From Facebook:

"... Federal Power vs State Resistance: Immigration Clash Intensifies 🇺🇸
A growing confrontation is unfolding between federal immigration enforcement officials and state leadership in Arizona, highlighting the broader national conflict over “sanctuary” policies and deportation cooperation.

Former immigration enforcement chief Tom Homan recently warned that federal authorities may take stronger action against state or local officials who actively obstruct federal deportation operations.

His comments directed attention toward Governor Katie Hobbs and raised questions about how far the federal government is willing to go in enforcing immigration law when local governments resist.

Supporters of stronger federal enforcement argue that immigration policy is ultimately a federal responsibility under the Constitution. From their perspective, when state or local officials refuse to cooperate with deportation orders or block access to detention facilities, it undermines the rule of law and weakens border enforcement. Advocates say federal authorities must ensure immigration laws are applied consistently across the country, even if that means challenging state policies in court.
State leaders and sanctuary policy supporters see the issue differently. They argue that local governments have the right to determine how their law enforcement resources are used and that forcing cooperation with federal immigration authorities can damage trust between police and immigrant communities. Critics of aggressive federal action also warn that criminalizing political disagreements between federal and state officials could raise serious constitutional questions about states’ rights.
The dispute reflects a larger national struggle over immigration enforcement, federal authority, and the balance of power between Washington and state governments. As tensions rise, legal battles may ultimately decide how far federal authorities can go when state leaders refuse to cooperate with immigration enforcement efforts. ..."

I believe,
that if the Fed, can not stop a State Gov from harboring ILLEGALS.
All roads leading into some States will have a gate, (something), that stops all travelers, then they have to prove that they are NOT ILLEGALS.

Remember the  Calf flies 'checkpoint' ?  
Today it's just, Wave Through.

Ah, this is clearly a good start to a discussion.

Are there any points in particular you'd like to hear others' opinions on? Something about the control posts or the feasibility of overarching federal legislation?

I think I've demonstrated that we're clearly having a discussion here, not just complaining. There's clearly a desire to encourage discussion and express personal opinions.
Open questions are being asked, and there's an openness to alternative approaches.

Egore would you mind checking these facts?

I believe,
that if the Fed, can not stop a State Gov from harboring ILLEGALS.
All roads leading into some States will have a gate, (something), that stops all travelers, then they have to prove that they are NOT ILLEGALS.


 The problem with this, in my opinion, is the delgation of authority for this type of action rests solely on the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and they have a 100 mile limit from the US International Border for interstate checkpoints.  

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10559

https://www.help.cbp.gov/s/article/Article-1253?language=en_US

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46601


 It is as legal to stop humans at State lines to check immigration status as it is to stop humans at State lines to check for guns or drugs.  Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000) shows clearly that any such checkpoint that MnSpring describes is in violation of the 4th Amendment.  

 The SCOTUS has never approved a checkpoint program whose primary purpose was to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/32/


 The US has Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.  The SCOTUS has ruled multiple times that travel is a recognized right under this clause.  This secures application of all 4th Amendment protections for any human travelling inside the US, with minumal exceptions within the "100 mile" rule.

Yes, thank you, now I understand the dilemma and the situation better.

I think the polarization is throwing a wrench in the works here. Because you first have to unanimously acknowledge that there is a problem (if there is one), and that can't be an opinion it has to be factual. Then you have to explore the possibilities of amending laws if you want to do something about it. But there's also such a thing as a democratically elected president.
He or she should be able to find the space to come up with solutions to a specific problem, and apparently, that's not the case.

This stalemate is unhealthy, and that's also clearly evident from the political tension/division and differences of opinion among the population.

Rules are just rules, and such tensions can lead to escalations, as we're clearly seeing now.

Doing nothing isn't an option either.
I wonder what a way out of the immigration problem is that everyone could live with.

In the Netherlands, everyone is required to be able to identify themselves if the police ask for it, but there must be a valid reason. In practice, there are plenty of reasons, such as street fights, traffic violations, and the like, to control people without them feeling their rights are being violated.
In Europe, there are no longer passport checks at borders between countries, but the police are still allowed to carry them out, and we consider it normal. We all understand that this serves a purpose, and I've never heard of any resistance to it. So I think that would be a good option for America as well.

You could also choose the solution of opening up the country, as the Biden administration wants, but I see in Europe that you'd create a huge problem that you can't reverse.

I also see that what Trump is doing is causing many harrowing cases that I don't like to see. But I also see the challenges here, and I'm confronted with nuisance daily. And also with crime. A month ago, one of my bikes was stolen. €4,500 in damage. From the footage, I clearly saw that it was someone with an immigrant background. Our village is currently in the crosshairs of thieves from the city and people from immigrant shelters.
A week ago, my car was broken into, and everything was ransacked.

So I experience the problems of mass immigration firsthand.
I grew up in one of the worst neighborhoods in the Netherlands; it was a real struggle to break free from that. That's why I'm very worried when I walk around town and see people with the same mentality from immigration countries. If I had my way, I would arrest everyone who didn't have legal status. There's always room to prevent inhumanity, but it shouldn't be impossible to intervene if you see things escalating. And I think it is escalating.
Yesterday I got into a fight because someone punched my car as I was driving past him. I got out and confronted him, and he attacked me. I managed to fight him off. But there's a dent in my roof, and those guys don't have insurance, and the police aren't there when you need them.

How would you deal with situations like that?
Relocating? There's a massive housing shortage, and what's available is freed up because there are similar problems.

I'm used to something because I've experienced much worse things. I just shrug it off, apply a little Arnia ointment to my cheekbone and ribs, and get back to business as usual, but I think an unbearable situation is developing. I would very much like someone like Trump to be president here. And I wouldn't mind at all if measures clashed a bit with the constitution.

At the same time, I'm on a path that makes me see the absolute necessity of being devout. I always thought those two energies would clash, but they don't. It's only beneficial.
And I'm thinking about how I'll handle such a situation next time.

Join the municipal council? Not really interested in politics.
Am I  complaining  ? I hope not