As I have previously noted, Democrats are fond of telling us that elections have consequences.  Remember 2009, when Congressional Republicans tried to have their voices heard by the Obama Administration?  Il Duce Obama told them, “elections have consequences.”  That’s a principle that Democrats embrace, but only after they win.  You see, when Democrats lose an election, as they did in 2016 and 2024, the principle doesn’t apply.  When they lose, Democrats have no regard for public opinion.  They have no regard for the democracy they keep saying is being threatened.  They have to protect their phony baloney jobs.

On these pages, in November and again a few weeks ago, I pointed out that the Democrats’ latest strategy of repeatedly shutting down the government is simply a ploy to undo the November election.  That’s what it’s all about.  The Democrats lost, but now they want a Do Over.  The fact that their Party was soundly defeated, and their policies rejected doesn’t matter.

Last November, Americans went to the polls and overwhelming approved Trump’s plans to secure the border and deport illegal aliens.  The Constitution provides that the federal government is responsible for the enforcement of immigration laws.  Article VI makes the Constitution and laws of the federal government “the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby.”  This means that sanctuary State and City laws designed to prevent ICE from enforcing immigration laws are null and void.

Yet in Minnesota, Oregon, California, and elsewhere, State and local officials have countenanced, and even supported acts of violence aimed at preventing the federal laws pertaining to immigration from being enforced.  And now, for the second time in a few months, Democrats have shut down the government over immigration enforcement.  A large majority of Americans support enforcing the law, but Democrats say you can’t have what you voted for.  They want to undo the 2024 election.

Democrats have issued a set of 10 demands, which they call “reforms” of ICE, but which in reality are a  blatant attempt to undo the election, flaunt the will of the people, and change immigration statutes, and decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, that go back more than 130 years.  They can’t get these things the proper way, through Legislative action, so they have resulted to extortion.  They say they won’t vote to fund Homeland Security unless their demands are met.  That means TSA, Secret Service, the Coast Guard, FEMA, and other agencies get no funding, and no paychecks.  Why are they doing this?  I explained last week.  They need millions of illegal aliens to stay in power.

Here are their demands: 1) No arrests on private property without a judicial warrant; 2) No masks or face coverings; 3) Display ID with name and badge number; 4) No enforcement near sensitive locations, including medical facilities, schools, childcare facilities, churches, polling places, courts, etc.;      5) No stops, questioning or searches based on an individual’s presence at certain locations, their job, their spoken language and accent, or their race or ethnicity; 6) Place into law a reasonable use-of-force policy; 7) Let State and local jurisdictions prosecute potential crimes and use-of-excessive-force incidents.  Require the consent of states and localities to conduct large-scale operations outside of targeted immigration enforcement; 8) Allow states to sue the DHS for detention violations.  Prohibit limitations on member visits to ICE facilities; 9) Require use of body-worn cameras; 10) No paramilitary police. Regulate and standardize the type of uniforms and equipment DHS officers employ.

I’ll give them the cameras, because that’s a tool that 99 times out of 100 protects the officers from false complaints.  The rest of the demands are a desperate attempt to force ridiculous changes to immigration enforcement laws.  Many of the demands are foolish, outright illegal, and an unconstitutional invasion on the authority of the federal government.

The demands overlook an important distinction, which is that illegal aliens do not enjoy all the protections afforded to citizens and lawful residents.  Heritage Foundation Senior Legal Fellow, Hans von Spakovsky, has written a treatise on this subject.

The demand for judicial warrants contradicts an 1893 Supreme Court decision.  Deportation proceedings are civil, not criminal.  The Court decided that an alien being removed by the government is not being “deprived of life, liberty, or property” and that “the provisions of the Constitution securing the right to trial by jury and prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures and cruel and unusual punishments therefore have no application.

The due process rights in civil immigration proceedings are far more limited than those afforded to citizens.  Immigration courts are not judicial, they’re administrative, run by the Justice Department.  By federal regulation, no federal court has the authority to overrule the decision of the executive branch to exclude an alien.  In 1953, the Supreme Court held, “courts have long recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control.”

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, if an inadmissible alien attempts to enter or makes it into the country illegally but is found and detained within two years, that alien can be removed without a hearing or any other proceeding.  “Inadmissible” means, one present in the United States without being admitted or paroled, or who arrives in the United States at any time or place other than as designated by the Attorney General.  For instance, the untold millions let in by Biden.

There’s also an expedited removal proceeding for aliens convicted of one of a specified list of criminal offenses, ranging from misdemeanor shoplifting and theft all the way to felony firearms, drug offenses, domestic violence, stalking, and child abuse as well as terrorism and espionage.  This was what was going on in Minnesota.

Even if the alien has been in country more than two years, due process is limited to an immigration court hearing and appeal.  No District Court judge has jurisdiction to intrude on this process.  The Supreme Court should make this clear to the District Court judges who think they’re running the entire Executive Branch.

Simply put, the Democrat demands are insulting and blatantly illegal.  No enforcement near polling places?  Why, unless Democrats seek to protect the right of aliens to vote?  No masks and name IDs?  They wouldn’t need masks if they and their families weren’t being threatened by violent protestors.  The identity of every agent participating in an ICE operation is a matter of record in official reports.  Anyone with a right to see the reports can tell who was there.  Rioters on the street have no good reason to know.

Demand 5 is illegal and demand 7 is unconstitutional.  Law enforcement is permitted to speak to anyone on the street.  States and localities have illegally barred ICE from public property.  Our new Governor Sherrill issued such an Order last week.  Also restricting private and public places where ICE may not conduct operations is a blatant attempt to end all ICE removal operations.

As for number 7, Democrats should read Article VI of the Constitution.  Federal law is supreme.  Requiring ICE to get approval from States and localities to conduct operations violates Article VI and invalidates federal laws on the books for generations.  The same goes for the attempt to dictate what uniform and equipment ICE may wear and use.  ICE wouldn’t need paramilitary gear if they weren’t under attack by violent morons.

Republicans will not and cannot agree to the Democrat demands.  Democrats will hold out as long as possible to inflict maximum pain on the American people, hoping you will blame Republicans in November.  Don’t take the bait.  Democrats say we need to rein in ICE, and get it back in line.  When you’re standing in line for hours at an airport, or when you or your family are forced to live without a paycheck, remember whose stupid idea this was.