1. United States
2. Texas
3. Letter

I write as a concerned Texas citizen to express deep alarm about federal immigration enforcement practices conducted during the Trump administration and continued in form thereafter, particularly operations carried out by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Minnesota and nationally. My concern is not rooted in partisan disagreement, but in a conviction that these practices conflict with conservative principles of limited government, individual liberty, and respect for the constitutional structure carefully designed by the Founders. Documented Federal Overreach and Institutional Failure. Multiple government audits and oversight reports during the Trump administration documented serious deficiencies within ICE operations, including inconsistent adherence to constitutional safeguards and inadequate training. The Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General found that ICE officers conducted enforcement actions without sufficient legal review, clear guidance, or consistent training, increasing the risk of unlawful searches, seizures, and detention decisions (DHS OIG-18-42; DHS OIG-21-29). These findings were not speculative; they were based on internal audits identifying systemic weaknesses in supervision and accountability. While immigration enforcement is a lawful federal function, the manner of execution matters profoundly in a constitutional republic. A Conservative Conflict with Centralized Power. Conservatism has historically rejected the concentration of unchecked authority. Yet the expansion of federal enforcement power—often through aggressive executive action—mirrors precisely the kind of centralized control conservatives have long opposed. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that federal authority, even when constitutionally grounded, is limited and must respect the states’ retained powers (Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012)). When federal agencies operate in ways that disregard local institutions, destabilize communities, and strain state resources, the result is not order, but bureaucratic coercion inconsistent with federalist design. Founding-Era Warnings Against Authoritarian Drift. The Founders anticipated this danger. James Madison wrote that the federal government’s powers would be “few and defined,” while those of the states would remain “numerous and indefinite” (The Federalist No. 45). This division was not a technicality; it was a safeguard against tyranny. In Federalist No. 51, Madison further warned that “the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands… may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” Expansive executive enforcement regimes—especially when insulated from meaningful oversight—run directly counter to this warning. Thomas Jefferson was even more explicit. In his 1798 Kentucky Resolutions, he cautioned that when the federal government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are “unauthoritative, void, and of no force.” Jefferson’s concern was not immigration or any single policy area, but the enduring risk that fear or expediency would be used to justify the erosion of liberty. History shows that once such precedents are set, they rarely remain confined to their original target. Liberty, the Home, and the Armed Citizen. Conservative political philosophy has always placed special emphasis on the sanctity of the home and the independence of the citizen. The Supreme Court has recognized that the home lies at the core of Fourth Amendment protection (Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980)), and that the right to keep arms in the home is central to the Second Amendment (District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)). Although evidence regarding firearm-related enforcement encounters varies by jurisdiction and remains incomplete, courts have made clear that federal agents may not rely on generalized safety rationales to bypass constitutional limits (Caniglia v. Strom, 141 S. Ct. 1596 (2021)). Any enforcement culture that treats constitutional rights as obstacles rather than boundaries is incompatible with conservative ideals. A Call for Principled Leadership. The issue before Congress is not whether immigration laws should be enforced, but whether enforcement will remain faithful to the constitutional framework that defines us as a free people. The Trump administration’s approach—characterized by aggressive executive expansion and documented administrative failures—illustrates how easily conservative rhetoric can be undermined by authoritarian practice. True fidelity to the rule of law requires restraint, transparency, and accountability, especially when federal power is brought to bear on individuals and states. Conclusion. Our republic was not built to be efficient at the expense of liberty. It was built to endure by restraining power. I urge Congress to reclaim its constitutional role, insist upon lawful and limited federal enforcement, and reaffirm that conservative governance means more than slogans—it means honoring the wisdom of the Founders and the freedoms they sought to preserve.