Illinois blocks ICE from entering local courthouses

The jousting between the ICE and blue states continues. Recently, California passed a law that would unmask ICE agents while carrying out operations.

Now, Illinois has banned them from courthouses after Illinois' governor got into a spat with Secretary Noem. 

Unmasking

I know a lot of people in law enforcement, and wearing masks is something they often do to conceal their identity of undercover agents, as well as when agents are at risk.

In the case of these deportation roundups, we are seeing agents' personal information exposed online, so they have all started to conceal their faces.

California Governor Gavin Newsom took offense, so he signed a law that would block agents from wearing masks in his state.

He stated, “Unmarked cars. People in masks. People quite literally disappearing. No due process. No rights. No rights in a democracy where we have rights. Immigrants have rights.”

Please stop

DHS Secretary and Illinois Governor JB Pritzker have also been doing battle, which got a bit heated over Halloween.

Pritzker asked Noem not to conduct her operations over Halloween, but Noem refused.

He stated, "They had no criminal target in their sights. It was just the next neighborhood on their list to terrorize."

He then added, "I'm asking for basic human decency. I think their response will be revealing. They've disrupted everything for more than two months already; give the children and the families of Illinois a break."

Banned

So, now Pritzker is following Newsom’s lead by passing legislation to target ICE.

In announcing the legislation that will ban ICE from courthouses, State Sen. Celina Villaneuva stated, “Our communities have been living in fear — fear of being separated from their children, fear of being taken from their homes, fear of simply existing. This bill is about giving people a sense of safety, a sense of humanity, and the assurance that their government sees them and will stand up for them.”

Democratic Senate President Don Harmon, however, questioned whether the law will stand up to a legal challenge, stating, “It’s not just about the constitutionality of the law, which I think is sound, but it’s the reality that the courts are stacked against us. The federal government can try to remove it from state courts to federal courts. They can try to substitute the government itself for the individual defendants, but that’s not a reason not to try.”

This has become a never-ending nightmare of legal battles. There are so many of these cases now, my head is spinning, but in all honesty, nothing matters these days other than who appointed the judge. If it is a Democrat, the bill will stand. And if it is a Republican, it has about an 80% chance of being overturned. I guess we will find out soon enough.