[U] Chicago Sez: "This IS What Democracy Looks Like!" We Are... Resolute, And Ready.

Look. The advice is good -- and I concur. However, I wish to note that no one (who is not driving a vehicle, at the moment of stop), and who is not causing a disturbance, is ever required to show papers, of any sort, on a public sidewalk or street -- or in their place of employment or. . . most of all, in one's own home. [Update: Some early Monday NYT reporting suggests just the normal, relatively low level of ICE enforcement movements are being seen inside city limits. . . no National Guard seen anywhere, nor swarming ICE agents, of dozens at a time.]

Just the same, if ICE is reputed to be rolling through your city/ward. . . it is smart to carry lots of official ID, and paperwork, if you are here lawfully -- in any form (as you might have it).

Now, these Noemite ICE agents may not respect it, but you'll create a very large damages award, with proof in your own hands/phones. . . if they do detain you for more than a few minutes. They will clearly be violating your rights. So do heed the Pilsen neighbors' advisory at right, if your city is one targeted by Tangerine/Noem.

Yes, we are ready -- and the Seventh Circuit federal law (notably, covering Chicago). . . is clearly on our side:

. . .Our role in this case is not to assess the optimal immigration policies for our country; that is not before us today. Rather, the issue before us strikes at one of the bedrock principles of our nation, the protection of which transcends political party affiliation and rests at the heart of our system of government -- the separation of powers. . . .

If the Executive Branch can determine policy, and then use the power of the purse to mandate compliance with that policy by the state and local governments, all without the authorization or even acquiescence of elected legislators, that check against tyranny is forsaken. . . .

[Tangerine 1.0] in this case used the sword of federal funding to conscript state and local authorities to aid in federal civil immigration enforcement. But the power of the purse rests with Congress, which authorized the federal funds at issue and did not impose any immigration enforcement conditions on the receipt of such funds. In fact, Congress repeatedly refused to approve of measures that would tie funding to state and local immigration policies. Nor, as we will discuss, did Congress authorize the Attorney General to impose such conditions.

It falls to us, the judiciary, as the remaining branch of the government, to act as a check on such usurpation of power. . . .

On the other side of the coin, the Supremes just this morning left standing (for now) the federal authorities' (lawless) use of apparent ethnicity as a primary basis for short investigatory stops -- but not for longer detentions, without more "articuable suspicions" -- beyond just skin color (or apparent ethnicity). Ugh. It is an interim opinion only, but regrettable. [Do read the dissent. It correctly states the "on the merits" legal contours. Ones upon which these plaintiffs will ultimately prevail.] In time, on the merits, we will return to the bedrock "no racial profiling" jurisprudence the Supremes have long endorsed. But it will take a minute or two. Damn. Onward.

नमस्ते