|
The reality behind the rhetoric
Thursday, Sep 4, 2025 - Posted by Rich Miller * This question about ICE was asked during Gov. JB Pritzker’s press conference yesterday…
OK, let’s stop there for a moment. * People from the right, the left, and many, many, many in between, as well as the news media and quite a lot of immigrants have totally bought into the “sanctuary state” rhetoric. The only “sanctuary” this state offers is that state and local police are barred from cooperating with immigration authorities on civil matters. State and local cops can’t help ICE arrest suspected undocumented immigrants unless there’s a judicial warrant. State prisons and county jails can’t release inmates to ICE without a judicial warrant and can’t accept accused undocumented prisoners without judicial action. ICE mostly uses civil warrants, which are basically just paper or electronic forms that the agents themselves often fill out right before they arrest someone. Under federal law, that’s legal. There is nothing the state can do to help the arrestees if ICE is following federal law. And even if they’re not following the law, I don’t know what the state could legally do except go to court. I asked Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul back in July if he planned to release any guidance to state and local police about how to deal with federal immigration enforcement officers. AG Raoul said he only issues such guidance when there’s a state law involved, and since no state laws exist about this, he said, no guidance would be forthcoming. And, as far as I can tell, he’s right. * Because of federal supremacy, ICE’s core mission is legal in Illinois like it is in every other state. And local cops can help protect immigration authorities and other federal agents if Illinoisans are violating state laws during the course of the federal agents’ duties. This may not be a perfect example, but it’s local and fairly recent…
The Broadview PD is helping ICE, but in a manner that falls within state laws. If we were an actual sanctuary state (which cannot exist under our US Constitution), the local cops would be forced to let the protesters do whatever they wanted. But we’re not because that’s just reality. As far as I know, the state and the county health departments can’t force inspections of that Broadview facility. DCFS can’t legally demand to check on children being held. Forget it, Jake, it’s federal. I mean, if this was really a sanctuary state and Chicago was a sanctuary city, then Mayor Brandon Johnson could’ve ordered federal agents to take off their masks, instead of just asking them to. * Back to Pritzker…
OK, but a lot of those federal police are now working with ICE…
It’s a bit of a pickle for Pritzker. Ask for more federal help, and all he may do is bring in more immigration reinforcements. * This is a classic example of how Illinois is not a “sanctuary” state as so many people believe. These folks will receive no protection from the state and the county even in a county courthouse designed for domestic violence cases…
The woman was an accused abuser, but if ICE is around, what are the chances that a victim with a perhaps shaky visa status will refuse to go to court against her accuser? Pretty high, I imagine. Ugh. * Amanda Pyron, President & CEO of The Network: Advocating Against Domestic Violence, sent out a press release that basically offered ways to avoid federal police, but didn’t detail any state or local protections because there are none…
* One more thing from Pritzker…
Aside from possible lawsuits, that’s really all there is. * Sorry to all sides for the bluntness, but that’s just the way it is. You gotta deal with the reality as it exists, not argue over the lazy hot takes.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
- Pundent - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 9:01 am:
This context is much needed. What the federal government is doing is redeploying law enforcement and military resources to aid ICE under the guise that we’re rounding up violent criminals. In reality these are more often than not immigrants who are peacefully living their lives. The absence of judicial warrants underscores that.
This would be the equivalent of deploying Chicago homicide detectives to round up parking ticket violators under the guise that drivers were rapists and murderers.
- Regular democrat - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 9:07 am:
No need for an apology. Facts are stubborn things and some of us are wiser for reading the post.
- Gruntled University Employee - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 9:10 am:
When the Feds invade there should be a coordinated effort to “follow” these invaders with drones to record their every move. It could prove to be useful in both courts, the court of law and the court of public opinion. What is it that the right always says, “If you’re not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to be worried about” Goose, meet Gander.
- Montrose - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 9:16 am:
These facts are why so much of the strategy to protect people from ICE is getting/keeping them out of public spaces. Private spaces create extra layers of protection (like needing a judicial warrant). If someone’s out in public, there’s little that can be done to stop the feds.
- 40,000 ft - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 9:17 am:
Your regular followers will benefit from having more knowledge about these realities.
I expect the comment section will adapt.
thank you
- jolietj - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 9:18 am:
Sickening. Borders and boundaries are human inventions. As prices continue to rise for consumers as a result of misguided immigration crackdowns, his dream of reduced interest rates just becomes further away.
- ZC - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 9:28 am:
I recommend any and all who want to know the score here, follow a guy named Aaron Reichlin-Melnick (senior fellow at the American Immigration Council). I don’t know if he’s on X but you can find him on bluesky.
He is extremely critical of the Trump administration’s immigration policy but also very fair at pointing out all the legal things Trump can in fact do (even when he disagrees with them personally). I’ve found him very helpful for distinguishing between the outrageous/immoral vs “it’s actually illegal” distinction.
- fs - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 9:31 am:
==Under federal law, that’s legal.==
That’s still debatable. Some Federal Courts, including in the Chicago area, have ruled detaining someone based on those type of administrative field “warrants” are not legal. Which is what spurred some agreement in passing the original version of the Trust Act.
- JS Mill - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 9:39 am:
@Pundent +1 with emphasis (since punctuation marks are verboten).
- JS Mill - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 9:42 am:
The point Rich makes about “sanctuary state” status is excellent. It is almost entirely a ceremonial statement of support rather than an actual action or actions.
- fs - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 9:42 am:
But I agree with everything else you said. Besides the concern of State and local law enforcement not wanting to involve themselves in actions that were in in 2017 arguably unlawful, the other agreed are on the original Trust act was not putting up walls for victims of crime to assist law enforcement. Hence the name of the Act.
- ArchPundit - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 10:03 am:
This is excellent! Let me point to the graph. ATF, DEA, FBI, and Marshals all play important roles in addressing firearm violence and drug enforcement and yet they are chasing around immigrants who are mostly non-offenders or have minor offenses or even have legal status. Why are they being diverted from needed work in states?