"Adopting the position of sanctuary cities is an abuse of the federalist system; our federal sovereignty and national security are at stake".

 

Sanctuary cities and states have leapt over the line

Susan Quinn | January 23, 2026 www.americanthinker.com

High-profile arrests are non-negotiable.

President Trump has once again condemned sanctuary cities, particularly regarding their irresponsible actions to ignore immigration law. Protestors have attacked, spit on, and screamed at ICE agents, convinced that their own violations of federal law are justified.

But the Democrats’ approach in Minneapolis against ICE is patently illegal, as they should have learned when they tried to nullify federal tariffs within their boundaries in 1832, fundamentally trying to nullify federal law:

What the Democrats of South Carolina did back then is essentially what the Democrats of Minneapolis are doing today, fomenting a 21st century nullification crisis by making it nearly impossible to enforce federal immigration law in the territory under their jurisdiction. Trump, who has ordered 1,500 active-duty troops stationed in Alaska to prepare for a possible deployment to Minnesota, is well within his rights (and within historical precedent) to respond in the same vein as [President] Jackson did to what amounts to a nullification crisis.

Indeed, the whole point of so-called sanctuary laws is to make it difficult or impossible to enforce federal immigration laws — to nullify them. Sanctuary policies like the ones operative in Minneapolis (and many other Democrat-controlled cities) prohibit state and local law enforcement from working with federal immigration authorities.

President Trump’s position against the chaos is clear; last year, he issued an executive order which laid out the (il)legality of such behavior:

[S]ome State and local officials nevertheless continue to use their authority to violate, obstruct, and defy the enforcement of Federal immigration laws. This is a lawless insurrection against the supremacy of Federal law and the Federal Government’s obligation to defend the territorial sovereignty of the United States. Beyond the intolerable national security risks, such nullification efforts often violate Federal criminal laws, including those prohibiting obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), unlawfully harboring or hiring illegal aliens (8 U.S.C. 1324), conspiracy against the United States (18 U.S.C. 371), and conspiracy to impede Federal law enforcement (18 U.S.C. 372). Assisting aliens in violating Federal immigration law could also violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq.).

Democrats are guilty of insurrection, and they may even be violating the RICO Act.

Trump’s order directed federal agencies to take decisive action against such lawlessness, and a few months later in August, Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote to 32 sanctuary jurisdictions to let them know that she intended to use the power of the purse to compel lawfulness: the E.O. directed the DOJ to identify funds that could be denied to those jurisdictions for their non-compliance. Although the federal government’s ability to deny funds are limited, they do exist:

The federal government does have a mechanism for getting states and cities to voluntarily do what they can’t be forced to do. It’s called money. Congress could deny states or cities certain funds unless they abolish their sanctuary policies. There are limits to this strategy: Washington can’t shut off unrelated funds that states or cities need to keep functioning. But immigrant-related federal funding—for example, money devoted to sheltering new, legal immigrants—could presumably be denied to states and cities that maintain sanctuary policies.

The blue states may still pursue attacks on federal law, refusing to cooperate with ICE, and creating mayhem; three people were already arrested for allegedly violating the FACE Act, as they protested inside a church that was holding services this past Sunday.

The lawless encouragement by Democrat leaders reflects a blatant disregard for managing our borders, for removing criminal illegal aliens from the street, and for protecting ICE and our citizens from the agitators’ hysterical behavior.

Adopting the position of sanctuary cities is an abuse of the federalist system; our federal sovereignty and national security are at stake. The federal government must be allowed to implement immigration law, and take actions against any state to stop this abhorrent, illegal, and unconstitutional mayhem.

Maybe it’s time for state leaders to be charged with obstruction of justice, or worse.