Posted on by rjonakait · 1 Comment

Who Are These ICE People Anyway?

Two related but separate federal agencies are the primary enforcers of our immigration laws. One is the Customs and Border Protection Agency (CBP) whose diverse responsibilities include the collection of import duties and the regulation of international trade. It examines people and cargo at ports of entry for such concerns as smuggling and the curtailment of the spread of harmful pests. This agency also protects and patrols our Mexican and Canadian borders. It is part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). CBP does not have primary responsibility for the enforcement of immigration laws within the country.

That falls to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE), which is also part of DHS. ICE is headed by Acting Director Todd Lyons. ICE has not had a Senate-confirmed director since 2017.

ICE has two primary components: the Homeland Security Investigations Division, which is concerned with transnational crimes, and the Enforcement and Removal Operations Division, which enforces immigration laws within the country. While ICE does not patrol the border, increasingly the border patrol (CBP) has been enforcing immigration laws away from the border, including in Minneapolis.

Under the One Big Beautiful Bill, ICE became the largest, most well-funded law enforcement agency in American history.

Although for a hundred years states tried to regulate immigration, the Supreme Court in the 1870s held that immigration and naturalization were solely under federal jurisdiction. Although immigration is a federal responsibility, ICE seeks the help of states and cities in immigration enforcement. Some jurisdictions, however, are reluctant to provide that help and claim status as a “sanctuary” city. While there is no legal definition of a sanctuary city, the term usually refers to a locality that refuses to cooperate or limits its cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Moreover, the use of the term “sanctuary” is misleading. An undocumented person does not get sanctuary from immigration laws by residing in a sanctuary city. The undocumented can be deported wherever they are in this country.

ICE officials have sought local assistance in several different ways. ICE might ask cities and counties to tell ICE when the localities have encountered an undocumented immigrant. Sanctuary cities usually do not honor these requests. They don’t share their databases with the federal officials. Some localities even forbid the collection of information about immigration status.

ICE often asks to interview people in local jails. Non-sanctuary places may freely allow that. Sanctuary localities, however, may not permit it at all or allow it only if the inmates voluntarily sign a consent form informing them that they don’t have to talk to ICE and are waiving that right.

ICE also lodges requests, called administrative detainers, asking to be informed when an inmate that ICE believes is deportable is to be released from a state or local lockup. Sanctuary cities differ in their responses. Many will tell ICE about the release of someone who has been convicted of a violent offense but not otherwise. Some sanctuaries will not tell ICE about the release of any inmate.

Trump officials suggest that this non-cooperation is illegal. That is not true. No law requires states and cities to cooperate with ICE, and no law probably can require that. That conclusion is based on the 1997 Supreme Court case, Printz v. United States.

At that time a federal law required “local chief law enforcement officers” to perform background checks on prospective handgun purchasers. The Supreme Court concluded that requirement was unconstitutional given the established constitutional principle that state legislatures are not subject to federal direction. The Supreme Court extended that maxim to local law enforcement, which the Court held is also not subject to federal direction. The Constitution does not empower the federal government to compel state law enforcement officers to fulfill the national government’s federal tasks. Assuming these principles still apply, the federal government cannot commandeer localities to enforce immigration laws.

The administration and other right wingers say, however, that sanctuary cities are making their communities unsafe by not helping deportations. Conservative media often scroll names of deportees along with the heinous crimes they supposedly committed. Trump’s press secretary has averred that the sanctuary jurisdictions are endangering their citizens by giving a safe haven to dangerous criminals. Trumpian attacks on the sanctuary states and cities are, therefore, “focused on protecting American communities from criminal aliens.”

Are the ICE actions focused on dangerous criminals? A fact-checking organization says that the administration has not provided enough information to substantiate that claim. The fact checkers say that the percentage of those detained without a criminal conviction or charges doubled in 2025 to 40%. However, most of the convictions are not for violent felony offenses. The Cato Institute has looked at the records of ICE detainees and concluded that a mere 5% of them had violent felony convictions. The New York Times also concluded from similar data that 7% had violent felony convictions.

Are sanctuary cities endangering their citizenry? Sanctuary jurisdictions maintain that their lack of cooperation is not only legal but is good policy. They point out that in sanctuary cities local resources are properly allocated to local priorities, not to enforcing laws that are the responsibility of the federal government.  Sanctuary cities also maintain that they are safer because of their policies.

The jurisdictions highlight that deportation before a verdict or punishment, which often happens in non-sanctuary jurisdiction, deprives communities of the deterrence provided by the criminal justice system. Sending a person to his home country without serving a sentence here in the U.S. does not act as a deterrent to others.

The sanctuary jurisdictions also want undocumented people to feel comfortable cooperating with the local police. Without that cooperation crimes will not be reported and prosecuted. Undocumented immigrants won’t come forward to report crimes or become witnesses if, as a consequence, they will be deported.  Criminals, whether citizens or not, will go free, and the community will be more crime-ridden.

Furthermore, a city may be healthier, safer, and more community-friendly if undocumented people are reasonably comfortable interacting with government authorities — not just police, but also schools, hospitals, clinics, employment agencies, and housing authorities.

Sanctuary cities point to study after study showing that sanctuary cities are safer than other cities and that sanctuary cities have, on average, more vibrant economies than non-sanctuary jurisdictions. The Trump administration, as it often does, avoids or denies the accuracy of such studies.

Finally, is there sanctuary for the undocumented in churches and elsewhere? President Obama issued orders that protected immigrants in hospitals, churches, courtrooms, funerals, weddings, and schools. Trump reversed that order. That there was an order and that it was reversed tells us something. We may have an image of Quasimodo swinging on a Notre Dame bell rope with Esmeralda under his arm and crying “Sanctuary,” but there is no accepted American legal principle that people are free from deportation (or prosecution for crimes) because they are sheltered in a house of worship.

Posted on by rjonakait

Don’t Let Them Shut Your Mouth

Responses to mass shootings have been predictable. Calls for better gun control go out, and conservatives respond: How dare you! You are terrible and callous for trying to make political points in this time of grief.

The conservative reaction to Charlie Kirk’s murder has been different: This particular “time of grief” is, apparently, the time to suppress and punish opponents and dissenters. Trump and his allies speak of plans to target liberal groups, monitor speech, and revoke visas. Government officials are considering criminal prosecutions of those who speak out against Kirkian and Trumpian policies. Officials threaten government actions against the media, teachers, school board members, and many others, and in advance of any actions by these people, have begun to shut down critics. Jimmy Kimmel is just the most famous of their targets. Some who want something from the government, such as approval of a merger, preemptively censor. Vigilantes have helped remove people who speak out from private jobs. (Notably, the MAGA folks did not seek the removal of a Fox News host who urged that the mentally ill homeless be given lethal injections. An apology was good enough.)

Not surprisingly, the movement to stifle opponents has been accompanied by misinformation, which in this case means lies or willful ignorance. It has been given as a fact that politically motivated murders primarily come out of leftist ideology. The fact is that study after study has shown that the majority of such killings have been by right-wingers. If we go back to 9/11, Islamic terrorists were responsible for the most political killings, but since then, according to the Cato Institute, the right-wing share of politically motivated terrorist murders have been 63 percent while the left-wing share has been 10 percent. (Cato says that the conservative killers have been “motivated by white supremacy, anti-abortion beliefs, involuntary celibacy [incels], and other right-wing ideologies.” This list should also include anti-LGBTQ ideology.) The Department of Justice had come to a similar conclusion, but you will have trouble finding that study since our government, which proclaims to be “the most transparent ever,” has removed the study from its website.

It does not matter to the President, of course, that we have seen nothing indicating that Kirk’s shooter was influenced by any extreme leftist or even liberal group. Instead, all we know is that Tyler Robinson has said that his motivation was the hate spewed by Kirk.

Until a bullet pierced his neck, Charlie Kirk was not on my radar. I had seen his name and that of his organization, but I knew little besides that. Now I know more, and I am amazed by his sanctification. Charlie Kirk may have been a loving, open-minded person, motivated by a true desire to foster legitimate debate, and he was undoubtedly a charismatic entertainer. Nevertheless, his religious, societal, and political views, which carried undertones, at a minimum of racism, ethnic bias, misogyny, frivolity, and stupidity, furthered hate and closed the minds of others. For example, Kirk said that “Jewish dollars” were funding Marxist ideas in education and policy and contributing to opening the borders.” Kirk said: “If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, ‘Boy, I hope he’s qualified.'” Kirk said: “We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s.” Kirk said: “I can’t stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made-up, new age term that — it does a lot of damage.” Kirk said about affirmative action and Joy Reid and Michelle Obama and Sheila Jackson Lee and Ketanji Brown Jackson: “Yeah, we know. You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person’s slot to go be taken somewhat seriously.” (Snopes.com is the source for these quotations.) This, of course, is only a small sample of Kirk’s tendentious statements.

Charlie Kirk was not a deep thinker, but he did know how to make money. Siri tells me that he was worth $12 million—not bad for a 31-year-old community college dropout. How much did he profit from those rallies and other activities whose stated purpose was merely to advance the political dialog?

Conservatives have said that millions “celebrated” Kirk’s death. I know none of them, and I doubt that number is true. Confirming evidence has not been provided.  An anecdote, even two, is not proof. Many, however, have come forward to criticize Kirk’s “teachings.” I would not be surprised if there have been millions, even tens of millions, of them. I certainly hope so. The attempt to honor Kirk has coincided with efforts to suppress and punish such critics of Kirk–a strange legacy for someone who supposedly stood for free speech and debate. If his ideas were sound, they should be highlighted. If they were sound, they would only benefit from critics. What are the Kirk supporters afraid of?

In these dangerous moments, I am reminded of another time when a supposed political murder was used to justify the suppression and oppression of those designated as enemies. On November 7, 1938, the Polish Jew Herschel Grynszpan shot the Nazi diplomat Ernst vom Rath. Two days later vom Rath died. Almost immediately, a pogrom against Jews was launched as a response to the murder. That event is now known as Kristallnacht. The murder by one person was used to suppress and oppress tens of thousands of others. Sound familiar?

As in 1938, many are seizing upon the murder by one person of Charlie Kirk to lead to oppression and suppression. Truly patriotic Americans should respond.

Don’t let them shut your mouth.