Ten days into President Trump's second term, a fierce constitutional debate is erupting over sanctuary cities attempting to shield illegal immigrants from federal deportation efforts. Conservative scholars are making it crystal clear: federalism principles cannot be weaponized to defy legitimate federal immigration enforcement.
The question isn't whether states and localities should have power—it's about understanding the proper limits of that power when it comes to matters explicitly reserved for federal authority under the Constitution.
As economist Friedrich Hayek taught us to ask "who should decide" and Abraham Lincoln showed us to consider "to what end," today's immigration crisis forces Americans to confront a third critical question: Where exactly is the constitutional line drawn between federal authority and state defiance?
"The principles of subsidiarity and federalism demand that matters should be resolved at the lowest level of authority competent to manage them,"
This principle cuts both ways, Patriots. While much of what Washington has usurped over decades should indeed return to states and communities, immigration and border security are explicitly federal responsibilities under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.
President Trump's deportation machine is now operating at full capacity, with ICE arrests skyrocketing and sanctuary jurisdictions scrambling to justify their obstruction. But here's the reality these liberal mayors and governors don't want you to understand: they're not defending federalism—they're undermining it.
Constitutional Crisis or Leftist Lawlessness?
When sanctuary cities refuse to cooperate with ICE detainer requests or actively warn criminal aliens about upcoming raids, they're not exercising legitimate local authority. They're actively obstructing federal law enforcement in a area where the Constitution grants exclusive power to the national government.
The Trump administration has every right—and constitutional duty—to enforce immigration law regardless of local political preferences. Federalism protects legitimate state powers, but it was never intended as a shield for lawless resistance to constitutional federal authority.
The question for every American should be simple: Do we want constitutional federalism that respects proper boundaries, or do we want selective federalism that only applies when it helps the Left's political agenda?