Mexican Invasion
See other Mexican Invasion Articles
Title: "Homan Plans to Defy Spanberger After ‘Bond Villain’ Blocks ICE Cooperation in VA: ‘Not Going to Stop’"
Source:
RedState.com
URL Source: https://redstate.com/rusty-weiss/20 ... -stop-n2198433#google_vignette
Published: Jan 23, 2026
Author: Rusty Weiss
Post Date: 2026-01-23 10:24:29 by Mudboy Slim
Keywords: None
Views: 394
Comments: 17
White House Border Czar Tom Homan sharply criticized Virginia's newly inaugurated Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D) on Thursday, accusing her of undermining federal immigration enforcement efforts by signing an executive order that curtails the state's cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Spanberger, recently likened to a "Bond villain" by Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon, issued a series of executive actions on her first day that read like a far-left wish list. This, despite portraying herself as a moderate while running for the office. One such action rescinded a prior directive from her Republican predecessor, Glenn Youngkin. Youngkin expanded collaboration among the Virginia State Police, the Department of Corrections, and ICE, allowing local officers to perform limited federal immigration duties and to facilitate the identification and deportation of individuals in custody who were subject to removal. She crumpled up that policy and tossed it in the trash within hours. And Homan is calling her out. “I’m a resident of Virginia, and Spanberger — I remember her campaign ads. ‘I’m a law enforcement officer. I rescued children from sex trafficking.’ I’ve seen the commercials,” Homan said in an interview with “Ruthless” co-host John Ashbrook. “So, first day in office, she stops being a law enforcement officer and became a politician because where’s all those commercials you did about supporting law enforcement and rescuing kids?” Campaigning as a tough-on-crime moderate, only to unleash sanctuary- style protections for illegals on day one, is certainly a choice. Homan went on to highlight the successes of the Trump administration in removing violent criminal illegal aliens from the United States, including locating "130,000 of those missing kids" lost under the Biden regime, as well as touting the recent surge in Minnesota. The border czar said he still hopes to work with Spanberger, but admitted it "doesn't look good." As such, the admin will simply have to keep flooding the zone in so-called sanctuary cities, where the "sanctuary" is exclusively felt by criminals, not by the American people. "I said it from Day 1: the thousands of agents we're bringing on - we're going to flood sanctuary cities," Homan said. "We have to because you created a problem when you released some public safety threats in the streets." “So, unfortunately, they set the stage, and we’re going to do what we’ve got to do. They’re not going to stop us. They can stand on the sidelines and watch," he chided. "Shame on them, but they’re not going to stop us from doing this mission.” President Trump appears to be on board, recently calling out Spanberger for limiting cooperation with ICE in Virginia. "Well, I hope there are no problems because if there are, she's not gonna get it corrected very easily. And, uh, that's a bad signal. You know, that's not where the country is," he said in an interview with Katie Pavlich of NewsNation. "The country doesn't wanna see murderers and drug dealers and gang members, and all coming from other countries and just stay in their area." "Take a look at Washington DC, as you know better than anybody, it was very, very unsafe a year and a half ago. Because now it's a year, so I have to go a little more than a year ago, but it was a very, very unsafe place," the President told Pavlich. "And now it's totally safe. It's a, it's a beautiful, I mean, people are walking with their kids to restaurants." Spanberger would prefer that the citizens of Virginia hide in the shadows, staying behind locked doors at home, rather than having criminal illegal aliens be a little skittish about having to be held accountable. Any Bond villain would be nodding with approval.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 16.
#1. To: Mudboy Slim (#0)
States have no legal obligation to cooperate or assist federal law enforcement whatsoever. Think of how the states cooperate and assist the feds in enforcing the federal pot laws. The People only granted an extremely limited element of the police power to the Federal government under Article 4, Section 4: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence." "Against invasion" refers only to military invasion by a foreign nation. "Against domestic violence" requires a request by the state to the federal government. There has never been a national police force because none was authorized by the Constitution. The three letter agencies are a recent development purposed with limited jurisdiction to enforce specific federal laws.
1. United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) — Commerce Clause limits clarified Even though the Court struck down the Gun‑Free School Zones Act, it explicitly reaffirmed that Congress may criminalize and federally prosecute: Drug trafficking Weapons trafficking Organized crime Cross‑border criminal enterprises Because these activities substantially affect interstate and international commerce, federal enforcement is constitutional. Why it matters: The Court recognized that transnational criminal groups fall squarely within federal jurisdiction. 2. Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) — Federal power over drug cartels The Supreme Court held that Congress may regulate all drug production and distribution under the Commerce Clause, even intrastate marijuana. Implication: If Congress can regulate a single marijuana plant grown at home, it can certainly regulate — and enforce laws against — international drug cartels. 3. United States v. Alvarez‑Machain, 504 U.S. 655 (1992) — Cross‑border cartel enforcement The Court upheld the federal government’s authority to: Apprehend a Mexican national involved in the Guadalajara Cartel Bring him to the U.S. for trial Prosecute him under federal law Why it matters: The Court recognized federal authority to act outside U.S. borders against cartel members involved in crimes against U.S. agents. Federal Intervention Against Paramilitary or Militia‑Type Groups 4. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) — Federal regulation of armed groups The Court upheld the National Firearms Act, affirming Congress’s power to regulate: Weapons used by paramilitary groups Arms trafficking across state lines Why it matters: Federal authority extends to armed groups whose activities cross state or national boundaries. 5. United States v. Rahman (1995) — Prosecution of non‑state militant groups The federal government successfully prosecuted the “Blind Sheikh” and his followers for: Conspiracy to wage war against the U.S. Terrorist plots involving non‑state actors Federal courts upheld broad federal authority to intervene against paramilitary and extremist groups, even when not tied to a foreign government. Federal Intervention Against Non‑State Actors (Terrorism, Insurgency, Transnational Crime) 6. Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010) — Federal power over foreign non‑state groups The Court upheld federal authority to regulate and criminalize support to: Foreign terrorist organizations Non‑state armed groups Why it matters: The Constitution allows federal action against non‑state actors, not just foreign armies. 7. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) — Non‑state combatants The Court recognized federal authority to detain individuals associated with: Non‑state militant groups Paramilitary organizations Even when not tied to a nation‑state. 8. United States v. Verdugo‑Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990) — Federal action against foreign criminal organizations The Court upheld federal authority to: Conduct searches abroad Target members of Mexican drug cartels Enforce U.S. criminal law extraterritorially
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. None of your cited cases seems to have anything to do with an invasion.
I'm not gonna pretend I've read every word of this thread, but what I did read was informative and civilly discussed. I commend both of you. Regards...MUD
Regards...MUD
There are no replies to Comment # 16. End Trace Mode for Comment # 16.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#4. To: nolu chan (#1)
"Against invasion" refers only to military invasion by a foreign nation.
#9. To: A K A Stone (#4)
#15. To: nolu chan, A K A Stone (#9)
#16. To: All (#15)
Replies to Comment # 16.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]