The Post & Email by Robert Kalebra 1/31/2026
I keep receiving inquiries on my take of what America is witness to in Minnesota and other states regarding federal authority to enforce the immigration laws. This isn’t going to address the recent shootings and killing of two US citizens. That’s a different matter altogether involving many different clearly established constitutional and legal standards of law, evidence, and police standards of conduct and the use of force and use of deadly force. This isn’t about that. In fact, President Trump is actually showing extreme restraint regarding these sanctuary cities, states, and the officials facilitating these usurpations of the Constitution and federal supremacy to enforce federal law.
The United States Constitution [1], [2], [3] establishes a clear framework for the division of powers between the federal government and the states. This framework is designed to ensure that certain critical functions, such as the enforcement of immigration laws, remain within the exclusive purview of the federal government. Recent actions by some states to obstruct and defy federal immigration laws raise serious constitutional questions and highlight the importance of adhering to the principles of federalism and the rule of law.
After researching the matter all I can say to President Trump is, “Why are you not arresting and prosecuting these police, lawyers, judges, city officials, county and state officials including their obstructionist Governors?”
The Constitutional Basis for Federal Immigration AuthorityThe Constitution vests the federal government with the sole authority to regulate immigration. This authority is derived from several key provisions:
1. Article VI, Clause 2 (Supremacy Clause): [4] This clause establishes that the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States are the supreme law of the land. Any state law that conflicts with federal law is null and void. This preempts state laws that attempt to regulate immigration in a manner inconsistent with federal policy. For example, in Arizona v. United States (2012) [5], the Supreme Court struck down several provisions of Arizona’s SB 1070, stating that federal law preempts state law in the area of immigration enforcement.
2. The 10th Amendment: [6] This amendment reserves to the states or the people all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states. However, the power to regulate immigration is explicitly delegated to the federal government, leaving no room for state intervention. The 10th Amendment does not grant states the authority to regulate immigration; rather, it confirms that such power resides with the federal government.
3. Federal Preemption: [7] The doctrine of federal preemption ensures that federal laws take precedence over state laws in areas where the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction. Immigration is one such area, as evidenced by numerous Supreme Court decisions. In Hines v. Davidowitz (1941) [8], the Supreme Court held that federal law preempts state law in the area of alien registration, emphasizing the federal government’s exclusive authority over immigration matters.
The Sole Province of the Federal GovernmentThe enforcement of immigration laws is a federal responsibility for several reasons:
1. Uniformity and Consistency: Immigration policies must be uniform across the nation to ensure consistency in the application of laws and to prevent disparities that could undermine national security and public safety. A patchwork of state immigration laws would create confusion and inefficiencies, making it difficult to enforce immigration policies effectively.
2. Foreign Relations: Immigration policies have significant implications for foreign relations. The federal government, through the executive branch, is better equipped to handle the diplomatic and international aspects of immigration. For instance, the federal government can negotiate treaties and agreements with other countries, which is crucial for managing immigration flows and addressing global migration issues.
3. Resource Allocation: The federal government has the resources and infrastructure necessary to enforce immigration laws effectively. State involvement could lead to duplication of efforts and inefficiencies. Federal agencies such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) are specifically designed to handle immigration enforcement, with specialized training, equipment, and personnel.
4. National Security: Immigration enforcement is closely tied to national security. The federal government has the authority and responsibility to protect the nation from threats, including those posed by unauthorized immigration. State involvement in immigration enforcement could compromise national security efforts by creating gaps in enforcement and coordination.
Much Much More: https://www.thepostemail.com/2026/01/31/the-constitutional-imperative-federal-authority-over-immigration-law-enforcement/
