What level of immigration enforcement will Democrats actually accept?
Last week, the streets of Los Angeles burned over immigration enforcement. The incendiary exchange between California's political class and federal immigration authorities unfolded as America watched.
But I have just one question for my friends on the political left: What level of immigration law enforcement is actually acceptable?
This isn't a rhetorical jab. It's a genuine inquiry into where the line resides. At what point does enforcing duly enacted federal law become illegitimate in the eyes of those who advocate for sanctuary city policies and decry any interior enforcement as a moral outrage?
Let's be clear about what federal law permits.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers don't just have the right to operate in all 50 states; they have a legal obligation to do so.
More: ICE says nearly 200 immigrants arrested in Nashville during recent operations
The Immigration and Nationality Act, specifically in section 8 U.S.C. § 1357, grants federal immigration officers the authority to interrogate and arrest non-citizens without a warrant if they have 'reason to believe that the alien so arrested is in the United States in violation of any such law or regulation and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest.'
This isn't some obscure, rarely used statute. It's the bedrock of federal immigration enforcement. The "probable cause" standard here is consistent with what we expect from other law enforcement agencies. We can and should demand that ICE agents meet this standard, but we cannot pretend it doesn't exist.
Consider the typical scenario that often gets labeled a "raid." It's not, as often portrayed, a random sweep of a neighborhood. These are enforcement actions targeted at specific employers based on evidence. In fact, worksite enforcement is a regular part of ICE operations, and it isn't limited to Democrat-dominated states. The event that started the conflagration in Los Angeles on June 6 was a basic law enforcement engagement at an apparel manufacturing business.
This brings us back to the central question.
If federal agents have established probable cause that a business is a hub of illegal employment, at what point in that process is it acceptable for protestors to throw rocks at officers? When is the appropriate time to set a self-driving Waymo vehicle ablaze? Is there a particular brand of sneakers that's fair game for looting when you're upset about immigration enforcement?
All this boorish behavior simply demonstrates the need for even more law enforcement.
The performative outrage from politicians like Gov. Gavin Newsom in his exchanges with ICE Director Tom Homan is a distraction. The issue isn't about tough talk; it's about the consistent and safe application of the law. States cannot create zones where federal law is null and void, no matter what they label them.
More: Inside the volunteer group patrolling Nashville to look for ICE activity
The Supreme Court has affirmed states do not have to assist in federal enforcement. They also cannot actively obstruct it.
If Democrats in California and elsewhere fundamentally oppose the current immigration laws, the path to changing them runs through Washington, D.C., not through angry mobs on the streets of Los Angeles. Win a presidential election, hold majorities in Congress, and you can rewrite the nation's immigration statutes.
Just don't look at the polling. As it turns out, Americans aren't into lawlessness.
If Democratic leaders can't articulate a vision for how federal immigration laws can be consistently and peacefully enforced, then their position isn't that different from the masked protestor waving a foreign flag on the hood of a burning car.
They might be wearing suits in positions of power, but their contempt for the rule of law is exactly the same.
USA TODAY Network Tennessee Columnist Cameron Smith is a Memphis-born, Brentwood-raised recovering political attorney raising four boys in Nolensville, Tennessee, with his particularly patient wife, Justine. Direct outrage or agreement to smith.david.cameron@gmail.com or @DCameronSmith on Twitter. Agree or disagree? Send a letter to the editor to letters@tennessean.com
This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: Democrats at ICE protests show contempt for federal law | Opinion
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
39 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump's support keeps growing while Democrats howl at the moon
California Sen. Alex Padilla recently crashed a press conference by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. He deliberately wore no identification. He gave no advance warning that he would disrupt her briefing. Instead, Padilla barged forward to the podium, shouting about the deportation of illegal aliens. Advertisement Immediately, Padilla got his media-moment wish — once Secret Service agents, who had no idea who he was, forcibly removed him. Alex Padilla unsuccessfully attempted to push past law enforcement to reach Noem's lectern. AP Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) recently attempted a pseudo-filibuster, speaking nonstop for 25 hours straight — not to delay legislation, but to fixate on President Donald Trump. Advertisement South Carolina Democratic state Rep. Julie von Haefen posted on social media an image of a bloody guillotine. It bore the title 'In these difficult times, some cuts may be necessary' and was juxtaposed with an image of a hanging, beheaded Trump, who, a year ago, was the target of two failed assassination attempts. The more Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and California Gov. Gavin Newsom scream at Trump for nationalizing the California Guard to stop LA's nightly violent anti-ICE protests, the more the two appear on the side of those who riot, destroy property and attack police. Yet who really wants to side with illegal aliens who spit on and burn American flags while waving Mexican flags? Former Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, along with other prominent Democrats, mocked the recent Washington, DC, military parade commemorating the 250th anniversary of the army, comparing it unfavorably with their own concurrent 'No Kings' anti-Trump protests. Advertisement Those demonstrations — subsidized by left-wing billionaire donors — were utterly incoherent. No other president has faced more lower federal court injunctions blocking executive orders than Trump. People march down Fifth Avenue at the No Kings protest against Trump on June 14, 2025 in New York. Zuma / Indeed, dozens of cherry-picked, left-wing district judges — the real unchecked 'kings' — now routinely block almost every one of Trump's executive orders. Advertisement Why are opposition Democrats not offering alternative agendas and compromises? Could they partner with Trump to allow green cards to illegal aliens who have no criminal records, have not been on public assistance, are now employed and have resided in the United States for over five years? Could Democrats meet with the president to express bipartisan support for democratic Israel in its existential war with theocratic Iran? Instead, why do Democrats throw two-year-old temper tantrums to howl nihilistically at everything Trump says and does? One, exasperated Democrats lack all levers of political power — the Congress, the White House and the Supreme Court. So, they take to the media and the streets. Two, Democrats are permanently frustrated that the more they scream and stomp, the more polls show radical declines in public support for their party. Three, their nemesis, 79-year-old Trump, seems impervious to Democratic lawfare, threats and smears. Advertisement Despite the hysterical attacks, he is still polling now about where prior presidents like George Bush and Barack Obama were at similar junctures in their second terms. The more Trump is smeared as a fascist or dictator, the more polls — like the latest liberal Economist/YouGov survey — show him gaining public support for securing the border and deportation. And the more the Left damns Trump as a racist, the more he wins unprecedented black and Hispanic support. Advertisement In recent Rasmussen tracking polls, Trump garnered 54% approval from black voters and 53% from Hispanics. Four, Trump proves a hard-to-hit, moving target for the frustrated left. He cannot quite be pigeonholed as a predictable right-wing bogeyman. Unlike the Left, when Trump weighs in on the Ukraine war, he first begins by deploring the tragic waste of over a million lives. No one is more pro-Israel. Yet he has offered a losing Iran a chance to negotiate its way out of total and humiliating defeat. Advertisement Trump talks nonstop about protecting the middle class. Unions like him; Wall Street mostly despises him. Trump wants to deport as many illegal alien criminals as possible. But he is willing to consider green cards for unlawful aliens who are working, crime-free and with long residence in the US. The Trump counterrevolution barrels ahead. The people cheer. And Democrats keep barking at the moon. Victor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness.
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Brit 'devastated' after being kicked out of Dubai for having face tattoos
A British man was 'devastated' after being kicked out of Dubai for having face tattoos. Jordan Howman, 34, landed at Dubai International Airport on Wednesday for a dream week-long holiday with his fiancée Theresa, 38, and daughter Kaic, 16, when immigration officers took him aside, confiscating his passport. The 34-year-old plasterer from Crewe had 'worked his arse off' to save up for the £3,000 trip and was hoping to spend five days seeing the United Arab Emirates, his 'favourite country in the world'. But Mr Howman claims after six hours of being held, immigration officers sent him packing "because of his face tattoos". Jordan got the geometric cubes tattooed on his face around eight or nine years ago alongside words like 'blessed', 'family' and 'crazy life' and said it has never caused problems during his previous two visits to Dubai, he says.
Hamilton Spectator
an hour ago
- Hamilton Spectator
What to know about the Supreme Court ruling 10 years ago that legalized same-sex marriage in the US
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — A landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling 10 years ago this month, on June 26, 2015, legalized same-sex marriage across the U.S. The Obergefell v. Hodges decision followed years of national wrangling over the issue, during which some states moved to protect domestic partnerships or civil unions for same-sex partners and others declared marriage could exist only between one man and one woman. In plaintiff James Obergefell's home state of Ohio, voters had overwhelmingly approved such an amendment in 2004 — effectively mirroring the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal recognition of same-sex couples. That laid the political groundwork for the legal challenge that bears his name. Here's what you need to know about the lawsuit, the people involved and the 2015 ruling's immediate and longer term effects: Who are James Obergefell and Rick Hodges? Obergefell and John Arthur, who brought the initial legal action, were long-time partners living in Cincinnati. They had been together for nearly two decades when Arthur was diagnosed with ALS, or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, in 2011. Obergefell became Arthur's caregiver as the incurable condition ravaged his health over time. When in 2013 the Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which had denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages, the pair acted quickly to get married. Their union was not allowed in Ohio, so they boarded a plane to Maryland and, because of Arthur's fragile health, married on the tarmac. It was when they learned their union would not be listed on Arthur's death certificate that the legal battle began. They went to court seeking recognition of their marriage on the document and their request was granted by a court. Ohio appealed and the case began its way up the ladder to the nation's high court. A Democrat, Obergefell made an unsuccessful run for the Ohio House in 2022. Rick Hodges, a Republican, was director of the Ohio Department of Health from August 2014 to 2017. The department handles death certificates in the state. Before being appointed by then-Gov. John Kasich, Hodges served five years in the Ohio House. Acquainted through the court case, he and Obergefell have become friends. What were the legal arguments? The lawsuit eventually titled Obergefell v. Hodges argued that marriage is guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, specifically the due process and equal protection clauses. The litigation consolidated several lawsuits brought by same-sex couples in Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan and Tennessee who had been denied marriage licenses or recognition for their out-of-state marriages and whose cases had resulted in conflicting opinions in federal circuit courts. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled the right to marry is fundamental, calling it 'inherent in the liberty of the person,' and therefore protected by the Constitution. The ruling effectively nullified state-level bans on same-sex marriages, as well as laws declining to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. The custody, property, tax, insurance and business implications of of the decision have also had sweeping impacts on other areas of law. How did the country react to the decision? Same-sex marriages surged in the immediate wake of the Obergefell decision, as dating couples and those already living as domestic partners flocked to courthouses and those houses of worship that welcomed them to legalize their unions. Over the ensuing decade, the number of married same-sex couples has more than doubled to an estimated 823,000, according to June data compiled by the Williams Institute at the University of California Los Angeles School of Law. Not all Americans supported the change. Standing as a national symbol of opponents was Kim Davis, a then-clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky, who refused to issue marriage licenses on religious grounds. She was briefly jailed, touching off weeks of protests as gay marriage foes around the country praised her defiance. Davis, a Republican, lost her bid for reelection in 2018 . She was ordered to pay thousands in attorney fees incurred by a couple unable to get a license from her office. She has appealed in July 2024 in a challenge that seeks to overturn Obergefell. As he reflects of the decision's 10th anniversary, Obergefell has worried aloud about the state of LGBTQ+ rights in the country and the possibility that a case could reach the Supreme Court that might overturn the decision bearing his name. Eight states have introduced resolutions this year urging a reversal and the Southern Baptist Convention voted overwhelmingly at its meeting in Dallas earlier this month in favor of banning gay marriage and seeing the Obergefell decision overturned. Meanwhile, more than a dozen states have moved to strengthen legal protections for same-sex married couples in case Obergefell is ever overturned. In 2025, about 7 in 10 Americans — 68% — said marriages between same-sex couples should be recognized by the law as valid, up from 60% in May 2015. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
