President Donald Trump ran in 2024 on enforcing the nation’s immigration laws. As he follows through on that promise, he has prompted widespread opposition from the progressive Left. Protesters have organized in major cities not only to object to his actions but also to impede federal law enforcement. In many instances, Democratic officeholders have joined these street actions, and several officials have already been arrested. 

Recommended Stories

• LA Dodgers deny ICE officers entry to stadium grounds
• Florida proposes large immigrant detention center in the Everglades dubbed ‘Alligator Alcatraz’
• ICE asks lawmakers to request visits 72 hours in advance amid Democratic pushback

When they are happening in the moment, political disputes can appear complicated. Both sides throw out all manner of argument to win supporters. Sometimes, in the case of taxation or regulations, the arguments are complicated as both sides make factual claims about the probable effect of policy changes. But in other instances, arguments confuse what is, in fact, a simple issue.

The enforcement of the nation’s immigration laws is straightforward, regardless of how loudly the progressive Left yells. A clear-eyed view of the matter demonstrates just how profoundly wrong it is for the Left to interfere with law enforcement.  

It has been said so many times — “this country is a nation of immigrants” — that the phrase has lost virtually all meaning. But not quite. The American nation is a republic, rooted in the Greek idea of a polis, which Aristotle defined as a political community whose purpose is to enable its members to live a good life. The American vision of this good life is laid out in the preamble to the Constitution — the promotion of justice, domestic tranquility, the general welfare, and the blessings of liberty. In pursuit of those goals, the people have empowered a government under the Constitution to act on the community’s behalf. Under the Constitution, Congress may write laws that establish a “uniform rule of naturalization.” The president, meanwhile, is not only empowered to enforce the laws of Congress, but he is also obliged to take care that they are enforced. 

So, the United States is an association of one-time immigrants who have joined into a political community to secure their ends of the preamble. Under the terms of this association, their government has the power to limit who is allowed to join this community. And for the last century, Congress has seen fit to establish such limits, and the president is required to enforce them.

This is all that is happening right now. The president is enforcing the laws of the nation. It is creating disruption in the community because former President Joe Biden, in plain defiance of his oath of office, refused to enforce them, and as such allowed millions of people to enter the country who were not allowed under its laws to enter. Those who protest this lawful action are allowed to do so under the Constitution, so long as they are peaceful. But nobody has the right to violence in their opposition to the lawful actions of the government.

The matter of changing the nation’s immigration laws is a legitimate policy dispute, in which there are multiple arguments for and against more or less immigration. But the law is what it is. The president has a duty to enforce it. Indeed, this president campaigned against the previous administration’s refusal to enforce it and promised to do better. There was a freewheeling public debate that was, at least now, settled last November. 

Those protesting the enforcement of the law seem to fancy themselves as a modern incarnation of the 1960s Civil Rights Movement. But that is nonsense. The Civil Rights Movement was a defense of citizens whose lawful rights under the 14th and 15th amendments were systematically ignored. Illegal immigrants have no right under the law to stay here. Again, if the protesters wish to change that, they need to lobby Congress rather than interfere with the president’s required enforcement of the law.

Insofar as one is looking for historical parallels to the current situation, it makes sense to go back a bit further in time: to the nullification crisis of the 1830s. South Carolina, convinced that the Tariff of 1828 was a violation of Congress’s power to tax exclusively for the “general welfare,” decided to “nullify” the law, or declare it null, void, and of no force within its boundaries. President Andrew Jackson responded that such an action was “incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which it was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed.” 

As a matter of policy, the Tariff of 1828 was grossly unfair. But its opponents did not have the right to prevent its enforcement, for that struck at the very heart of the federal system established by the Constitution. The appropriate recourse for South Carolina was the political process, which created multiple opportunities to build a legislative coalition against the tariff. In due course, that was exactly what happened, as the tariff was lowered several times during the Jacksonian era. 

So it goes with the immigration issue today. Protesters interfering with the enforcement of the law are striking at the constitutional system itself. They are not the Civil Rights Movement. They are nullifiers. And those public officials who take an oath to uphold the Constitution are violating that oath when they join such protests. They have lawful means under the Constitution to try to have the laws changed. That’s what they should stick to.

There is another, more insidious way that the immigration fight parallels the nullification crisis. By 1830, it was clear that the South was losing political power in the face of a growing North. Whether they acknowledged it or not, the nullifiers were attempting to manipulate the Constitution to prevent the democratic process from creating policies they did not like. 

The immigration protesters are engaged in a similar manipulation, whether they know it or not. 

TRUMP TARGETS TAMMANY ON THE POTOMAC 

Seats in the House of Representatives are apportioned according to the decennial census, which is based on persons, not citizens. That apportionment likewise affects the Electoral College. As of the last census, the average House seat was approximately 750,000 people. If we assume that there are 10 million people in the U.S. unlawfully, that has the net effect of distorting House representation up to 13 or 14 seats in favor of illegal immigrants (although the actual figure depends on the extent to which the Census Bureau can count illegal immigrants). This distortion overwhelmingly advantages urban Democrats, whose local “sanctuary laws” impede federal enforcement and thus attract illegal immigrants. Thirteen seats might not seem like a lot, but the two parties have been so evenly divided in the House since 2020 that it would make or break every majority. Moreover, there are many federal programs that are apportioned based on census data, from social welfare spending to education to highway programs. Insofar as illegal immigrants are counted in the census, it directs federal resources away from municipalities composed of citizens. 

If progressive Democrats and their officeholding Democratic allies wish to argue that political power and tax resources should be directed based upon local tolerance of illegal immigrants, they are free to do that. It is doubtful that such arguments will resonate with the broader public. Regardless, their inability to convince the public to change the law to inflate their political power gives them no right to interfere with the execution of the law. 

Jay Cost is the Gerald R. Ford senior nonresident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.