|
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 abuser? 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.
- Downstate - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 9:28 am:
“Borders and boundaries are human inventions. As prices continue to rise for consumers ……his dream of reduced interest rates just becomes further away.”
Very interesting take. I’m not sure the Democratic party wants to stake their future on the idea that borders and boundaries are a “human invention”. I don’t see that as a winner.
Similarly, interest rates are lowered to combat inflation (rising prices). So your supposition regarding immigration and interest rates is likely not shared by many economists.
Just sayin.
- 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?
- H-W - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 10:23 am:
Well said, Rich. When it comes to sanctuaries, churches and reservations come to mind, but not courthouses, law offices and police stations. And the former are dependent upon which way the wind blows, who is in the white house. At best, those being terrorized by the current administration can only hide, and pray. The only solace I find is in the knowledge that this historic moment shall pass eventually (this is not our nation’s first rodeo with oppressing immigrants). Those efforts and these always become the bane of history, as humans again manage the affairs of our nation.
- Crispy - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 10:25 am:
Of course this is the case, as anyone who’s been paying attention already knows.
What the administration is trying to do is arguably despicable and immoral, but is technically legal (at least on paper)–with the possible exception of @fs’s points about the questionable legality of field warrants.
Whether the law is followed in practice is another issue. And it really should be illegal for ICE representatives to barrel into a location with their faces covered, without identifying marks, and without even (apparently) being required to show identification when requested. This approach, aside from being cowardly, is also dangerous for targets and bystanders, and has already been used as inspiration by copycat criminals in some instances.
All of it violates the spirit of the Constitution, but sadly, not the letter, apparently. If we ever get past this episode in our history, that needs to change.
- Johnny B - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 10:26 am:
Where is your documentation mostly non offenders were detained by ICE?
Facts don’t submit to your ideology
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna189148
- Skokie Man - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 10:40 am:
We can continue to enact practices that minimize the need for individuals to expose themselves to ICE when accessing vital services and supports. We did this when we effectively created a Zoom court system during the pandemic. We can continue to expand this concept around medical care, public benefits, and many forms of employment.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 10:54 am:
===interest rates are lowered to combat inflation===
That has never been done in history. Now move along and everybody please stay on topic.
- Sue - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 11:04 am:
If you are not a citizen, you only have the legal right to live in the United States if you have been granted that right by the federal government. Neither the state of Illinois nor the city of Chicago can grant that right, but Pritzker and Johnson are setting the stage for conflict, perhaps violent conflict, by leading others to believe that they have done so, or that federal law doesn’t matter because it can somehow be overridden locally, or that the law is somehow so morally unjust (a modern-day Fugitive Slave Law) that it is unjust for the federal government to enforce it.
That being said, thank you for your clarity on this question.
- Excitable Boy - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 11:07 am:
What about the examples we’ve seen of ICE illegally detaining American citizens for things like filming or yelling at them? Are federal agents not subject to any state laws?
- Leslie K - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 11:08 am:
A blunt but important reminder, Rich.
There is a reason Chicago doesn’t call itself a “sanctuary” city. The ordinance in question is the “Welcoming City” ordinance. MAGA et al have imposed the “sanctuary” moniker. Even churches are only “sanctuaries” in this sense if the government chooses to recognize them as such.
- Excitable Boy - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 11:09 am:
- Neither the state of Illinois nor the city of Chicago can grant that right, but Pritzker and Johnson are setting the stage for conflict, perhaps violent conflict, by leading others to believe that they have done so -
The first sentence of Pritzker’s response in this post directly contradicts this statement. As usual you’re making things up.
- Pundent - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 11:16 am:
=I’m not sure the Democratic party wants to stake their future on the idea that borders and boundaries are a “human invention”=
I don’t really see that statement as a Democratic take but more as a moral one. But that could just be me as I don’t identify myself as a member of the Democratic Party. But in the esteemed words of the late great humanist Wordslinger, who I did identify with, see you in church.
- Motambe - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 11:23 am:
Thank you for a level-headed dose of reality, Rich. Well said.
Even the Governor’s comments were measured.
- Friendly Bob Adams - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 11:33 am:
It’s difficult to think of how this works out well. Sending armed troops to Chicago is occupation by a hostile power.
- Norseman - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 11:37 am:
(Hoping this gets past the mysteries of the internet.)
Rich is spot on. JB is bringing a microphone to a tank fight in this environment.
The problem we’re having in this period was discussed by the founders. The need for virtuous men to keep the republic going. We are now faced by a party where virtue is a negative. The sanctuary law only provides marginal benefits if virtuous people abide by it.
- H-W - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 11:39 am:
@ Johnny B
You seem to suggest the words of Trump and ICE are facts. They are not. NBC is simply reporting what ICE and Trump have said. They are not confirming those statements.
For example, the first sentence says Trump asserts there are “more than 10 million unauthorized migrants living in the United States.” That is speculation (by a person known to make delusional statements). It is hyperbole which Trump is known and prone to doing. It is also factually false according to all U.S. Census Bureau data. There are 10+ million immigrants living in the United States. Most are not unauthorized.
The ICE statements about arrests also contradict your inference that those arrested are are all offenders. For example, if 60,000 people are in detention, and 30% have criminal convictions, then there are 18,000 asserted by ICE to be criminals, and 42,000 asserted by ICE not to be criminals in detention. Those listed as “under investigation” are not convicted, so those number represent people being detained without having been adjudicated to be criminal.
Alternatively, if 60,000 people are in detention, and 45% are being investigated as other immigration violations, there is no way to discern how many of those 45% are in the first category (criminal convictions) as well as the second category. But we can safely assume using the ICE data that those “other immigration violations” are not criminal convictions.
Using math, the ICE data belies your argument that Rich is wrong. In fact, the ICE data you provide confirms that most people being held are not criminals.
- NIU Grad - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 12:02 pm:
When I’m talking to moderate Republicans in the burbs who are saying “Well why are they going after just everyday people…I wanted them to go after the criminals,” I bluntly tell them that this is what they voted for and turned the blind eye towards during the campaign. Trump’s advisors have been advocating for a country without immigrants with white men at the forefront for years…you only have to listen what the Stephen Millers and JD Vance’s have been saying.
Democrats really need to step on the gas and remind voters that this is not what they signed up for and stop hiding from the “immigration issue.”
- Here here - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 12:05 pm:
Thanks for a grounded view of the legal limits and facts. From the governor and mayor, there’s been lots of pre-game performative pr that doesn’t really connect w the limits to their powers.
- Steve - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 12:11 pm:
Chicago and Illinois don’t want to help the feds: its’ their right. Federal immigration law doesn’t have sanctuary places. Illegal aliens must realize they are breaking federal immigration law and there is a risk for being in the U.S. illegally.
- ArchPundit - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 12:14 pm:
===There are 10+ million immigrants living in the United States. Most are not unauthorized.
Specifically, this administration has deauthorized people with TPS and detained folks and moved to deport people with Green Cards.
The Untied States has used cheap labor from abroad for years and refused to create a system that allows for legal migration whether as workers or as folks seeking a path to citizenship. We benefited from the cheap labor, encouraged it by not creating a system that effectively worked for legalized workers, and now we are acting like it’s an invasion when we are the ones buying the products they produced.
- H-W - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 12:26 pm:
@ ArchPundit
And one of those “deauthorized” persons with a green card is my child. In that context, sanctuary is a word I take serious, knowing full well that the State is not a grantor of sanctuary.
- JS Mill - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 12:28 pm:
=Borders and boundaries are human inventions. =
Go read Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau. They will tell you that the alternative is undesirable.
National have a right to protect their borders and enforce them. In general, I don’t have a problem with enforcing immigration laws. I have a problem with the way it is currently being enforced. Diverting FBI, ATF, DEA agents who are doing important work (especially as the current administration narrative says cities are out of control) is contrary to their propaganda. I don’t like chasing people just trying to feed themselves around Home Depot either. There are plenty of higher priority targets out there.
But this isn’t really about immigration enforcement. It is about scapegoating people for a political/power effort and a distraction from other things.
I also agree 100% with Pundent and Norseman.
Neither party has ever really done anything about creating a faster cheaper route to citizenship or legal residency for people that come to the land of opportunity which is as American as it can possibly be.
- ArchPundit - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 12:38 pm:
===And one of those “deauthorized” persons with a green card is my child.
I’m sorry and I don’t know what to say beyond that.
- Jerry - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 1:26 pm:
So “sanctuary” is just another marketing slogan like “Pro-Life!” or “woke” or “DEI” or “cancel culture”. Got it. Pretty soon THEY will be coming after “Honkies”.
- cermak_rd - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 1:28 pm:
at least recording is something positive one can do.
- Jerry - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 1:35 pm:
Thank you JSMill. Neither party has done much about immigration. Good points.
- Dotnonymous x - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 1:37 pm:
So, in a nut shell, take a photo when you see soldiers/police/masked armed men violate our Constitution…got it…that should solve everything.
- Dotnonymous x - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 1:38 pm:
Q: What protections are you offering the community besides getting upset?
Pritzker: Well…………………………
……………………….nothing really.
- cermak_rd - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 1:46 pm:
Dotnonymous x
Yeah, it sucks that there doesn’t seem more one can do. But I would make it more than just when you see them doing anything. All the time. Make it so that the invaders can’t do anything without having phones pointing at them. imagine trying to do your job and being filmed all the time and having people not greet you or smile at you but rather just have the phone to look at all the time.
- Steve - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 2:24 pm:
- done anything about creating a faster cheaper route to citizenship or legal residency-
America is a world leader in immmigration. Plenty of people follow the processes of being here legally. Why should it be cheaper to immigrate to the U.S. ?
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/immigration-by-country
- diego - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 2:51 pm:
It’s incredibly easy to see who above has never been in the type of situation that motivates someone to travel to another part of the world where there are deep cultural barriers to integration and where they are nearly universally looked down upon and despite that try to build a life with basically nothing but the clothes on your back. It should be just as easy to dismiss their judgements for lack of introspection and empathy.
- JB13 - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 3:05 pm:
If you believe that national borders don’t matter, and people from elsewhere should be allowed to walk across and “live here in peace,” that’s your right to believe.
But you cannot say that you believe the federal government should enforce and protect the borders, while simultaneously opposing any and all efforts to actually enforce immigration laws and defend even the concept of the borders.
As Rich said, you gotta deal with reality as it exists.
It is a shame that law enforcement must often be not as nice as perhaps we’d like. But I also don’t think that those in the country illegally are going to respond to a gift wrapped invitation to a deportation party, either.
And to be clear: No citizen of another country has the right to live in the U.S. without authorization, whether they are “law-abiding and peaceful” or “criminals.”
It’s just reality, folks.
- H-W - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 3:07 pm:
@ Steve
Your’s is a theoretical argument at best, lacking support. One might counter, which should it cost more to immigrate to the U.S., or why should it cost at all?
If you want to argue it should be harder and take longer to become a U.S. citizen, just say so and explain why you believe that. I personally believe it should be easier and cheaper. I personally think we should hold modern immigrants to the same standard to which my Polish and Irish grandparents were held. My European grandparents were required to register upon arrival (not possessing Visas prior). Once at Ellis Island, they had to show they had at least $50.00 on their persons, and receive a medical checkup. They were required to indicate where they were going (Chicago in one case, New York City in the other case). With regard to where they said they were intending to take up residence, they had to state who would sponsor them at their destinations.
PS - they met and married in Texas, so I guess they broke the law.
I like my system better because it takes the assumption of criminality and danger out of the process, in the absence of direct evidence. It suggests we stand behind the same principles that allowed our own ancestors the protections of due process and equal opportunities asserted in our Constitution.
- ArchPundit - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 3:16 pm:
====But I also don’t think that those in the country illegally are going to respond to a gift wrapped invitation to a deportation party, either.
Then why is ICE picking up people at check ins and hearings so often? The immigrants with some sort of status are responding to invitations and then being detained for deportation.
It’s just reality folks.
If you want to make the immigration system more effective, hire more immigration judges. The reason so many people are in a temporary status is that it takes forever to get an appointment.
What did the current admin do? Fire a lot of immigration judges. Now they want to use military lawyers who have no training in this area of the law and have day jobs.
It’s just reality folks.
- JS Mill - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 3:30 pm:
=America is a world leader in immmigration. Plenty of people follow the processes of being here legally. Why should it be cheaper to immigrate to the U.S. ?=
So you have personally gone through this process?
My inlaws and wife did. It is lengthy and expensive. It need not be. Unlike just about every country in the world (Australia and Liberia being two other examples) the USA is a country founded and populated by immigrants. It is one of the very unique things about America (melting pot) and also one of our greatest strengths. There is no legitimate reason it should take years and cost thousands of dollars. And I don’t care if it is easier or better than other countries. It can still be better.
How is it that trumps wife and parents were fast tracked? What important skill did they have.
Exactly.
- Pundent - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 3:44 pm:
=No citizen of another country has the right to live in the U.S. without authorization, whether they are “law-abiding and peaceful” or “criminals.”=
Correct. But if their only crime is being here it’s a civil matter, not a criminal one. And many of those that are being rounded up are actually following the established legal process. We literally have immigrants being arested who are attempting to attend immigration hearings. It’s like going to city hall to pay an overdue water bill and being thrown in jail before you make it to the counter.
- JS Mill - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 4:24 pm:
=But you cannot say that you believe the federal government should enforce and protect the borders, while simultaneously opposing any and all efforts to actually enforce immigration laws and defend even the concept of the borders.=
Who said that? I know I did not, if that is what you are saying here.
Turning ICE into a paramilitary force filled with new ideological recruits that couldn’t cut the old standards isn’t about protecting our borders. The old ICE was fully capable of doing their jobs.
And of course what @ArchPundit stated.
Read a history book and you will understand what this really is.
- Odysseus - Friday, Sep 5, 25 @ 2:10 am:
@JB13 “If you believe that national borders don’t matter, and people from elsewhere should be allowed to walk across and “live here in peace,” that’s your right to believe.”
And yet that is exactly how it worked for roughly a century after this nation was founded.