The Constitutional Case That DESTROYS Liberal Claims About Trump’s Immigration Authority

Liberal politicians and mainstream media outlets have repeatedly claimed that President Trump lacks the authority to enforce immigration law or deploy ICE agents to remove illegal aliens.

These claims are completely demolished by over 130 years of constitutional law, Supreme Court precedent, and explicit congressional authorization.

The Constitution provides MULTIPLE sources of authority for immigration enforcement. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, known as the Naturalization Clause, states, “The Congress shall have Power… to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization…” and the Supreme Court has ruled this gives Congress sweeping power over immigration policy, which the President must then enforce. Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, the Necessary and Proper Clause, declares “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers…”

This enables Congress to pass laws necessary to enforce immigration authority, including creating ICE and authorizing enforcement operations! Article II, Section 1 vests ALL “executive power” in the President, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed this includes immigration enforcement as a core executive function that cannot be stripped away by liberal resistance.

Article II, Section 3 contains the “Take Care Clause,” which doesn’t just allow but REQUIRES that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

This is a constitutional command, not a suggestion. When Congress passes immigration laws, the President has a constitutional duty to enforce them.

In Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that the Take Care Clause requires the President to enforce congressional statutes “and repudiates any notion that he may dispense with the law’s execution,” as President Biden did. Every immigration law passed by Congress MUST be enforced, period.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that immigration control is an inherent sovereign power. In Nishimura Ekiu v. United States from 1892, the Court declared, “It is an accepted maxim of international law that every sovereign nation has the power, as inherent in sovereignty, and essential to self-preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners within its dominions.”

In Harisiades v. Shaughnessy from 1952, the Court ruled that the “traditional power of the Nation over the alien” is “a power inherent in every sovereign state.”

Most recently, in Trump v. Hawaii from 2018, the Court reaffirmed that “For more than a century, this Court has recognized that the admission and exclusion of foreign nationals is a ‘fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments.'”

Article VI establishes federal supremacy in immigration matters. The Supreme Court has held that states cannot independently regulate immigration because it is exclusively a federal power.

This same principle means that federal immigration enforcement, when conducted pursuant to federal law, supersedes any conflicting state or local policies.

The Immigration and Nationality Act, passed by Congress and signed into law, gives immigration officers sweeping powers. Section 287(a) gives ICE agents the power to interrogate any alien about their legal status, arrest without a warrant for immigration violations, patrol borders and conduct searches, and serve administrative warrants.

Section 287(g) DESTROYS Sanctuary City Arguments by explicitly authorizing ICE to partner with state and local law enforcement. As of July 2025, ICE has 777 active agreements with agencies across 40 states, and that number keeps growing.

For over 130 years, the Supreme Court has made one thing clear: immigration is an exclusive federal power.

In U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright (1936), the Court recognized the president’s inherent authority over foreign affairs and borders, no act of Congress needed.

In Arizona v. United States (2012), the Court ruled that federal law preempts state immigration laws because immigration is a sovereign federal function. This appears to invalidate the concept of sanctuary cities and states.

The Court created the “plenary power doctrine,” giving Congress full authority over immigration. In Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972), the Court upheld Congress’s unlimited power to regulate alien entry.

In Demore v. Kim (2003), it ruled that immigration laws can treat aliens differently than citizens, so standard constitutional challenges don’t apply.

Congress just approved $170 billion for immigration enforcement in 2025. That includes $45B for detention, $29.9B for ICE operations, $46.5B for the wall, and $13.5B for state/local reimbursements. You don’t get record funding for something that’s illegal.

This isn’t new. Clinton demanded stronger enforcement in his 1995 State of the Union. The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act had bipartisan support.

So did the Secure Fence Act of 2006. Immigration enforcement has always been American policy. Trump’s just the first to actually enforce it.

Liberal legal arguments collapse under basic facts. Due process applies to how removal is done, not whether ICE can arrest or detain.

Many illegal aliens can be removed through expedited procedures without full hearings, including those who overstay visas, are caught at the border, arrive without proper documentation, or have been previously deported and returned illegally.

Immigration is a federal matter. Article VI’s Supremacy Clause makes that law binding nationwide. Liberals keep suing, and losing. Courts have upheld ICE’s authority, executive enforcement, detention, and removal.

Section 287(g) allows voluntary state cooperation, but the federal government doesn’t need it. States can’t block ICE. Local officials don’t have veto power over federal law.

The post The Constitutional Case That DESTROYS Liberal Claims About Trump’s Immigration Authority appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.