Is it constitutional for blue governors to give deportation the finger?

A number of democrat governors have decided to take a stand against President Trump’s call for deportation of illegal entrants to the United States that the Biden-Harris (as “Border Czar,” i.e. ‘welcoming committee’) administration aided in breaching the nation’s perimeter.

The question is whether they can invoke states’ rights to protect non-citizens from removal. The short answer is “no.”

Readers know that this author has written multiple pieces, strongly referenced, regarding the application of states’ rights to maintain authority of a state’s citizenry over its land and resources. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments clarify what power is delegated to the federal government and cannot override that of the states and their constituency. Where a line is drawn is when a state’s administration works in opposition of the federal government in order to aid and abet those who commit federal crimes.

It must be remembered that each state, upon admittance to the Union, was required to institute a “Republican Form of Government,” a constitution that was in agreement with the Constitution of the United States of America (Article IV). Keeping this in mind, any state whose government officials defy the U.S. Constitution, and thus its own constitution, is in violation of the law.

According to Article IV Section 4, “...and [the United States] shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.” (Emphasis, mine.) This does not express or imply that the state executive or legislature can refuse the removal or deportation of foreign criminals, which is, in fact, the definition of illegal entrants, immigrants, or the currently favored term “undocumented” migrants or residents. Nor does the Tenth Amendment empower a state administration or government to withhold law enforcement access to those individuals for lawful deportation or imprisonment.

The foregoing does not relegate power to any city, county or state to declare itself a sanctuary to protect federal lawbreakers, invaders that mean harm to the Union, from removal or incarceration. In so doing, these entities within the states have declared themselves enemies because they have taken the part of the foreign national, invader, over that of the United States and its security within its own borders.

It would behoove Governors Pritzker, Newsom, Hobbs, others, and mayors of cities such as Los Angeles and Denver to consider that they are siding with enemies of the United States, and effectually their own state constitution. By insisting on housing, feeding, and protecting illegal immigrants, they are contributing to the dismantling of this country’s infrastructure and sovereignty, of which there is no state’s right to do. Once a state is admitted to the Union, it must uphold the Union, its Constitution and protect it against enemies, which definition fits illegal border-crossers even if they appear benign. In other words, these officials are opening themselves up to charges of treason, or insurrection at the least, of which Senator Rand Paul made mention on his appearance on “Face the Nation,” though his assessment of using the military can be debated.

Herein arises the argument some are making that the President of the United States cannot use the power of the military to remove foreign invaders.

Attempting to invoke the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 to dispute the use of the U.S. Military is an odd approach. A posse comitatus is a force comprised of regular citizens to carry out law enforcement…

“Posse comitatus is a Latin phrase meaning “the power of the county.” Posse comitatus describes a group of citizens who are called upon to assist a sheriff in keeping the peace, to conduct a rescue, or to apprehend a criminal.” (LII)

Using the military to remove non-citizens, otherwise known as a foreign invading force or individuals comprising such, is constitutional in that the role of the military is to protect the borders and security of the nation. It is not empowered to actively engage in the assault, arrest, or detainment of U.S. citizens (non-service members) on American soil.

Currently, there has been a problem with federal civilian agencies redefining “terrorism” to include peaceful demonstrations by protesters, even to the point of concluding prayer outside abortion clinics to be an act of terror, or rebellion. Despite the recent DOD Directive 5240.01, constitutional and statutory limitations may be applied regarding American citizens alleged to be involved in so-called acts of terror.

Governors and municipal officials are being given fair warning that they cannot appoint themselves lords over their lesser domains contrary to both state and federal constitutions.