Illinois Governor Creates a New Category Of “Illegals”
Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker recently declared that “his” local law enforcement would defy federal deportation orders if those orders targeted illegals who supposedly follow the law and contribute somehow to their communities. He failed to define what contributing to their communities means.
His tough stance emerged during an appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union,” where host Dana Bash asked how Illinois was preparing for new guidelines that permitted immigration enforcement in places like schools, churches, and small businesses.
In response, Pritzker offered a slippery perspective on immigration enforcement, acknowledging the need to deport violent criminals while defending those illegals who have become part of what he calls “the social fabric” of his state.
The Governor’s “Word Salad” Defense of Illegals
During the interview, Pritzker stressed that Illinois would assist the federal government in apprehending violent offenders who are in the state illegally and pose a threat to public safety. His stance became more pointed when the conversation shifted to “law-abiding” illegals who have spent years in the United States. Law-abiding illegals? Seriously?
Pritzker urged creating a path to citizenship for these law-abiding illegals, arguing that illegals who say they are working and say they are supporting their families should not be swept up in mass deportations. He believes the federal government should focus on dangerous illegals rather than those who are simply members of an illegal community. And what legal precedent would he have for making a statement like this?
He also pointed to an Illinois law that allegedly protects “law-abiding, undocumented people” from indiscriminate detention or removal, underscoring his commitment to resisting what he deems unjust federal mandates. So now we need to define “unjust federal mandates.” Who gets to say what’s just and what’s unjust? I guess the courts will decide.
A Push for Comprehensive Reform
The governor’s remarks reflect a broader argument about how to fix an open borders problem created by the Biden administration. While Pritzker has seemingly switched his view and now says that border security is a crucial component of national policy, he emphasized that deportation is only one tool among many.
A sweeping solution, he argued, must include a reasonable pathway to legal status for those who have long contributed to the economy and have established lives within the United States.
According to Pritzker, preserving illegal families is central to Illinois’s approach. He made it clear that the state will not willingly participate in deportation raids that target individual illegals who have no criminal records. This stance sets Illinois on a collision course with Trump’s Department of Justice, which is now warning that state and local officials could face prosecution if they obstruct federal immigration orders.
The Threat of Legal Action
Tensions between the federal government and supposed sanctuary jurisdictions have been increasing since President Trump took office, as his administration emphasized strict enforcement of immigration laws and appears to be making good on that promise.
The Department of Justice issued a recent memo indicating that local and state authorities could be prosecuted if they refuse to comply with lawful immigration-related requests. Border Czar Tom Homan threatened legal consequences for officials who defy federal orders, referencing Title 8, United States Code 1324, which prohibits harboring and concealing undocumented immigrants.
Pritzker’s statements about standing firm against deportations suggest that a legal showdown is coming. Homan had already warned that any governor who tries to block federal agents from carrying out deportation orders would face a forceful response.
The clash underscores the broader national debate over how to handle millions of illegals who have been given free transportation into Illinois as well as various government money incentives to stay. However, it’s important to note that such defiance could lead to legal battles and more strained state-federal relations, potentially affecting federal funding and other forms of cooperation.
In the postwar period, operations like “Operation Wetback” in 1954 targeted illegal Mexican immigrants.
Tracing the History of Deportations In The U.S.
Deportation policies in the United States have a long and complex history, evolving significantly since the late eighteenth century. The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 allowed the president to deport non-citizens deemed threats to national security, marking the beginning of a trend. However, large-scale removals were relatively rare until the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when significant shifts in federal immigration control occurred.
Ellis Island became synonymous with immigration processing and, by extension, deportation for those deemed ineligible to remain. Over three million people were deported from Ellis Island between 1892 and 1924.
The National Origins Act of 1924 introduced quotas that increased expulsions of immigrants from certain regions, and the Great Depression saw mass deportations of Mexican nationals under so-called “repatriation” programs. World War II brought a different wave of forced relocations and deportations, notably of Japanese Americans. In the postwar period, operations like “Operation Wetback” in 1954 targeted illegal Mexican immigrants.
The late twentieth century introduced new enforcement tools, particularly after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Laws and programs sought to identify and remove individuals with criminal records, which blurred lines between federal and local enforcement.
As a result, sanctuary policies and state-level protections for many illegal groups grew in popularity. These measures aimed to protect illegals from deportation sweeps. Understanding this historical context is crucial to fully grasp the legal significance of Governor Pritzker’s stance.
When States Refuse to Cooperate
State-level resistance to federal mandates is not a new phenomenon. Although it has taken many forms throughout American history, examples include states refusing to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act in the mid-nineteenth century, California’s objections to Chinese exclusion laws, and the Sanctuary Movement of the 1980s that helped import illegal Central American refugees.
More recent laws, such as California’s SB 54 and similar initiatives in Oregon and New York, have prohibited local agencies from using public resources to aid immigration enforcement. These measures are plainly designed to keep illegals in the country.
Gonna Be A Showdown
Governor Pritzker’s defiance underscores a pivotal moment in the national debate over illegal immigration. As the federal government intensifies its enforcement efforts, state leaders who oppose mass deportation of illegals may find themselves in legal battles that could reach the highest courts.
While supporters of strict immigration enforcement argue that laws must be upheld to protect national security and sovereignty, liberals quietly maintain that mass deportations could reduce Democratic voter roles.
Pritzker’s vow to “stand up for those law-abiding, undocumented people” places Illinois at the forefront of this debate. Again, “law-abiding” illegals? How about lawful illegals? Or unlawful legals? I guess you use what sticks politically, even if it’s absurd.
Obviously, a meaningful debate will be impossible until politicians stop using weaponized word salad. The result will be a head-on collision, which hopefully will be settled in the courts and not with guns.
Missing from the discussion also is the role of local sheriffs. Are they Pritzker’s local law enforcement? No, they are not. They have a separate jurisdiction. There are lots of legal knots to untie as this issue moves forward.
The post Has A New Civil War Started In Illinois? appeared first on Off The Grid News.
