Picture this: Confederate troops launching an assault on Fort Sumter in April 1861 while Abraham Lincoln haggles over terms of secession in exchange for rallying support. It’s a bit far-fetched, but I suppose in a way, we are somewhat divided already. After all, Donald Trump seems to have retreated in the face of the blue state juggernaut.
Take Minnesota, for example—its local politicians are actively working to undermine the federal government’s duty to maintain national sovereignty. These blue states assert their power to sidestep federal immigration enforcement within their borders. It’s a conundrum nobody wants to discuss in Washington. If blue states can manipulate national sovereignty to shield undocumented immigrants, what’s stopping red states from doing the same?
Blue jurisdictions are rallied around the cause of safeguarding undocumented individuals. Conversely, red jurisdictions hardly unify to defend Americans against political harassment.
This isn’t only about what happened in Minneapolis or the specific events that led to the deaths of two anti-ICE protesters. It represents a broader, synchronized effort across numerous blue cities, where local extremists, Democratic officials, and sympathetic judges collaborate to hinder immigration enforcement. Activists here aren’t interested in discussing engagement tactics; in places where Democrats hold power, they want to ban immigration enforcement altogether. Essentially, blue states are forming a coalition that challenges one of the federal government’s core functions.
Now, let’s turn our gaze to the other side. Some notable Republicans—like James Comer from Kentucky—suggest that Trump should let these Blue Cities stew in their own chaos, convinced that the local populace will eventually rise against their leaders. But that fantasy quickly fades when confronted with reality. Moreover, ceding authority to these blue states hasn’t even resulted in an uptick in deportations in the red states.
Judicial decisions have effectively nullified almost all state laws aiming to treat illegal immigration as a state issue. If red states tried to enforce stricter measures under a Democrat in the White House, the judicial system would come down hard on them.
As a result, while Democrats are free to obstruct federal legislation regardless of who occupies the presidency, red states find themselves unable to defend their interests when Democrats are in control of the executive branch.
This imbalance boils down to a harsh reality: Republicans often lack the conviction in their promises that Democrats seem to possess in theirs. While Republicans exhaustively debate issues, Democrats are busy establishing robust institutions.
Democrats are staffing government agencies, cultivating prosecutors, and training judges for a cohesive mission. In contrast, Republicans tend to appoint people who view “the mission” merely as a stepping stone in their careers or a way to appease donors.
Democrats have constructed a parallel structure designed to disrupt immigration enforcement under opposing presidents. On the other hand, conservatives in red states have created little beyond press releases and campaign slogans.
Blue states have skillfully put into practice what James Madison referred to as state intervention, as outlined in Federalist No. 46.
Madison wrote about how “public agitation, public disgust, and perhaps the refusal to cooperate” can create significant hurdles for the federal government, especially if sentiments align across multiple neighboring states.
The first objective, then, is to incite “anxiety” among the populace, followed by fostering “disgust” towards federal actions. The goal is to encourage non-compliance with federal authorities, leveraging governors and legislatures to create obstacles that make federal enforcement challenging.
Blue states have followed this strategy with precision, coordinating their branches and crafting cohesive narratives. Local officials are encouraged not to cooperate, even as Congress attempts to limit judicial involvement. They depend on judges in liberal jurisdictions to overturn immigration laws and mandate the release of undocumented individuals.
Political leaders have been more candid recently. Minnesota’s Democratic Governor Tim Walz has made remarks about his involvement with the federal government. Meanwhile, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey openly stated that the city “does not and will not enforce federal immigration laws.” Philadelphia’s District Attorney Larry Krasner has gone as far as labeling ICE agents as “wannabe Nazis” while vowing to track them down for purported civil rights violations.
In essence, blue jurisdictions are firm in their commitment to protecting undocumented immigrants. In contrast, many red jurisdictions have not banded together in defense of Americans facing political oppression. Where were the leaders of red states when the Biden Justice Department targeted pro-life demonstrators? Or when federal authorities treated ordinary citizens as criminals after they walked through the Capitol?
The Democratic Party now seems to follow a new playbook: anarchy for the populace while enforcing coercion on their opponents.
Republicans continue to act as if the old order will come to their aid. And even when leaders in red states express their intentions, they often find themselves isolated, devoid of congressional support, lacking attorneys general prepared to file lawsuits, and facing courts unwilling to uphold national interests.
The triumph of blue states in undermining immigration enforcement during Trump’s presidency should raise alarms. Even more concerning is the possibility that the next Democratic Justice Department will target issues beyond immigration. If that happens, red states will be ill-equipped to counter such actions, rendering them powerless against federal imposing efforts, much like their inability to stem the tide of millions of undocumented immigrants.
Right now, many Americans feel like second-class citizens while undocumented immigrants receive preferential treatment. It’s disheartening because the political parties claiming to represent the American people appear to be failing at their most fundamental responsibility: providing genuine representation.
