Posted on 06/11/2025 2:59:39 AM PDT by EBH
The American Republic was built on the rule of law, national sovereignty, and the consent of the governed. Yet today, these foundational principles are being eroded from within—not by a foreign invader, but by sanctuary cities operating in open defiance of federal immigration law. These self-declared "safe zones" for illegal aliens have become soft targets for criminal exploitation, hotbeds of cartel trafficking, and sanctuaries not for the oppressed—but for the lawless.
Let’s be clear: this is not about compassion. It’s about control. Sanctuary cities represent a dangerous power grab by left-leaning municipalities that prioritize political ideology over national unity. When cities openly ignore federal laws—especially those concerning border security and immigration enforcement—they set a precedent that threatens the very fabric of our constitutional Republic.
Defying Federal Law is Not “Progressive”—It’s Rebellion
What we are witnessing in sanctuary cities is not simply a policy dispute—it is a slow, calculated rebellion against the constitutional order of the United States. At the heart of this defiance is Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, which clearly states that federal law is the supreme law of the land. That supremacy is not optional, and it is not up for debate by governors, mayors, or activist city councils.
And yet, in defiance of this foundational principle, progressive leaders have constructed an alternative legal reality—one where immigration laws passed by Congress and enforced by federal agencies are nullified at the local level, all under the guise of “compassion” or “equity.” This is not policy disagreement within a lawful framework. It is open defiance of lawful authority—a rejection of the Republic itself.
This quiet rebellion didn't happen overnight. It was built deliberately over decades, fueled by radical academia, reinforced through activist judges, and institutionalized by far-left NGOs operating with the blessing of the Democratic Party. These groups have worked in tandem to replace equal enforcement of law with selective enforcement based on identity politics and ideological alignment.
They don’t just want to change federal law—they want to render it irrelevant.
By shielding illegal aliens from enforcement, sanctuary jurisdictions are claiming a right that does not belong to them: the power to determine who is and isn't subject to U.S. law. That power belongs to the nation as a whole, not to rogue mayors or politically motivated city councils. When these cities pick and choose which laws they will obey, they are not engaging in federalism—they are engaging in nullification. And nullification, historically, is a step toward secession.
What makes this especially dangerous is that it's being done with a smile and a press release, not a musket. It's rebellion dressed up in civic language—"we're just protecting our residents," they say, as they hand out driver’s licenses to people who broke into our country, and direct city employees to obstruct federal agents. This is a form of subversion that is harder to detect because it wears the mask of moral superiority.
But make no mistake: it is subversion.
Sanctuary policies create a legal minefield where the federal government is effectively blocked from doing its job. ICE agents are denied access to courthouses. Local police departments are instructed not to share information with federal databases. Criminal aliens are released back into communities under a veil of secrecy. These are not random acts—they are coordinated, institutionalized acts of resistance to the rule of law.
This is the hallmark of the Progressive Rebellion: a steady erosion of national authority masked as local empowerment. It is an ideological movement that seeks to undermine federal unity by fracturing the country into pockets of policy resistance—mini city-states governed not by constitutional order, but by political expediency.
What’s worse is that this rebellion is spreading. Sanctuary city status is now treated as a badge of honor among progressive officials, a kind of virtue signal to the activist base. It’s no longer just about immigration; the same logic is being applied to drug decriminalization, voting rights for non-citizens, and even law enforcement itself. The message is clear: if federal law doesn't match the progressive agenda, it can be ignored—or outright sabotaged.
This is not how a Republic survives.
A nation cannot function when its own subdivisions wage quiet war against its laws. And if the federal government continues to allow this rebellion to fester, the damage will be lasting. Not just in terms of crime or border security—but in the broader sense of civic trust. If the law no longer applies equally to all, the Republic begins to unravel.
The time has come to recognize sanctuary cities not as misguided policy experiments, but as ideological insurrections. This is not the politics of the loyal opposition. It is the politics of defiance. And if left unchecked, it will fracture this country far more effectively than any foreign adversary could ever dream..
A Breeding Ground for Crime and Cartels
Let’s talk about what sanctuary policies actually enable.
In practice, these cities offer cover for drug traffickers, sex traffickers, and violent gangs like MS-13. They create a two-tier justice system—one for citizens who follow the rules, and another for those who slip through the cracks with the blessing of progressive leadership.
Consider this: when a city refuses to cooperate with federal authorities, it doesn’t just protect a single family trying to make a better life. It also protects the human trafficker who smuggled them in. It protects the cartel middleman using the city as a base of operations. It protects the repeat offender who would otherwise be deported after their third or fourth arrest. In short, it allows criminal networks to entrench themselves within our borders—often in neighborhoods too poor or too politically inconvenient for elite politicians to care about.
And who pays the price? American citizens. Often minorities. Often the working class. Often people who don’t have the luxury of moving to safer ZIP codes.
NGOs: The Shadow Government of the Left
Behind the sanctuary city movement lies a sprawling, well-funded web of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that operate as the administrative arm of the progressive open-borders agenda. These groups are unelected, unaccountable, and yet wield extraordinary influence over public policy, particularly when it comes to immigration, refugee resettlement, and so-called “humanitarian” aid.
At first glance, they appear to be community service organizations—offering shelter, food, legal counsel, and other assistance to migrants. But a closer look reveals something far more insidious. These NGOs are not simply helping individuals; they are facilitating and sustaining a mass migration pipeline that directly undermines U.S. law and border enforcement. Many receive federal, state, and local tax dollars, along with private foundation money—effectively using taxpayer funds to subvert the will of the taxpayers themselves.
Groups like the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, the Vera Institute of Justice, and the National Immigration Law Center operate with near-total legal immunity while aggressively lobbying against ICE, against deportations, and against any measure that seeks to restore control at the border. Others, like HIAS or RAICES, have become de facto political entities—litigating on behalf of foreign nationals while simultaneously pressuring lawmakers to loosen immigration standards.
These NGOs are deeply embedded in sanctuary cities, where they collaborate with city officials to create policy, influence law enforcement guidelines, and ensure resistance to federal mandates. They craft the talking points, supply the legal cover, and mobilize the protests. In essence, they are functioning as a shadow government—one that answers not to the Constitution, but to a radical ideology that views national borders as relics of oppression.
Their true objective is not humanitarian relief—it is demographic transformation and political power consolidation. The more people they funnel into sanctuary cities, the more leverage they create to reshape voter bases, shift congressional representation, and challenge the very concept of American citizenship. It is a long-game strategy that uses the guise of charity to achieve permanent, structural change—without ever winning a single election to do it.
These NGOs must be exposed, defunded, and held accountable. No Republic can survive when the machinery of law is hijacked by private actors with a globalist agenda.
Undermining Citizenship and the Social Contract,/b>
At its core, sanctuary policy erodes the concept of American citizenship. It sends the message that national borders are optional and that the rule of law is negotiable. Why should anyone respect the law when certain groups are exempted from it for political reasons? Why should citizens who pay taxes, serve on juries, and follow the law continue to shoulder the burden while those who break the law are rewarded with services, protection, and—increasingly—the right to vote in local elections?
This is not just bad policy. It’s the slow-motion unraveling of the Republic. No nation can survive when its laws are selectively enforced based on ideology. No Republic can function when citizenship is devalued to a mere formality.
Time to Reassert Federal Authority
It’s long past time for federal leaders to step in. Sanctuary cities must be held accountable—not just through rhetoric, but through funding cuts, criminal penalties, and federal injunctions. Local officials who obstruct immigration enforcement should be investigated for violating their oaths of office. And Congress must take a hard look at the funding streams—especially from DHS and HHS—that are quietly fueling this silent insurrection through NGO proxies.
The American people deserve a government that prioritizes their safety, their sovereignty, and their future. Sanctuary cities do the opposite.
They are not “progress.” They are not “humane.” They are the thin edge of a wedge that seeks to dissolve the Republic from within.
And we, the people, must say: Enough.
The Demonicrats controlling sanctuary cities should be arrested, charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced to a short drop and quick stop (carried out in public) for giving aid and comfort to the domestic and foreign enemies of the United States. Their carcasses should be left to rot off the noose.
If any and all federal laws passed by Congress were the "supreme Law of the Land", not a single federal law would ever, under any circumstance, be declared unconstitutional. As noted previously, the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof. . shall be the supreme Law of the Land." The false and overly simplistic notion that the federal government possesses some sort of magical "supreme" sovereignty, not limited by the Constitution, may be attractive during times of turmoil, but it is a dangerous concept specifically rejected by the Founders...
OUTSTANDING post. Thanks. BTTT!
Feudalism.
Thank you for a wonderful article. And thank you for knowing the difference between a republic and a democracy.
It is from within by those who want to rule globally.
https://admiralmarkets.com/education/articles/shares/largest-blackrock-shareholders
OK then...
I was checking that pesky constitution thingie and there it was...
The power to regulate immigration is specifically granted to the fed!!!
This means that states cannot do anything about immigration.
Cities have even less.
Sooo, sanctuary cities are unconstitutional...
Cities are regulated by states, so the state is in violation of the constitution!!!
Cut off all funding to the states that support this unconstitutioal folly and let the party begin!!!
At what point in your mind does paying illegal immigrants to riot in our streets, not equate to subversion and insurgency?
For me, this is the point when a sanctuary city ceases to maintain their own state sovereignty. Because that is what’s happening, and a number of my previous posts, it becomes clear that these illegal immigrants once being paid by NGO’s to protest, become something else under federal law
Either that distinction can be made or we might as well just give up everything today.
Slavery has been and is still in practice today.
The dark picture of slavery is a huge lie. Slaves were not constantly whipped, beaten, mistreated,starved or treated badly. They were slaves.() given time, I strongly believe slavery would have worked it's way out in the u.s.
THE ROAD TO HELL WAS PAVED WITH THE NORTHS GOOD INTENTIONS.
No one brings up white slavery, the Irish children who were sold and sent to the u.s. and carribean.
Back to my point, the federal government's involvement in sanctuary cities, needs to be long term thought out.
Why judges don't deport illegal aliens the same week they are areested is a case of " moral high ground"
the judge applying the constitution to the world court.
The defendant doesn't need to be convicted of a separate crime before deportation. Deport them and build better border security.
At what point in your mind did you assume that I said anything about foreign invasion or insurrection? Please reread my posts (and the Constitution); my comments related to the comic book concept that any and all federal laws are automatically "supreme" simply because they are federal in origin...
Defying Federal Law is Not “Progressive”—It’s Rebellion
Spot on the lefts speeches all sound like a Hitler speech.
Hmmm… let’s see:
If the government institutes an environmental law, states are required to have laws that are just as strong, if not stronger than the federal.
If the government institutes minimum wage at $15 an hour, states must have a minimum wage of $15 an hour or more.
If the federal government has immigration laws, under what guise are states allowed to have less stringent laws? The answer would be none.
Immigration is a duty relegated to the federal government under the constitution. States do not have the authority to subvert the federal government nor the constitution.
Immigration is not explicitly mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but several clauses and Supreme Court interpretations have firmly established that immigration is a power of the federal government, not the states. Here’s the breakdown:
1. Article I, Section 8 – Enumerated Powers of Congress
This section gives Congress power over:
Clause 4: “To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization...”
This gives Congress the authority to determine how non-citizens can become citizens.
While this clause is about naturalization (not immigration per se), the uniformity requirement suggests states cannot make their own immigration rules, as that would create inconsistency.
Clause 3: “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations...”
Immigration has been interpreted as affecting international commerce, allowing Congress to regulate movement across borders.
2. The Supremacy Clause – Article VI, Clause 2
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States... shall be the supreme Law of the Land…”
If there is a conflict between federal and state law, federal law prevails.
When Congress legislates in areas like immigration, states cannot override or contradict those laws.
3. Supreme Court Rulings
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that immigration policy is a federal matter:
Chy Lung v. Freeman (1875): Struck down California’s immigration restrictions, saying immigration affects foreign relations and is a federal responsibility.
Hines v. Davidowitz (1941): Ruled that even if states pass immigration laws that don’t conflict directly with federal law, they may still be preempted if the federal government has occupied the field.
Arizona v. United States (2012): Struck down several parts of Arizona’s immigration enforcement law, reaffirming that immigration enforcement is largely a federal responsibility.
;^)
At this point, I see no reason to reread your posts because they have no relevant to this discussion on this thread. I have pointed out now, several times that this discussion is directly related to the authority of the supremacy clause as well as the commerce clause now and you continue to insist that it’s some sort of a comic book interpretation. If you wanna have a different discussion, go have it as a discussion on a thread to which your perception and your opinion is relevant.
BUMP!
And if you wish to base your arguments on the false premise that “federal law [rather than the Constitution adopted by the people acting in their States] is the supreme law of the land”, you have indeed chosen poorly. As I have too often observed in the past, it’s a waste of my time to quote the Constitution to people who prefer cultural myths or comic books...
I have quoted back to you multiple citations down to even Supreme Court cases...of how the Constitution is applied and where it falls in regards to Federal Law.
Please don’t waste your time anymore with me.
And do not post to me again - I hear the identical ‘federal law is supreme’ argument from the Democrats, every time they control the branches of the federal government and are planning to ignore the Constitution...
Your the one who posted on my original post, you could have stopped anytime on your own accord.
Have a wonderful day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.