyer – you’re claiming the US does not observe any Laws of War, nor add additional US specific legal restrictions on the conduct of warfare by American forces.
Try convincing American soldiers they are under no prohibition regarding using poisonous gases or blinding lasers if they find those weapons the most convenient at the moment.
About all your erroneous proclamation does is illustrate you never served in the military.
There’s nothing wrong with choosing to let others do the military service for this country. However, if you HAD enlisted, you wouldn’t have gotten through basic training without sitting through periods of instruction on your obligations under the laws of war. You would remember those lessons being delivered from Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare.
In fact Milhouse, the military and the laws of war we have adopted and amended in consultation with other allied nations, and similar related legal naus and restrictions on how we will wage war, is what you as a lawyer should be excited to think about as a target rich buffet environment if you wanted to serve and be comfortable and safe while doing so.
To help you advance your legal knowledge, just a few high points of America observing laws of war since before we even had the Constitution:
George Washington agreed with the British Commander that the war would be fought by each of them in compliance with the original version of Europe’s The Laws Of War.
A century later Lincoln’s legal counsel built on that and issued General Order No. 100, Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field.
We became a signatory to the Hague Convention of 1902 – laws concerning the conduct of warfare. Ditto for additional Hague Conventions years later.
The War Department in 1914 published a manual titled Rules of Land Warfare. It was updated in 1917, 1934, and 1940.
In 1949 we became a signatory to that year’s updates on the Geneva Conventions.
In 1956, the original version of Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare was adopted. It was prepared in consultation with the UK, Germany, Australia, and Canada.
The expansion and comprehensive laws of war has never stopped growing. The most recent version of just the Law Of War Manual was just updated and published in July 1923, released under the name of the General Counsel of the Department Of War.
You should probably give it a read before offering more pro bono legal advice on whether or not the US complies with national and international agreements on the Laws Of War.
When the hell did Obama reinforce the supremacy of federl jurisdiction
That’s a stupid question. 0bama reinforced the supremacy of federal jurisdiction over immigration affairs by preventing the states from assisting in immigration enforcement, even voluntarily. At his behest the Supreme Court clearly established that the entire field of immigration is reserved exclusively for the federal government, and states not only may not interfere, but may only assist if the feds ask for it. If the feds say they don’t want any assistance, the state must keep strictly out of it. That’s something that was not the law of the land until 0bama.
Milhouse posted: 0bama reinforced the supremacy of federal jurisdiction over immigration affairs by preventing the states from assisting in immigration enforcement, even voluntarily.
Was that before or after Obama shredded federalism by ignoring the states’ elected representatives in the Legislative Branch and existing immigration law by creating his DACA and DAPA personal immigration law?
And his implementation of his WATUS rule to have the EPA control waters in states that were not navigable waters, right down to hand excavated stock watering tanks? That was legitimate supremacy of federal jurisdiction over state jurisdiction?
Fairly similar to the Obama federalism version that had him take his phone and pen and write federal health insurance exchanges into Obamacare, making Obama federalism independent of legislation having to be written and passed by the states elected members in Congress they sent to form the Legislative Branch?
Oh… let’s not forget that other masterful stroke of Obama federalism: his unilateral phone and pen nuclear treaty with Iran’s Mad Mullahs that the states’ elected representatives in Congress did not pass.
Where once again Obama federalism had him ignore and go around the states’ representatives in Congress to put that treaty in place – and lawlessly give hundreds of billions of dollars to Iran in payments that looked like a drug cartel paying off a third world dictator.
What Obama actually attempted to accomplish was the Supremacy Of Obama’s Oval Office. Why… you could say it was federalism that looked like that of a King Obama!
“ignoring the states’ elected representatives in the Legislative Branch”, to whatever extent 0bama did so, has nothing to do with federalism. You are simply misusing a word that you don’t understand.
And “his unilateral phone and pen nuclear treaty with Iran’s Mad Mullahs” was NOT a treaty at all. He didn’t pretend it was. It was a private deal that he personally negotiated, as was his right, and was not legally binding at all. He was morally bound by it, because it was his agreement; the United States was not bound in any way, because it was not a party to it.
Please cite the Constitution for a legal basis for Obongocare.
In fact, Obongocare, Medicare, and Medicaid are all unconstitutional and may not be taxed for or funded by Congress.
When will Obama be offered asylum from prosecution for his ongoing “Obama Coup D’etat in America” in Abu Dhabi?
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
AI Overview
Prince Andrew has reportedly been offered a luxurious palace in Abu Dhabi by the UAE royal family, led by Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, as a gesture of thanks for his past work as an international business envoy. This offer comes amid increasing pressure on Prince Andrew to leave his home at Royal Lodge in Windsor and provides a potential option for him if his position in the UK becomes untenable. The palace is reportedly fully equipped, with features like six bedrooms, an indoor gym, and a swimming pool.
Obama-Asylum? Not until he has done more damage: perhaps the asylum comes when his puppeteering in the Biden administration is fully exposed. Until then, it’s business as usual: excessive TDS rhetoric and fomenting of resistance and violence.
“Instead of building up a new generation of Democratic leaders, Mr. Obama’s administration obliterated the party while he served in the White House. During his presidency, the Democratic Party lost a net total of 13 governorships and 816 state legislative seats, the most of any president since Dwight D. Eisenhower” (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2025/oct/27/obama-overestimates-political-sway/).
6 bedrooms Andrew could accommodate a harem of 6 wives and of any age! Double up and 12! What a deal…
And a
And a massage table.
In the American Juristocracy, there is no need for the legislative and executive branches.
The judicial branch possesses no executive power.
The judicial branch possesses no power to usurp and exercise the executive power of the executive branch.
There is NO power of the judicial branch to “interpret,” modify, or amend the Constitution.
The judicial branch has the power to adjudicate; the judicial branch has NO power to execute.
That judges and justices disagree with American fundamental law does not bear.
The Supreme Court, at some point, MUST support the Constitution and stop rewriting it.
People must adapt to freedom.
Freedom does not adapt to people; dictatorship does.
____________________________________________________________
Article 2, Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 3, Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
The judicial branch may not usurp and exercise executive power.
The resolution to high criminal acts by the president is impeachment and conviction.
Rabble:
Name some of these “high criminal acts” the current president has committed, per the law of Constitution.
After that, bring us the acts past presidents have committed, and we can compare notes.
There is NO power of the judicial branch to “interpret,”
That IS the judicial power, which the constitution explicitly vests in the federal courts. Only the federal courts can say what the law is. Nobody else.
That is not strictly true – the legislature says what the law is when they write it.
The duty of the courts is determine what the authors of the law or constitution meant by what they wrote.
That is an excercise in textual analysis research and gramar.
The courts have absolutely no power to decide what the law should be.
They have no power to shape the laws as they want it.
They are merely the final authority resolving conflicts and confusion over what the authors of the law and constitution intended.
No, the legislature makes the law, but cannot say what it is. Only the courts can determine what the legislation says. Even the legislature that passed it can’t interpret it; it can amend it if it likes, but it can’t change what it means before the amendment. If the law says “green”, and the courts say “By ‘green’ you of course mean ‘red'”, the statute means ‘red’; all the legislature can do is amend it to say “green, and by ‘green’ we mean green and not red, blue, orange, or any other color”. It then takes a court to say what that actually means.
PS: See City of Boerne v Flores , striking down a law in which Congress purported to interpret the constitution. The court said “You can’t do that, only we can interpret it”.
Should we also see the unassailable Roe v. Wade for “interpretation” on abortion or the idiocy of the Supreme Court of 1869 to learn that because secession is not prohibited secession is prohibited and that the 10th Amendment, in that decision, was temporarily null and void?
Roe v Wade was the law of the land for 49 years. Thankfully it is no longer. But for those 49 years it was the law, because the constitution gives the federal courts the judicial power, which is the power to say what the law is. Again, see City of Boerne, which is still the law of the land.
John Say: “They [courts] have no power to shape the laws as they want it.”
Not precisely true. All the states except Louisiana have common law in which much of the law is actually judge made. That’s why we look to cases and why most of the books in a law library are filled with judicial explanations for why the court held as it did. I have no problem with that and actually admire it. That may seem strange since I frequently rant about arbitrary and tyrannical judges.
The difference is that common law evolves and grows from existing principles like a species or plant. But what tyrannical judges do is essentially legislate from the bench, engineering new rules rather than extending existing principles into new situations.
Also lately they are abusing equitable powers in a way that appears to make them a super executive capable of controlling the actual Article II executive contrary to the Constitution.
District Court judges appear to be usurping both executive and legislative powers, both the Presidency and the Congress, and need a hard tug at the reins to stop them.
How the —- did Roe v Wade ever happen, Einstein, without an “interpretation,” aka modification-cum-amendment, by the Supreme Court of 1973?
Anon– “How the —- did Roe v Wade ever happen without an “interpretation,” aka Supreme Court of 1973?”
Good question and I think the answer is by the evolutionary action in the common law process. Sometimes the courts of states will answer a legal issue in different ways with precedents accumulating on different paths. Eventually there will be a majority view and a minority view, both of which have plausible reasoning. But the realities of life and business will impose a selective pressure that may ultimately reveal one line of reasoning to serve law and the public better and then one of the branches will be pruned.
Roe v Wade once seemed persuasive to many that it was an extension of fundamental principles; but there were others who were convinced that the reasoning was flawed and when that opinion became ascendant the precedent was pruned.
Have a look at the Canterbury case on informed consent to get a good view of the process.
modification-cum-amendment, by the
I think in some ways the process is a bit like the way Musk builds rockets. Judges of good will do the best they can with novel facts and launch their opinion hoping it does more good than harm to the law. Then, like Musk’s rockets, sometimes they blow up and the process is corrected and sometimes they go high enough to become part of the legal firmament.
Part of the beauty of the common law process is that it inherently assumes we are not perfect and can’t always be right so we draw on established wisdom and try to fix things when errors appear…it is a form of evolution. Think of a body of law as if it were DNA. Tinker with it and sometimes you get genius and sometimes you get monster.
Young says: Arrest Boasberg. There are calls for it.
Well, you won’t hear those calls from our host Professor Turley – he hides from Boasberg’s criminality as well as his non-felonious judicial malfeasance.
Judge Boasberg’s criminality reaches back to 2016/2017 and his part as the chief FISA court judge and Democrat police state fascist on the bench. He repeatedly allowed Obama’s Attorney Generals and FBI Directors along with their staff to perjure themselves in his courts while entering Obama’s felonious ‘Russia Dossier’ into that court. He hid those felons and their felonies, along with the illegitimate spy warrants he gave them, long after he was aware that their dossier was fraudulent and they perjured themselves before him in court. Not one was brought back before him to be sentenced for at least Contempt Of Court.
He did pretty much the same thing again four years later with the warrants he issued to Biden’s FBI for a second time in the Democrats Arctic Frost continuing police state fascism.
Judges as well as police officers can be indicted for the felony of Deprivation Of Rights Under Color Of Law. Judges committing felonies like this – judges like Judge Boasberg.
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.
Professor Turley turns a blind eye to this crime by his fellow Democrat lawyer and member of the Washington DC Bar Association. He also, like Judge Boasberg, also violates his bar association’s Professional Code Of Conduct in what he’s required to do when he has knowledge a fellow member of the bar is in violation of their bar’s code of conduct.
*. It’s a no win situation. If the Republicans did establish law there isn’t an educated generation to proceed in the future. The Obama experiment is a 💯 failure.
The foods are bad contaminated with radiation, metal parts, plastic parts, lysteria, lead etc. 1 lb is now 14 oz or less for weights and measures. The list of ills is bottomless. The religions are pre enlightenment.
Best wishes.
Glad to see these ill-considered laws.
They may produce perfect setups for the arrest of judges–or a governor–for obstruction.
Kind of like firing on Fort Sumter again.
We will see if they are truly stupid enough to dare it.
Democrats are concerned about who’s gonna pick their crops. That’s their go-to when arguing illegals should be allowed to remain. At the same time, they are aggressively asserting states’ rights.
Hmm, that does sound a lot like what led up to Fort Sumpter.
Maybe that’s partially true for California, but Illinois or Connecticut? This is all about speaking and acting out against Trump’s efforts to reverse the illegal immigration. There may those who feel it is inhumane to deport people (even if they are drug dealers or worse), but I seriously doubt that the politicians care. I’m not a lawyer, however, the law seems to clearly be on the side of the President. These “sanctuary” states don’t want a constitutional republic anymore. It does seem like the country may soon be facing a Ft Sumpter moment.
If Victoria assumes the role of a man and participates in the revolution, who is going to make the number of new Americans sufficient to grow and protect the country? What exactly is the duty of women to their country? Oh, yeah, to make new citizens. Whodda thunk it?
“Sanctuary” states are exercising their constitutional right to refuse any assistance to federal law enforcement.
However they have no right to interfere with that enforcement. The moment they try to do so, the officers making the attempt are criminals who will be arrested and thrown in federal prison.
Unfortunately the governor, mayor, or judges, who issue those orders can’t be arrested for it. It’s up the officers to ignore their illegal orders.
Hey, dumb—, when you roll through with your brilliance, why don’t you provide citations of legal basis for your “make-it-up-as-you-go-along” codswallop?
None of what I wrote is in any way disputed. It’s the well-known and universally accepted law, so I don’t have to bother looking up citations for it.
If you doubt any specific thing I wrote, say what it is, and what is your basis for challenging it.
Citations please. You don’t make the law.
No, I don’t make the law. I’m telling you what it is, and what everyone has agreed it is for over 200 years. If you dispute anything I wrote, say what you are disputing, and what is your basis.
Sanctuary states are complicit accomplices in crime.
No, they are not. They are exercising their well-established constitutional right to refuse to assist the federal government.
But the law we’re discussing here goes far beyond that right. The moment a state officer interferes with federal law enforcement he becomes a criminal. Any order for him to do so is unlawful and his duty is to disobey it.
Millhouse: “Unfortunately the governor, mayor, or judges, who issue those orders can’t be arrested for it.”
++
I am curious…why do you say that?
Governors, mayors and judges are regularly arrested for other crimes. Why would they have immunity for this?
I am not disputing your point, yet, but I do wonder why you make it.
Because giving an unlawful order is not a crime. The officers who receive it have a duty to disobey it, and if they don’t then it’s their crime.
Non-voting temporary work permits.
Rabble:
They simultaneously lobby for illegals to remain, while also gnashing teeth at crop-picking options, whilst also lobbying to keep automation from advancing production. If lobby interests didn’t keep their dollar go up in hand and at heart, we’d have nuclear reactors around the country, food production could be done by one farmer and automated machines, and we’d have no need for illegals.