How much power should federal agencies have in cities like Chicago to enforce immigration laws without violating constitutional rights like those in the Fourth Amendment?  This article looks at that question, especially where federal and local authorities meet. It will also cover the economic effects and how these raids impact communities, which are key to understanding the wider consequences of ICE actions.

​

Introduction 

       Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operates under federal authority granted by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) [1]. However, the use of at-large raids, where ICE agents enter neighborhoods, homes, or workplaces without judicial warrants, has raised persistent Fourth Amendment concerns. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, a protection that applies to all persons within U.S. territory, not just citizens.  

       ICE often uses administrative warrants signed by its own officers instead of judges. These warrants do not let agents force entry, but they are sometimes used to support tactics like pretending to be local police or persuading residents to let them in. In Chicago, these actions led to lawsuits and community resistance. Former Mayor Lori Lightfoot reinforced the city’s sanctuary policies and told police not to help ICE unless there was a judge’s warrant [2]. Despite this, the raids continued, raising questions about what happens when federal and local laws clash. 

​

[1] 8 U.S.C § 1151-1382 (1965).

[2] Know Your Rights: If You Encounter Ice, NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER, (2025). https://immigrantjustice.org/for immigrants/know-your-rights/ice-encounter/. 

 

ICE Conflicts in Government 

       The conflict between ICE and local governments like Chicago is a problem of federalism. The federal government controls immigration enforcement, but cities and states decide how to police their own residents. The Supreme Court’s decision in Printz v. United States (1997) set the anti-commandeering rule, saying the federal government cannot force local officers to enforce federal law [3]. In Printz, the issue was about making local police do background checks for gun purchases, which the Court said was unconstitutional. In a similar way, ICE asks local governments to hold people for possible immigration violations without the state’s agreement. Both cases show that states do not have to follow federal orders, and that federal efforts to involve local agencies can go beyond what the Constitution allows. 

       Aside from the legal debate, ICE raids have serious economic and social effects. Chicago’s economy relies on immigrant workers, especially in construction, food service, and logistics. When raids happen, businesses lose workers suddenly, families are disrupted, and the local economy takes a hit. 

 

[3] Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) 

 

ICE’s Impact on Social and Economic 

       This atmosphere of fear hurts both the economy and public safety. Some believe that immigrants are afraid to report crimes because they think local police might work with ICE, which causes whole neighborhoods to become more at risk for violence. This creates a paradox: a policy meant to protect communities ends up destabilizing them. 

       As different administrations take office, the approach to federal immigration enforcement changes, too. Under President Biden, ICE was told to focus on serious offenders and cut back on broad raids. Still, reports from Chicago’s Pilsen and Little Village neighborhoods show that people remain distrustful. For those who saw friends or family detained in the past, new policies do not offer much comfort. Enforcement surges elsewhere provide a similar context: a 2025 UC Merced study found private-sector employment fell 3.1% after raids, with noncitizen labor participation dropping 7.2%; patterns that mirror what Chicago businesses report during local enforcement sweeps [4]. In a city where immigrant labor is foundational, raids function not just as legal actions but as direct disruptions to Chicago’s workforce, small-business stability, and neighborhood economic health [5]. Legal experts have called for greater judicial oversight, suggesting reforms such as requiring a judge’s warrant for any home entry and making ICE’s data more transparent. These changes would help enforcement follow constitutional rules while letting the government address real public safety concerns.

       The people of Chicago have responded with resistance of their own. From community mobilization to legal defense and sanctuary policies, the city has made it clear that there is no support for ICE and the mass raids of neighborhoods. ICE raids in Chicago show the larger struggle between federal power, local control, and individual rights. These raids challenge how well constitutional protections hold up during times of division and changing laws. 

       Ultimately, how America resolves this tension will determine not only the fate of millions  of undocumented residents but also the strength of its commitment to justice under the law.​

​

[4] Gustavo Solis, Study Shows Impact of Immigration Enforcement on California’s Overall Workforce, KPBS (August  6, 2025) https://www.kpbs.org/news/border-immigration/2025/08/06/study-shows-impact-of-immigration enforcement-on-californias-overall-workforce. 

[5] Gustavo Solis, Study Shows Impact of Immigration Enforcement on California’s Overall Workforce, KPBS (August  6, 2025) https://www.kpbs.org/news/border-immigration/2025/08/06/study-shows-impact-of-immigration enforcement-on-californias-overall-workforce.