The immigration enforcement response to 9/11 set the stage for ICE’s aggressive conduct. Under this way of thinking, if the homeland is under threat, then those who challenge immigration enforcement are “domestic terrorists.” Investigations into ICE officers are muted, for the officers are protecting the homeland against existential danger. Severe tactics to detain immigrants and condemn protesters – and violate U.S. citizens’ constitutional protections — become not only permissible but also advisable.

The millions of immigrants who have crossed the border with Mexico since 2020 could change the balance of political power in Congress — but in a way likely to boost Republican states that emphasize border security, at the expense of more welcoming Democratic states.

The Trump administration has claimed the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua had taken over the building. But new documents make no mention of the gang and reveal federal agents had information about “illegal aliens unlawfully occupying apartments.”

Tensions rise nationwide over aggressive enforcement tactics and deadly encounters. As lawmakers convene for this year’s state legislative sessions, immigration has surged to the top of the agenda.

Cellphone video has emerged as a powerful rebuttal to Trump’s – and Trump officials’ — version of events, at a time when the federal government has restricted state and local investigators from accessing potential evidence to pursue their own investigations into excessive force and fatal shootings by immigration agents in their jurisdictions.

It is crucial to grasp that ICE and Border Patrol routinely violate the rights of US citizens, both the naturalized kind and those born right here. These assaults on citizens’ rights appear to be multiplying rapidly.Many advocates of constitutional liberty have begun pushing back against ICE and Border Patrol’s incursions on the Bill of Rights. More should join them.

ICE’s legal advisory – asserting that ICE agents may enter private homes with an administrative, rather than a judicial, warrant — rests on arguable, but exceedingly fragile, legal foundations. Administrative warrants, consent, and exigent circumstances can justify certain actions, but none supports a general authority to enter homes without a judicial warrant. The legal debate is not about immigration policy but about whether the executive branch can erode one of the Constitution’s most settled protections.

U.K. core challenge today is not simply the volume of arrivals, but the rapidly evolving criminal ecosystems that facilitate them. Smuggling networks are adjusting faster than governmental policy tools, by shifting routes, exploiting digital platforms, and experimenting with new forms of coercion and revenue generation. Unless the UK and its European partners update their approach in 2026, they risk merely managing arrivals rather than disrupting the criminal systems that drive them.

The killing in Minneapolis is but the latest in a series of incidents involving federal immigration agents’ use of apparent excessive force, in violation of the Fourth Amendment and federal criminal law. Samantha Trepel writes that DOJ has remained disturbingly silent through months of these tactics. “This silence is a dangerous abdication of DOJ’s authority and responsibility.” Unfortunately, DOJ’s current abdication of responsibility “puts communities at needless risk and undermines the rule of law itself.”