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: 386
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 One such action rescinded a prior directive from her Republican predecessor, Glenn Youngkin.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 # 8.
#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.
I think it just says invasion. We are being invaded.
You are correct in the words it says, but the flawed interpretation cannot stand. In order for a state to be afforded the protections of the Invasion Clause, it must be exposed to armed hostility from another political entity, such as another state or foreign country that is intending to overthrow the state's government. See The Federalist No. 43 (James Madison) (stating that the reason for the Invasion Clause is to protect the states from "foreign hostility" and from "ambitious or vindictive enterprises" on the part of other states or foreign nations). Article IV, Sec. 4: Article I, Sec. 8: Article I, Section 10, cl. 3: Article I, Sec. 9, cl. 2: - - - - - - - - - - https://law.justia.com/cases/ federal/appellate-courts/ F3/82/23/485206/ Padavan v. United States, 82 F.3d 23 (2d Cir. 1996) Assuming, arguendo, that the plaintiffs' Invasion Clause claim is justiciable, the claim still must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In order for a state to be afforded the protections of the Invasion Clause, it must be exposed to armed hostility from another political entity, such as another state or foreign country that is intending to overthrow the state's government. See The Federalist No. 43 (James Madison) (stating that the reason for the Invasion Clause is to protect the states from "foreign hostility" and from "ambitious or vindictive enterprises" on the part of other states or foreign nations). Clearly, New York State is not being subjected to the sort of hostility contemplated by the Framers. https://law.justia.com/cases/ federal/appellate-courts/ F3/104/1086/548228/ In this case, the issue of protection of the States from invasion implicates foreign policy concerns which have been constitutionally committed to the political branches. The Supreme Court has held that the political branches have plenary powers over immigration. Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 792, 97 S. Ct. 1473, 1477-78, 52 L. Ed. 2d 50 (1977). For this Court to determine that the United States has been "invaded" when the political branches have made no such determination would disregard the constitutional duties that are the specific responsibility of other branches of government, and would result in the Court making an ineffective non-judicial policy decision. See Barber v. Hawaii, 42 F.3d 1185, 1199 (9th Cir. 1994) (dismissing an Invasion Clause claim as a nonjusticiable political question). Additionally, even if the issue were properly within the Court's constitutional responsibility, there are no manageable standards to ascertain whether or when an influx of illegal immigrants should be said to constitute an invasion. The Court notes that the other Circuits that have addressed the issues before us in similar suits against the United States have reached the same conclusions that we do. Padavan v. United States, 82 F.3d 23, 28 (2nd Cir. 1996); Chiles v. United States, 69 F.3d 1094, 1097 (11th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S. Ct. 1674, 134 L. Ed. 2d 777 (1996); New Jersey v. United States, 91 F.3d 463 (3rd Cir. 1996); Texas v. United States, No. B-94-228 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 7, 1995), appeal pending, No. 95-40721 (5th Cir). Moreover, California ignores the conclusion set forth by our Founders. In The Federalist No. 43, James Madison referred to the Invasion Clause as affording protection in situations wherein a state is exposed to armed hostility from another political entity. Madison stated that Article IV, § 4 serves to protect a state from "foreign hostility" and "ambitious or vindictive enterprises" on the part of other states or foreign nations. The Federalist No. 43 at 293 (Cooke ed.1961). It was not intended to be used as urged by California. https:// caselaw.findlaw.com/ court/us-3rd- circuit/1205572.html New Jersey v. United States (3rd Cir., 1996) In Count III New Jersey alleges that the failure of the United States to prevent the entry of illegal aliens into that state violates the federal government's obligation under the Constitution to “protect each of [the states] against Invasion.” U.S. Const. art. IV, § 4. It offers no support whatsoever for application of the Invasion Clause to this case or for its reading of the term “invasion” to mean anything other than a military invasion. See Padavan, 82 F.3d at 28 (“In order for a state to be afforded the protections of the Invasion Clause, it must be exposed to armed hostility from another political entity, such as another state or foreign country that is intending to overthrow the state's government.” (citing The Federalist No. 43 (James Madison))).
#17. To: A K A Stone, nolu chan (#8)
Regards...MUD
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: nolu chan (#1)
"Against invasion" refers only to military invasion by a foreign nation.
#3. To: A K A Stone (#2)
I think it just says invasion. We are being invaded.
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.
The Congress shall have Power … To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
In Count V, the plaintiffs contend that the federal government violated the Invasion Clause because the influx of legal and illegal aliens into New York State represents an "invasion," and the federal government has failed to protect New York State from this invasion. We think that this count was properly dismissed by the district court.
California v. United States, 104 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir. 1997)
4. Invasion Clause
#8. To: nolu chan (#3)
Replies to Comment # 8. 
End Trace Mode for Comment # 8.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]