In a recent television interview, prospective Trump administration border "czar" Tom Homan said that state officials will be liable to federal prosecution if they actively impede federal agents in the enforcement of immigration law – including apprehending and detaining illegal aliens. 

In context, Homan was being asked about Boston Mayor Michelle Wu, who has vowed that the city would protect non-citizens in "every possible way" from the Trump administration’s plans for large-scale deportations.

Homan made clear that the feds would not attempt to commandeer state and city officials. He acknowledged that such officials have no duty to help federal immigration agents. But they may not interfere with the agents in the execution of their duties or take affirmative steps to conceal or shield illegal immigrants from federal law enforcement.

Homan is right about this.

LOS ANGELES PASSES SANCTUARY CITY ORDINANCE IN WAKE OF TRUMP ELECTION VICTORY

He pointed out that it is a federal felony under Section 1324(1)(a)(iii) of the immigration laws (Title 8, U.S. Code) if a person,

knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation[.]

The Supreme Court has explained, in United States v. Gillock (1980), for example, that "in those areas where the Constitution grants the Federal Government the power to act, the Supremacy Clause dictates that federal enactments will prevail over competing state exercises of power." As a result, state or municipal officials who are accused of violating federal criminal law will not be heard to claim in their defense that they were carrying out official state policies – even if those policies are codified in laws, regulations, or ordinances at the state or local levels.

HOMAN FIRES BACK AFTER CONGRESSIONAL HISPANIC CAUCUS CHAIR SAYS GROUP WILL OPPOSE MASS DEPORTATIONS: 'GAME ON'

Sanctuary cities have been tolerated for too long because Democrats – at the federal, state, and local levels – refuse to enforce federal law. But sanctuary cities have never been legal. 

The Supreme Court has now held a number of times, including in Arizona v. United States (2015), that "the Government of the United States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens." In Arizona vs. the United States, the Court went so far as to forbid the state from enforcing state laws that were designed to support federal immigration laws that the Obama-Biden administration did not want enforced. 

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

Let’s face it: We know from past experience (in the last Trump administration) that, inevitably, open-borders advocate organizations will forum-shop cases to activist progressive judges who will surely rule in their favor. But such setbacks will be temporary.

Ultimately, higher federal courts, including the Supreme Court, are not going to countenance the actions of state and city officials that violate federal immigration law and obstruct federal enforcement of incontestably constitutional immigration laws.

In essence, I hear Tom Homan saying that the era of sanctuary cities is over. I hope that is true. 

If it is, many illegal aliens will return to their home countries – that is, they will self-deport. This would free up resources for federal immigration agents to prioritize apprehension and deportation of criminal aliens – especially the ones in such gangs as Tren de Aragua, which has become a significant violent crime threat in big cities across the country thanks to the collapse of border security under Biden-Harris administration policies. Federal authorities can also then concentrate on the magnets of illegal immigration – such as employers who hire illegal aliens because they are willing to work for lower wages than the law mandates that Americans must be paid.

Getting illegal immigration and border security under control would be a boon for legal immigration. That’s something those who champion immigrants and those who prioritize pro-border security should be able to unite behind.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM ANDREW McCARTHY