Photo courtesy of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Federal and local authorities set up a checkpoint Wednesday night in Washington, D.C., stopping cars for seat belt violations and broken taillights. Many of the more than 20 officers on site wore Homeland Security Investigations or ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations vests, and witnesses said drivers were also asked about immigration status.
Nearly 100 protesters gathered, chanting, holding signs warning motorists about the checkpoint, and shouting at ICE agents to “read the Constitution.” However, ICE is constitutional.
Some liberals also accused President Trump of being a tyrant and a Nazi, claiming he was making his own immigration laws. In reality, ICE is largely enforcing existing laws, with very little new immigration legislation passed during Trump’s second term, and of course, the president does not make laws; Congress does.
Congress, the highest office directly elected by the people, has established these immigration statutes. This suggests that a majority of Americans support safe streets, secure borders, and the deportation of criminals.
ICE has broad powers to question, arrest, detain, and process the deportation of any noncitizen. Under the 287(g) Program, created by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, ICE can delegate certain immigration enforcement functions to state and local law enforcement officers under its direction and oversight.
Its authority to enforce immigration law is primarily granted through the Immigration and Nationality Act, passed by Congress in 1952.
The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected constitutional challenges to Section 1226 and ruled, in an 8–1 decision, that states do not have the authority to challenge the executive branch’s power to set enforcement priorities. This raises questions about whether sanctuary states and cities are in violation of federal law, but it also underscores that ICE operates under clear statutory authority.
Despite claims that Trump is making up his own rules, most of the laws ICE is enforcing have existed for decades, with only a few new measures enacted since he returned to office.
ICE’s authority to enforce immigration law is primarily granted through the Immigration and Nationality Act, passed by Congress in 1952, which gives the agency broad powers to question, arrest, detain, and process the deportation of any noncitizen.
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 added Section 287(g) to the Immigration and Nationality Act, allowing ICE to delegate certain immigration enforcement functions to state and local law enforcement officers under its oversight.
Further powers come from Section 1226(a), which allows immigration officers, upon issuance of an administrative warrant, to arrest and detain a noncitizen pending a decision on removal. Federal regulation 8 C.F.R. § 287.7 also authorizes ICE to issue detainers to hold removable aliens for up to 48 hours. These provisions have been on the books for years and remain the foundation of ICE operations.
Since returning to office, Trump has supported only a few new immigration measures, the most notable being the Laken Riley Act, signed into law on January 29, 2025. This legislation requires the Department of Homeland Security to detain certain noncitizens arrested for burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting.
It also mandates detention without bond for those admitting to, charged with, or convicted of theft-related crimes, assaulting a police officer, or committing crimes resulting in death or serious bodily injury. Additionally, the law authorizes states to sue the federal government over immigration enforcement decisions or failures.
Bottom Line: Trump is using existing immigration laws from 1952 and 1996 for ICE enforcement activities. The only new immigration law he has signed is the Laken Riley Act, which expands mandatory detention requirements and gives states power to sue the federal government over immigration enforcement decisions.
Several measures have been introduced in Congress to eliminate sanctuary cities. The No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act (H.R. 32) would make any state or political subdivision ineligible for federal funds intended to benefit non-U.S. nationals unlawfully present if that jurisdiction withholds information about immigration status or refuses to cooperate with immigration detainers.
The Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act (S. 1068), sponsored by Senator Ted Cruz and 19 original cosponsors, would bar sanctuary jurisdictions from receiving certain federal grants, including Economic Development Assistance and Community Development Block Grants. More recently, the House voted to nullify Washington, D.C.’s “sanctuary city” law and require the city to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.
Trump administration officials point out that existing federal laws already allow for serious penalties against state or local leaders who obstruct immigration enforcement. Under Title 8 U.S.C. § 1324, it is a crime to knowingly harbor, conceal, or shield illegal aliens from federal law enforcement officers. Impeding federal officers in the performance of their duties is also a criminal offense.
President Trump’s executive orders have directed the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security to consider all lawful actions, civil or criminal, against jurisdictions that interfere with federal immigration enforcement. The America First Legal Foundation has reinforced this stance, sending letters to leaders in Los Angeles and San Diego warning of legal consequences for sanctuary policies, citing clear federal statutes that criminalize harboring or shielding illegal aliens and obstructing federal enforcement efforts.
The post Protesters Tell ICE to “Read the Constitution,” But Their Actions Are Constitutional appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
