The views and opinions expressed in this editorial article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of Salina Post or Eagle Media. The editorial is intended to stimulate critical thinking and debate on issues of public interest and should be read with an open mind. Readers are encouraged to consider multiple sources of information and to form their own informed opinions.
By: ROGER MARSHALL
Kansas U.S. Senator
America has always been the land of opportunity. People come here from every corner of the world chasing the values that we hold so dearly. That is something we should be proud of – but being a welcoming nation doesn't mean we stop being a nation of laws.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau's most recent data, more than 51 million foreign-born individuals live in the United States. That number reflects America's enduring promise. Yet within that total, an estimated 15.4 million people are here illegally – living without legal status or authorization.
American citizens deserve a government that puts them first – no U.S. citizen should be asked to play by the rules while others face no rules at all.
The real question isn't whether we should enforce our immigration laws – of course, we should. The question is whether we are enforcing them legally, fairly, and with the integrity the American people expect from their government.
Democrats in Washington are calling for sweeping changes to how Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrests and removes people who are in the United States illegally. The argument sounds reasonable on the surface: shouldn't a judge sign every warrant before ICE can act? But when you look at how the current system actually works, the case for changing it falls apart.
First, it helps to understand that there are two kinds of warrants. Criminal warrants – the kind you see on TV – are signed by a judge before police can act. Administrative warrants are different: they are used in civil proceedings, like tax enforcement or immigration, where the government is not charging someone with a crime. ICE uses administrative warrants – and federal courts have upheld that practice for decades.
Here's the truth about how ICE operates: They don't show up on a hunch. In many cases, when ICE serves someone with a removal warrant, that person has already had their full day in court. They appeared before a federal immigration judge. They made their case. They had the chance to appeal. The court ordered them removed. That day in court had already come and gone.
For those who haven't gone through that process yet, ICE still doesn't act on a whim. They make an arrest based on probable cause – the same legal standard your local police use every single day. It's documented. It's grounded in evidence. And after the arrest, that person gets a notice to appear before a federal immigration judge, where they can hire a lawyer, present evidence, and appeal any ruling they disagree with. That – a hearing, a lawyer, the right to appeal – is due process.
And this isn't some new legal theory floated by the current Administration. The Supreme Court settled this decades ago. In Abel v. United States, the Court upheld administrative warrants as a lawful tool for interior immigration enforcement. President Obama's ICE used the same warrants. So did President Bush's. This is not a new invention — it is settled law.
In Kansas, we understand the difference between a system that needs fixing and one that needs defending. Our farmers follow the law. Our small business owners follow the law. The overwhelming majority of Kansans follow the law every day. They expect a federal government that enforces the rules, too.
Demanding a second round of judicial sign-off before someone who entered this country illegally can be removed isn't about protecting rights. It's about using politics to sow doubt into a process that is already built on probable cause, administrative due process, and decades of judicial review.
Layering criminal court requirements onto what has always been a civil, administrative process – one that takes place outside the criminal justice system by design – wouldn't make anyone safer. It would mean longer backlogs, more cases dropped, and people already ordered removed by a federal judge walking free. It would make enforcement nearly impossible.
This isn't a debate about compassion versus cruelty. It's a debate about who Washington is actually working for. Every American who plays by the rules deserves a government in their corner. Right now,democrats in Congress are more focused on shielding people who entered this country illegally than defending the citizens they were elected to serve.
You can send us your opinions/letters to the editor, along with your name, city and or county location to newstips@salinapost.com