Sanctuary Cities and Jim Crow: Constitutional Nullification in Two Acts

A bold depiction of a mysterious crow, surrounded by ominous symbols and industrial imagery, suggests a hidden operation that demands exposure and confrontation.

The Trump administration has now had a few months to get it's bearings and to move forward to right the wrongs of the Biden regime as well as expose as much of the deep state operations that it can.

One of the issues that seems to still confound the Trump clan is the issue of "sanctuary cities" and this issue is one of the easiest to solve IF you have a Justice Department that is interested in bringing back the rule of law and bringing relief to the citizens of the USA who have had the unfortunate luck to have to live among these delusional cosplayers and traitors.

I posit the fact that there is absolutely NO legal grounds on which these cities stand and if it were not for the intercession of their various states and the indifference of Federal law enforcement during the last administration, these blights on the landscape could have easily been swept away.

Now is the time to roll up one's sleeves and take out the trash. We are living in a time when the traditional terms of War and Conflict do not mean what we would have thought they did even 15 years ago. The war and damage that is being inflicted upon the people and government institutions of th the United States are grave and yet not everywhere seen.

The issue of the "sanctuary cities" is not one of those unseen wounds. It is open and leaking out onto the fabric of our nation.

Introduction: The Rebellion Within

At two different moments in American history, cities and states have defied federal authority in open rebellion. One era flew the banner of Jim Crow—segregation, voter suppression, and racial tyranny. The other wears the mask of compassion, but its effects are no less corrosive: sanctuary cities that actively undermine federal immigration law, harbor illegal aliens, and divert taxpayer resources to support an extralegal class of residents.

Though separated by a century, these two systems share a common DNA: a deliberate refusal by local and state governments to uphold the Constitution and enforce federal law, thereby creating zones of legal nullification and moral inversion. The federal government once rose with righteous force to destroy the former. It now shirks its duty—or worse, collaborates—in propping up the latter.

I. Jim Crow: State Nullification of Federal Civil Rights

Jim Crow laws were designed to subvert the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, which promised liberty, equal protection, and the right to vote for all citizens regardless of race.

Jim Crow Characteristic	Description
Segregation	Enforced racial separation in public and private spaces.
Disenfranchisement	Poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses used to suppress Black votes.
State Resistance	Southern states nullified federal authority, defended by local sheriffs, governors, and courts.
Federal Response	Civil Rights Act (1964), Voting Rights Act (1965), SCOTUS rulings, and at times military enforcement (e.g., Little Rock 1957).

In these cases, the federal government recognized that state and local rebellion required federal force—not negotiation. The DOJ, federal courts, and U.S. Marshals were mobilized to crush resistance and restore constitutional rights to citizens.

II. Sanctuary Cities: The New Face of Lawless Nullification

Today, sanctuary cities mirror this old model of defiance. They have nullified federal immigration law under the pretext of human rights, safety, or diversity—but the effect is strikingly similar to Jim Crow:

Sanctuary City Characteristic	Description
Harboring Illegal Aliens	Cities refuse to cooperate with ICE, reject detainers, and release criminal aliens back into communities.
Misappropriation of Taxpayer Funds	Public resources are diverted from lawful citizens to illegal residents for housing, healthcare, education, and legal aid.
Undermining Federal Law	Local and state policies actively block enforcement of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324, 1325, and 1373.
State Support	Entire states (e.g., California, Illinois, New York) codify this rebellion into law.
Victimization of Citizens	American citizens suffer crimes, diminished services, and diluted political representation.

Just as Jim Crow used state law to resist civil rights for Black Americans, sanctuary cities use state and municipal laws to resist federal immigration policy, creating a new subclass of super-protected non-citizens and diminishing the rights and safety of American citizens.

III. The Constitutional Parallels: Nullification, Equal Protection, and Federal Supremacy

A. Nullification Revisited

The Constitution is clear: federal law is “the supreme Law of the Land” (Article VI, Supremacy Clause). States may not pick and choose which laws to follow.

Just as southern states nullified federal civil rights statutes in the 19th and 20th centuries, sanctuary cities nullify immigration statutes today, effectively declaring:

“We will not allow our police to help enforce laws we disagree with.”

This is textbook nullification, dressed in progressive language.

B. Equal Protection Violations

Under the 14th Amendment, all persons within a jurisdiction are entitled to equal protection under the law. Yet sanctuary jurisdictions create discriminatory dual systems:

• Citizens are subject to full legal accountability, while illegal aliens are shielded from enforcement.

• Public services are rationed or denied to lawful residents, while funds are redirected to harbor illegal migrants.

• Political representation is distorted, as the census counts illegal aliens—giving sanctuary states more congressional seats and electoral power.

This mirrors Jim Crow’s two-tiered system—where one class had rights, and the other did not. But now, citizens are the underclass, punished for their lawful status.

C. Subversion of Civil Rights Enforcement

Ironically, the very agencies that once fought to integrate schools and enforce voting rights are now complicit in aiding sanctuary systems. Under both the Obama and Biden administrations:

• The DOJ sued states like Arizona for enforcing immigration law (SB 1070).

• ICE has been restrained, neutered, or actively obstructed by internal policy.

• Federal grants continue to flow into jurisdictions openly defying federal law.

This inversion would be unthinkable in the Civil Rights era. Imagine the federal government funding Alabama’s resistance to school desegregation. Yet that is precisely what is happening with sanctuary jurisdictions today.

IV. A Plan for Restoring the Rule of Law

This rebellion must be met not with appeasement, but with constitutional force.

A. At the Federal Level:

1. Cut Federal Funding

   • Use the power of the purse to deny sanctuary jurisdictions all federal grants not mandated by statute.

   • Attach strict enforcement conditions to federal funds (as allowed under South Dakota v. Dole, 1987).

2. Criminal Prosecution of Officials

   • Use 8 U.S.C. § 1324 to prosecute officials who knowingly harbor or shield illegal aliens.

   • Invoke 18 U.S.C. § 371 (conspiracy to defraud the United States) where collusion with NGOs is evident.

3. Deploy Federal Enforcement

   • Re-establish fully autonomous federal task forces (ICE, HSI) with statutory immunity from local interference.

   • In extreme cases, consider invoking the Insurrection Act if state officials directly obstruct lawful federal action.

4. Override Sanctuary Laws via Legislation

   • Pass a revised federal law explicitly banning sanctuary policies and affirming federal supremacy over immigration enforcement.

B. At the State Level:

1. Ban Sanctuary Policies

   • Mirror Texas SB 4 and Florida SB 168: prohibit all local ordinances that interfere with immigration enforcement.

2. Empower Citizens

   • Enact state-level laws allowing civil lawsuits against municipalities for crimes committed by released illegal aliens.

3. Audit and Reclaim Funds

   • Audit local governments for misuse of taxpayer money in support of illegal migration.

   • Recover funds where illegal appropriations are found.

4. Purge Noncompliant Officials

   • Allow for removal of sheriffs, mayors, and DA’s who violate state law through willful noncompliance.

Conclusion: The Duty to Confront Domestic Rebellion

Sanctuary cities are not havens of compassion—they are zones of insurrection, akin to the Jim Crow South in their defiance of federal authority and destruction of civil rights. Where Jim Crow oppressed citizens based on race, sanctuary cities suppress citizens based on their citizenship, and violate their rights by elevating foreign nationals above them.

In both cases, the government had—and still has—a constitutional duty to act. Not with press releases or lawsuits alone, but with the full force of federalism, statutory authority, and, if necessary, federal enforcement.

We defeated one form of domestic rebellion.We must now confront another.

No more federal funds for sanctuary rebels.No more tolerance for civil subversion.And no more American cities outside the law.

The Constitution requires it.Justice demands it.And the republic cannot survive without it.