Chicago’s progressive Mayor Brandon Johnson has created controversy with a sweeping new executive order that establishes “ICE-Free Zones” throughout the city. Framing it as a defense of “immigrant rights” and local sovereignty, Johnson has barred federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents from using city-owned properties as staging grounds for immigration enforcement operations.
The executive order, announced during a press conference on Monday, prohibits ICE from using sites like public school parking lots, parks, and libraries for operational purposes. It comes amid ongoing tensions between federal immigration authorities and progressive city governments over enforcement practices and sanctuary policies.
“In recent weeks, federal agents used several City-owned properties — including parking lots near Harrison and Kedzie, and a vacant lot at 46th and Damen — as staging sites for immigration enforcement,” Johnson said. “Such use of City property undermines community trust and runs counter to Chicago’s Welcoming City Ordinance.”
Labeling ICE a “rogue, reckless group of heavily armed, masked individuals,” Johnson accused the federal agency of conducting operations that “endanger public safety” and “violate civil rights.”
“Our school parking lots are not for ICE to load their weapons; they are for Chicagoans who drop their kids off to learn,” he said. “Our parks are not for ICE to set up checkpoints; they are for Chicagoans to play and enjoy.”
The order, shared widely on social media by the mayor’s office, drew immediate praise from open borders advocacy groups and progressive activists, while also triggering sharp criticism from conservative commentators, legal experts, and law enforcement officials who argue the order oversteps municipal authority.
While Johnson insists it’s a legal extension of the city’s sanctuary policies, critics argue that the order may violate federal law by obstructing federal immigration enforcement. The Constitution’s Supremacy Clause generally bars states or municipalities from impeding federal agents in the execution of their duties.
The mayor also escalated his rhetoric beyond immigration enforcement, claiming that conservative political forces are pushing for civil conflict. “They want a re-match of the Civil War,” Johnson said. “Trump has declared war on the people of Chicago and people across America.”
Though it’s not yet clear who gave the order, the Chicago Police Department was told not to assist federal officers during a violent attack after they requested back up and were surrounded by hostile, aggressive protesters — at least one of which was armed. This has alarmed many in the law enforcement community, who warn it could endanger both federal agents and civilians.
Johnson’s office defended the position as necessary to protect community trust. “We will not tolerate ICE agents violating our residents’ constitutional rights nor will we allow the federal government to disregard our local authority,” the mayor’s office stated, though there is no existing constitutional right for illegal immigrants to remain in the country.
Chicago is not alone in its friction with ICE. Other progressive cities such as New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco have implemented various forms of sanctuary policies, limiting local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. However, Johnson’s order is one of the most aggressive yet, both in legal terms and in tone.
READ NEXT: Attacks Against Federal Agents Escalate In Chicago Suburb
The Chicago mayor is a BONE HEADED MYRMIDON!
Under U.S. federal law, specifically 8 U.S.C. § 1324, it is a crime to knowingly or recklessly harbor, conceal, or assist undocumented immigrants in evading detection, apprehension, or arrest by federal authorities such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
This includes providing shelter, transportation, or other forms of aid with the intent to shield individuals from immigration enforcement.
The Supreme Court has clarified in United States v. Aguilar (1988) that harboring encompasses actions that substantially facilitate an undocumented immigrant’s ability to remain in the U.S. illegally, including direct aid intended to evade enforcement.
Individuals or organizations violating these laws face serious penalties, including imprisonment of up to 7 years per violation for a basic harboring offense, with potential increases to 20 years if serious bodily injury occurs, or life imprisonment if death results.
Fines can reach up to $250,000 for individuals or $500,000 for organizations, and assets used in or derived from such activities may be subject to forfeiture.
Conspiracy or aiding and abetting harboring can incur the same penalties as the primary offense.
Cities or counties that fund non-governmental organizations (NGOs) engaged in harboring or assisting undocumented immigrants to evade federal authorities may face significant legal and financial consequences, though direct criminal prosecution of local governments is rare due to jurisdictional and immunity issues.
Potential liabilities include federal civil lawsuits, loss of federal funding under 8 U.S.C. § 1373 and related executive orders, and state-level penalties in anti-sanctuary states like Texas, where fines of up to $25,500 per day for violations have been imposed.