(On July 23, 2019, it was reported that only 35 illegal immigrants had been apprehended; the media gleefully argued that was because of President Trump’s tweets warning the illegal immigrants of the impending raids; the acting chief of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency denied that claim.)
On National Public Radio Monday July 15, 2019 Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot said “we do not cooperate with ICE.”[i] This was in line with her earlier actions in which she “ordered the police department to cut off ICE’s access to its immigration database, `I have also personally spoken with ICE leadership in Chicago and voiced my strong objection to any such raids,’ she said….”[ii] She was not alone.
“We’re not going to cooperate….I said that we were not going to engage with ICE in the deportation or apprehension of any immigrants in the City of Baltimore,” said the Mayor of Baltimore, Jack Young.[iii] Crowds assembled on Friday July 12 at City Hall chanting “The People United Will Never Be Defeated”[iv] and vowed to never cooperate with ICE. There were other mass demonstrations across the United States on the same theme.
Mayor Eric Garcetti of Los Angeles said that his City’s government would not be cooperating with ICE. He taped an address to those living illegally in Los Angeles telling them “of which city resources they could take advantage of.”[v] Garcetti “proudly declared his city would not be assisting with the ICE raids.”[vi] Addressing the illegals, Garcetti said “your city is on your side, and rest assured, here in Los Angeles we are not coordinating with ICE.”[vii] The claim was to Federalism and an idea that local police do not deal with immigration matters but rather with only public safety.[viii]
The reported actions by these three mayors builds on something known as the Sanctuary Movement in which at least six major cities announce that they are effectively refusing to enforce the laws by refusing to “cooperate with ICE.” That is significant because ICE “often turns to local police for information and temporary detention space when targeting undocumented immigrants.” The sanctuary cities are Baltimore, Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles, New York, and San Francisco.[ix]
The reasons given are high sounding and may even evoke tears. The Mayor of Denver, Michael Hancock, said that President Trump “used our vulnerable immigrants and refugees who are fearing for their very livelihoods and their families to distract us….Immigrants are productive contributors to the economic and social cultural fabric of our community, and when they feel unsafe, that is a problem.”[x] Lightfoot said it was an issue of protecting children. Garcetti said “we draw strength from the diverse dynamic communities that call our city home and we support immigrant families because they’re our friends, neighbors, colleagues, confidants, our fellow taxpayers, local business owners, and co-workers. For us, this isn’t partisan politics.”[xi]
If it wasn’t partisan politics then it was insurrection.
On one side were the universal individualists with their ideology of Liberalism that unquestionably serves the powerful private interests who rely on things like people feeding into the economic system and who rely on factions or division in society to keep the emphasis off these same powerful private interests and who especially dislike strong leaders. On the other side was the US Government led by a strong leader, Donald Trump, who was executing the laws of the United States of America. And now the political entity known as the United States and the society known as America were faced with a very real practical and existential problem – if the rule of law is so important, how can officials sworn to uphold the rule of law refuse to enforce the law with impunity?
ICE, ICE, Baby
The agency known as ICE is the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, a division of the Department of Homeland Security which was created in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks and formed to protect the homeland during the Global War on Terror which is still ongoing at last check. ICE exists to protect the homeland by enforcing the law in regards to immigration matters.[xii]
Immediately, one sees a disconnect between reality and rhetoric. If there is a global war on terror, then shouldn’t the borders be protected against the undocumented which means those people over whom there is no visibility for law enforcement and the military which is so necessary to winning any war? If the borders are not protected and the laws not enforced against this reality, then the American leadership really don’t believe there is a Global War on Terror and that is really just one of many other euphemisms for a war by any other name against a target group – and as I have argued earlier, that target group is Moslems and the belief system which teaches a different way by which to organize society with that different way being Islam. Islam, sincerely held and believed, cuts into the profits and markets of the capitalists.
Yet there is another serious disconnect here that puts the lie to the system of Liberalism. If the Mayors and their collaborators are in violation of the law, which I argue that they are, then the failure to enforce the law over their actions and to hold them accountable for their actions is yet another failure of Liberalism for it reveals that again the capitalists win for it is in their favor, it favors the elites, to have illegal aliens in the country taking jobs of the lower classes and generally causing disruption or faction. Without holding the violators accountable, government, and President Trump in particular, loses moral legitimacy to the extent this was ever held by a ruler or a government based on Liberalism.
Liberalism, through its democracy, divides people and creates factions, something that James Madison embraced in Federalist X. The better to call attention away from what is really happening which is what Professor Ian Haney Lopez, author of Dog Whistle Politics: How Coded Racial Appeals Have Reinvented Racism and Wrecked the Middle Class, stated on July 16, 2019 on NPR, and which more than a century ago noted writer and commentator Augustus Myers (author of The Great American Fortunes, and America Strikes Back: A Record of Contrasts) noted. Enforcing the laws is not so beneficial to them in this case, and Trump’s failure or refusal to call this an insurrection or its equivalent amounts to a concession on his part that he is really not for the little guy, and certainly not for the little White guy as the media machine makes him out to be. Donald Trump is really not a racist, he is simply for the elites and the system that allows the few to garner the much and to keep their power and wealth while letting in those with ability and drive and the right stuff. If you doubted that, then you just have to take note of his criticism of “the squad” or group of four Democratic congresswomen[xiii] who are considered, perhaps benignly, to be progressives.
On Sunday, July 14, President Trump said to “the squad” that they needed to “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came” The uproar was immediate and intense and the media, along with political figures, began a high tech chant against the President that his comment was racist and had to be repudiated. [xiv] Trump doubled down and on the evening of July 17 at a rally in North Carolina, about a day after the House of Representatives voted to censure his comments as “racist.” He said that Representative Omar had “a history of launching vicious, anti-Semitic screeds,” and in response the crowd answered with a series of loud, powerful chants from the crowd to “send her back” referring to sending Representative Omar[xv] back to her home country, which, incidentally, is Somalia though she is a naturalized US citizen.
Within hours of this powerful display of his power and of the complete disconnect between the elites (who control the Congress and the media) and the everyday people who pay the taxes and fight the wars, President Donald J. Trump, often called by the media as the champion of the white working class and as NPR stated on the morning of July 19 who is targeting the same people for his reelection bid in 2020, was under pressure from “a growing number of Republican lawmakers” to repudiate the chant.[xvi] Amid claims from some that Representative Omar should be in fear of her life, the President threw the chanters, and his people, overboard when he said “he was not happy” with the chants.[xvii] So much for solidarity and so much for Trump’s loyalty to his constituency. His loyalty, like that of the Democratic candidates, is to the one percent, the ruling elites, those with money and with wealth in this society.
And that is why, when faced with widespread refusal to enforce the laws by Democratic mayors of major cities and tens of thousands of supporters, when faced with what amounts to be insurrection by political leaders and their minions around the United States, and during a time of Global War against Terrorism, the President of the United States will turn a blind eye thereby threatening the little guys but maintaining the “peace.”
What Is The Law?
There are a number of laws that criminalize conduct undertaken by individuals entering or trying to enter the United States without proper authorization, and there are laws criminalizing conduct by those who help them or hinder the operations of ICE to enforce the immigration law.
It is unlawful to bring any alien to the United States who does not have a valid passport or an unexpired visa as required (8 USC 1323) and it is unlawful for an alien to enter or attempt to enter the United States without examination by immigration officers, by using false representations, or at a place not designated by immigration officers (8 USC 1325). Reentry of aliens who have been removed is also a criminal offense (8 USC 1326). It is criminal to “conceal…harbor…or shield….from detection” any alien who comes into, enters, or remains in the US unlawfully, and it is criminal to conspire to do the same. 8 USC 1324. Depending on the offense and the severity of the offense, punishment may include a fine and up to life in prison. In particular, aiding aliens to enter the United States after those aliens were convicted of an aggravated felony is a crime punishable by up to ten years in prison. (8 USC 1327.)
Immigration officers “have the power without warrant – (1) to interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States; (2) to arrest any alien…; (3) within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States, to board and search for aliens…(4) to make arrests for felonies which have been committed and which are cognizable under any law of the United States regulating the admission, exclusion, expulsion, or removal of aliens….and (5) to make arrests….for any felony cognizable under the laws of the Untied States….” (8 USC 1357.) Customs officers may demand the assistance of any person “in making any arrest, search, or seizure authorized by any law enforced or administered by customs officers, if such assistance may be necessary” and failure to assist is a criminal offense. (19 USC 507.)
However, harboring illegal aliens or hindering the execution of the lawful powers of immigration officers especially on a large and public scale as occurred during the past week implicates other provisions of United States law. Perhaps most notably there is 10 USC 253 which states in relevant part:
“The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it… (2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.”
Obstruction or opposition to the execution of the immigration laws is fairly easy to see. Insurrection may be a tougher sell, but the Democrats and their followers are darn close. Insurrection has been defined as “A rising or rebellion of citizens against their government, usually manifested by acts of violence. Under federal law, it is a crime to incite, assist, or engage in such conduct against the United States. West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008….”[xviii] Rebellion is defined as the “deliberate, organized resistance, by force and arms, to the laws or operations of the government, committed by a subject…In old English law, the term `rebellion’ was also applied to contempt of a court manifested by disobedience to its process, particularly of the court of chancery….”[xix]
So, what has been the history of suppressing rebellions, or something like them, in the United States? We turn to Paul J. Scheips and his scholarly work, The Role of Federal Military Forces In Domestic Disorders 1945-1992.[xx] Between September, 1945 and September, 1957 the National Guard was called out about 30 times to “maintain law and order under state…control” and no federal troops were called out.[xxi] The reasons were primarily to deal with industrial disputes, racial disturbances, prison riots, and a nationalist uprising in Puerto Rico.[xxii] These were instances of when ordinary people, dissatisfied with the way things were going, became violent and threatening. What presents in 2019 is somewhat different – elected officials rejecting the call to follow the law, and there is some precedent. This is a different “pattern of resistance” as Scheips puts it, and the concept of “massive resistance” whereby governing authorities used the claim to states’ rights to invalidate federal pronouncements came into vogue in opposition to what became known as the Civil Rights movement.[xxiii]
A couple of vignettes are in order, though certainly more could be discussed.
In September 1957, three years after the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education in which racial desegregation was mandated, Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus called out the National Guard ostensibly to preempt any civil disturbances when nine Black students showed up for school. A noted opponent of desegregation, Governor Faustus was suspected to be using the Guard to prevent the students from enrolling. As the month progressed, Little Rock became very tense and the Mayor called for federal assistance. President Dwight Eisenhower with an Executive Order and in accordance with 10 USC 333 (precursor of 10 USC 253 as discussed above) federalized the Arkansas National Guard and put them under the command of the Regular Army, and on September 24 a battle group of the 101st Airborne Division entered Little Rock thereby effectively ending any opposition to the admission of the children into Central High School. Three days later, the President said that “Failure to act . . . would be tantamount to acquiescence in anarchy and the dissolution of the union.”[xxiv]
Meanwhile, on the legal front, the states’ rights argument advanced by those intent on blocking the Brown holding was defeated. Utilizing the principles of nullification (a legislative action to block the implementation or the recognition of a federal law or court decision) and interposition which means a number of states acting to nullify a federal law or pronouncement, Dixiecrats and others sought to find a legal basis for their actions and they reached back to the time of the Articles of Confederation. These men, thinking that America and the United States existed on timeless principles, were sorely disappointed when the Supreme Court of the United States abolished these legal arguments in Cooper v. Aaron, 358 US 1 (1958) and in Bush v. Orleans Parish School Board, 188 F.Supp. 916 (ED LA, 1960), affirmed 364 US 500 (1960).
Governor Ross Barnett of Mississippi, a successful and wealthy trial lawyer before becoming governor, publicly stated on September 13, 1962 that he would not allow James Meredith to enroll in the University of Mississippi, that he and other state officials refused to submit to a federal court to the point of going to jail, and that the doctrine of interposition allowed him as a state governor to declare unconstitutional or a nullity the laws and proclamations of the federal government.[xxv] This drew the ire of President John F. Kennedy and in particular the Justice Department of Robert Kennedy.[xxvi] Violence threatened, and so the Kennedy administration called in the federal troops, elements of the 23rd Infantry Division and the 9th Infantry Division, under the authority granted the President by 10 USC 333 (now 10 USC 253).[xxvii] Addressing the nation during the period the matter was devolving into riots, JFK said “My obligation, under the Constitution and the statutes of the United States, was and is to implement the orders of the court with whatever means are necessary, and with as little force and civil disorder as the circumstances permit.”[xxviii]
Federalism appears to be the argument advanced by the modern-day opponents to the Constitution in the form of the Democrat mayors of the major US citizens identified above. However, that argument is likely to be a nonstarter for at least two reasons. First, the effect of their federalism claim is that it amounts to nullity and interposition, it has the same effect as rendering unconstitutional the immigration and criminal laws pertaining to immigration. Second, the claim of federalism only applies to legislation, and not refusals by elected officials to enforce the law, as set forth in a case by the name of Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 US 243 (2006).
Can We Make Sense of All This?
How is it that the Governors of Arkansas and Mississippi had federal troops called on them and the Mayors of Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, and others, have not? Some could make distinctions in the nature of the law being effectively blocked, or make factual distinctions in the situations.
Instead, I submit that there is a unifying principle here that makes these disparate treatments of similar situations understandable. It is this: that capitalism, as it came to form the society known as America and as it is protected and advanced by the political entity known as the United States with its Constitution, is the real driving force of the American ideology or Liberalism. The powerful private interests are harmed by segregation and by policing illegal aliens. The former is a barrier to markets and the latter a barrier to the free flow of peoples across borders. Every other value, every other law, is therefore subordinated to these economic demands. While terms like racist are used to condemn those who approved of segregation or opposed integration, and an appeal is made to eschew their supposed hatred; and while appeals are made to favor the immigrant as Jesus and His family were once immigrants, the reality is that these concepts, which some may call even Christian concepts of moral action in society, are used to advance the accumulation and the enjoyment of wealth primarily by the wealthiest and the most talented mostly to the exclusion of everyone else. In other words, Christian moral acts are employed for immoral (certainly for less than purely good intentions or good purposes) purposes and hence these acts become themselves immoral as the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1749-1761 explains. But such a situation is bound to occur when Liberal societies come about because without an institutional Catholic Church and without policies based on the Divine Positive Law (Catholic Faith) then actions are undertaken for corruption and everyone is recruited to assist with the thought and belief that they are doing right and good. The Catholic Faith protects the little guy, and it protects the souls of all of those in society when it properly forms the basis of public policy. Moral actions are moral provided the object is moral, the intentions are moral and the circumstances are moral. Failure on any of those three points is moral failure and makes the actions immoral. Truncated versions of Catholicism cannot be employed morally — all of Catholicism must be implemented to destroy the structures of sin that otherwise arise. Employing Catholic concepts to support a non-Catholic or immoral regime does not lend legitimacy to that regime.
The laws of a Liberal society are supposed to regulate behavior between various actors in society, or be a traffic cop in other words. Many in America believe that law is supposed to order society and also protect people, and so that is the idea behind having an executive who enforces the laws made by the people’s representatives. That is the idea behind the rule of law and the government of the Americans. When the Executive doesn’t enforce, or others refuse to assist in the enforcement of the laws, then the theory breaks down and even the little guy questions whether or not he is protected. At that point, the rule of law is no longer and it becomes the rule by fiat (even if it is by well meaning, ideological low level officials) – something the American Revolution and the American Experiment was supposed to eliminate.
What can be the reason for this? Because the American Experiment has, like the American Revolution had, a secret agenda. That agenda is to create a homeland for the projection of an ideology by which to reorder societies around the world for the benefit of powerful private interests, that is, the wealthy. The American Experiment is about establishing a one world order based on capitalism. The American Experiment is about a one world order that serves Mammon, not God.
[i] 1A, NPR, July 15, 2019.
[ii] Alicia A. Caldwell, Alex Leary, “US Cities Prepare for Federal Immigration Raids,” June 22, 2019, Wall Street Journal, https://www.wsj.com as accessed July 14, 2019.
[iii] Pat Warren, “`We’re Not Going To Cooperate’/ICE Agents Won’t Have Baltimore’s Help In Arrests, Mayor Jack Young Says,” CBS Baltimore, https;//baltimore.csblocal.com as accessed July 14, 2019.
[iv] Ibid.
[v] Nick Givas, “LA Mayor Eric Garcetti releases video directed at illegal immigrants amid ICE raids: `We are in this together’”, July 14, 2019, Fox News, https://www.foxnews.com as accessed July 14, 2019.
[vi] Ibid.
[vii] Ibid.
[viii] Ibid.
[ix] Lauren Aratani, “US Majors fight back and pledge help for migrants targeted in Ice raids: officials to support undocumented migrants in their cities `We’re doing everything we can…to push back against Trump’”, July 12, 2019, the Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com as accessed July 14, 2019.
[x] Ibid.
[xi] Givas.
[xii] ICE, Official Webste of the Department of Homeland Security, https://www.ice.gov/about as accessed July 14, 2019.
[xiii] Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), and Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.)
[xiv]Feliz Sonmez and Mike DeBonis, “Trump tells four liberal congresswomen to `go back’ to their countries, prompting Pelosi to defend them,” July 14, 2019, The Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-says-four-liberal-congresswomen-should-go-back-to-the-crime-infested-places-from-which-they-came/2019/07/14/b8bf140e-a638-11e9-a3a6-ab670962db05_story.html?utm_term=.ca30288266d3 as accessed July 19, 2019
[xv] Quint Forgey, “Trump disavows `send her back’ chant from rally,” July 18, 2019, Politico, https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/18/trump-disavows-send-her-back-chant-from-his-rally-1421371
[xvi] Quint Forgey, “Trump disavows `send her back’ chant from rally,” July 18, 2019, Politico, https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/18/trump-disavows-send-her-back-chant-from-his-rally-1421371
[xvii] Ibid.
[xviii] “insurrection” Legal Dictionary, https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/insurrection as accessed July 14, 2019.
[xix] “What is rebellion?’ The Law Dictionary, https;//thelawdictionary.org/rebellion.
[xx] Center of Military History United States Army Washington, D.C., 2012.
[xxi] Ibid., 4
[xxii] Ibid., 4
[xxiii] Ibid., 19
[xxiv] Ibid., 39-53
[xxv] Scheip, 79
[xxvi] Robert Kennedy said on May 6, 1961, “We . . . must avoid another Little Rock. . . . It is not only that such incidents do incalculable harm to the children, . . . seriously undermine respect for law and order, and cause serious economic and moral damage. Such incidents hurt our country in the eyes of the world.” Scheip, 69.
[xxvii] Scheip, 81-99.
[xxviii] Scheip, 101.