At a White House press conference on April 28, border czar Tom Homan delivered a clear and unapologetic message that parents illegally in the country with U.S. citizen children bear responsibility for their families’ deportation, not law enforcement.
His remarks cut through the noise of emotional appeals and confirm a fundamental principle that actions have consequences. While this may sound extreme to those who supported Biden-era permissiveness on border security, Homan’s stance is essential to upholding the rule of law.
This position of the Trump administration’s border czar – who, for full disclosure, previously served as senior fellow for the Immigration Reform Law Institute – is rooted in straightforward logic. Parents, by choosing to enter or remain in the United States unlawfully, knowingly place their families in a precarious legal position. When deportation proceedings begin, these parents face a choice: leave their U.S. citizen children with relatives or take them along.
As Homan stated, this is “Parenting 101” – a parental decision, not a government imposition. The government does not deport U.S. citizens, but neither should it grant immunity from immigration laws simply because a child was born on U.S. soil. To suggest otherwise would create a massive loophole that incentivizes entering the country illegally, undermining the sovereignty of our borders.
Homan’s critics argue that deportations tear families apart, but they conveniently ignore that the initial illegal act – crossing the border or overstaying a visa – sets the stage for these outcomes. Personal responsibility, not law enforcement, is the root cause.
The question of accountability for border violators raises the issue of the rule of law, a phrase weaponized by President Donald Trump’s opponents during what many of his supporters call “lawfare.” For years, critics have repeatedly insisted that “no one is above the law” while pursuing legal actions against Trump, from impeachment trials to investigations into his business dealings and election-related conduct. They argued that legal consequences must apply universally, regardless of status or influence.
Yet, when it comes to immigration enforcement, these same voices often excuse or even celebrate defiance of federal law. The contradiction is glaring: if no one is above the law, why should people illegally in the country – or those who shield them – be exempt from its reach?
The hypocrisy becomes even more obvious when it comes to the actions of judges who have faced arrest for obstructing Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.
This was evident in the recent arrest of Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan, who is accused of helping a suspected criminal evade ICE agents outside her courtroom. Such acts are not mere disagreements over policy; they are deliberate attempts to subvert the law, placing personal ideology above legal duty.
If “no one is above the law,” as Trump’s critics insist, then judges like Dugan must face the same accountability they demand of others. Arresting them for obstructing ICE is justified to ensure that the law applies equally, whether in a courtroom or at the border.
When judges or local officials block ICE’s efforts, they create sanctuaries not just for families but for criminals, as Homan has noted in his critiques of sanctuary cities. These policies force ICE agents into communities to conduct removal operations, increasing the likelihood of “collateral arrests” and endangering both officers and residents.
Rather than cooperate as required by law, too many officials choose the more chaotic option, cloaking their defiance in moral rhetoric while their communities slide further into lawlessness.
The irony is that the same critics who decry Trump’s border security moves as attacks on democracy will defend the acts of judges like Dugan as righteous resistance. They cannot have it both ways. If the law is sacrosanct when it targets a political adversary, it must also be upheld when it demands the deportation of those who violated immigration statutes.
Homan’s stance exposes this double standard and challenges the narrative that immigration enforcement is inherently unjust. By holding parents accountable for their choices and insisting on the enforcement of existing laws, he reaffirms that the rule of law is not meant to be a selective tool, but a universal standard.
In a nation of laws, Homan’s message is a clarion call for consistency. Parents illegally in the country, like anyone else, must face the consequences of their actions. Judges who obstruct federal enforcement must be held to account, just as Trump’s critics demand accountability from him.
The refrain that “no one is above the law” rings hollow when it is applied only to political foes and not to those who flout immigration statutes or shield lawbreakers. Homan’s unyielding commitment to enforcement is not about division but about fairness, a principle that should unite us all.
