How you may find yourself on the front line of Trump’s immigration crackdown

Are you willing to hold the line?

Friends,

The most important constraints on the Trump regime during its heinous first hundred days have been (1) federal courts, (2) stock and bond markets, (3) China and its response to Trump’s tariff madness, (4) some state and local governments (in ways I’ll get to in a moment), and (5) we the people (as I’ll also describe).

Trump has temporarily backed down from the tariffs that shook stock and bond markets. He has also backed away from a trade war with China.

Increasingly, though, the Trump regime has ignored federal court orders (see: Abrego Garcia) but has not yet overtly thumbed its nose at the Supreme Court.

What about state and local governments? What about we the people?

Yesterday, Trump signed an executive order targeting local jurisdictions that are not cooperating with its aggressive crackdown on immigration.

The order directs Attorney General Pam Bondi and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem to publish a list of “sanctuary cities” — places that limit or refuse to cooperate with federal efforts to arrest undocumented immigrants — and pursue “all necessary legal remedies and enforcement measures” against them.

The Trump regime has already sued the city of Rochester, N.Y., accusing its officials of illegally impeding immigration enforcement.

It could sue individuals who obstruct immigration agents. The Justice Department is already prosecuting a Milwaukee judge on charges of obstructing immigration agents.

You may find yourself in the midst of this, particularly if you do as I suggested Sunday — help ensure that undocumented residents of your community know their rights (getting them red cards in their own languages), and seek to prevent local law enforcement from cooperating with ICE — especially with regard to access to schools, hospitals, courts, and other necessary facilities.

Are you willing to be arrested for obstructing the regime’s pursuit of undocumented immigrants?

This is not just a humanitarian issue. All the residents of our communities — regardless of legal status — need to feel safe when seeking medical attention, when reporting a crime, and when getting their children to and from school and meeting with teachers and counselors.

If they do not feel safe and do not seek these services, our communities can suffer the consequences. Diseases can spread. Crimes can go unreported. Children may not get the education they need.

Besides, legally and constitutionally, we live in a system in which cities, counties, and states possess their own powers and authorities. We do not live in a dictatorship in which a ruler can dictate how people live in their localities, and whether they can have access to doctors, hospitals, police, or judges — at least not yet.

Which is why some courts are protecting sanctuary cities.

Last Thursday, a federal judge in San Francisco temporarily blocked the Trump regime from enforcing part of a previous executive order directing federal agencies to withhold funds from cities and counties that do not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.

Judge William H. Orrick of the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California found that freezing federal funds for jurisdictions that don’t cooperate with federal immigration enforcement threatens local governance — causing budget uncertainty and deprivation of constitutional rights, and undermining trust between the cities and counties and the communities they serve.

When it comes to Trump’s latest executive order, Judge Orrick and other federal judges are likely to rule similarly.

This means that in coming months, three of the bulwarks against Trump’s tyranny that I mentioned at the start — the federal courts, state and local governments, and many of us as individual citizens — are likely to be attacked by the Trump regime for much the same reason: for protecting vulnerable people in our communities.

Be warned and be ready.