Elite Outrage and Vineyard Values: The Left’s War on Immigration Enforcement—Nantucket Style

Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey is “disturbed.” 

Not by the presence of a convicted child sex offender or a known MS-13 gang member hiding in her state, but by the fact that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) dared to arrest them without first seeking her blessing—or the Vineyard Preservation Society’s.

Last week, ICE and federal partners conducted operations in Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard, apprehending nearly 40 illegal aliens, including several with serious criminal records. ICE described it as a “strong stand for prioritizing public safety.”

Her Excellency the Gahv’nah, however, called it “very disturbing.”

So why was she upset? Not for the victims of child predators. Not for communities terrorized by MS-13.

Instead, she cranked up the outrage machine—not for the victims of violent crime, but for the reputational trauma of elite zip codes being touched by the consequences of their own policies—and, of course, for the gall of federal agents arresting dangerous criminals in the first place.

Judging from Governor Healey’s reaction—and the trolls over at Blue Sky—you’d think these arrests happened at a Vineyard Vines photo shoot, with families being snatched by the shock troops of a proto-fascist state.

And yes—some of these folks really do believe this Cape Codswallop.

Of course, what’s truly disturbing is a sitting governor attacking federal law enforcement for enforcing federal law—particularly when the targets are criminals with known threats to public safety. Healey’s real complaint isn’t about process, mind you. It’s about politics. 

And here is where the priorities of the Beacon Hill Brahmins come into view—especially those who summer on the Cape and the Vineyard, where moral posturing is easier when the consequences live somewhere else.

But first, let’s revisit the Constitution for a moment—since someone in Boston forgot to.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 empowers Congress “To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization”—and by extension, immigration law. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., governs removability, detention, and federal enforcement priorities. Article II vests executive power in the President—not in the governors of individual states. These laws are not subject to veto by statehouses or rewritten by governors clutching donor lists—even for Nantucket.

Now, from time to time, some have taken issue with this time-tested formula—John C. Calhoun and George Wallace tip their hats, Gubnah—but the formula remains true.

So there’s that.

Even more decisively, the Supremacy Clause—Article VI, Clause 2—states that “the Laws of the United States… shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” Governors don’t get a sneak preview of federal operations, especially when they’ve already made clear they’re more likely to obstruct than assist. Federal agents don’t owe courtesies to officials who confuse press statements with policy and are deeply opposed to the policies to begin with.

In Arizona v. United States (2012), Justice Kennedy—writing for a majority that included Sotomayor and Breyer—was unequivocal: “The Government of the United States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens.” That means states—and cities, and yes, even the Vineyard—may not obstruct or second-guess that authority.

It may come as a surprise to the Gahv’nah, but the feds don’t consult with hostile governors before enforcing federal law. Nor should they. Federal law is not a group therapy session—and state-level resistance doesn’t earn you a ride-along, no matter how loudly the provincials squawk.

But Healey has made hysterics, obstruction, and sprinting toward the nearest TV crew an Olympic sport. She complained that “local police chiefs have zero information,” a claim swiftly refuted by ICE.

The agency confirmed that local law enforcement was notified in advance. And Tricia McLaughlin, the current Assistant Secretary at the Department of Homeland Security under President Trump, made it plain: “Before the Governor criticizes our brave law enforcement, she should get her facts straight—apparently, she is the one with ‘zero information.’”

Healey’s outrage seems a little… off. Or, as my grandfather used to say, I’m not saying she’s lying—but she is handling the truth recklessly.

Speaking of the truth, let’s be honest. Had these arrests taken place in Springfield or Fall River—during, say, the administration of President Autopen—the governor wouldn’t have said a word.

But touch the tony islands of Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard during a Republican administration—and suddenly ICE is a menace to democracy.

Despite the performative outrage and wrinkled brows, this is squarely about resistance to immigration enforcement—full stop—especially under a Republican president.

The indignation isn’t rooted in process. If it were, someone in the media might ask—point blank—what due process illegal aliens were afforded under the Clinton, Obama, or Biden administrations?

Or better yet, ask what due process exists for changing federal immigration law? That’s right: there is a process. It’s called legislation. But that’s not what this is about.

It’s 100% ideological. To this crowd, the real offense isn’t who was arrested—or even where. It’s that the law was enforced at all, without genuflecting to their moral posturing or partisan narrative.

ICE isn’t the problem—and it’s a travesty that Democrat apparatchiks have seen fit to demonize and dehumanize sworn federal law enforcement officers for doing their jobs.

The problem is that political elites fundamentally reject the legitimacy of immigration enforcement when the wrong party carries it out.

The return of a Republican president has reactivated the resistance playbook: undermine, delay, discredit. Arrests? Suddenly, “disturbing.” Deportations? A threat to “families.” Cooperation? Optional at best, obstructionist at worst.

Call it what you like, but this isn’t state oversight or a call for cooperation. It’s sabotage—politely served with scones and a side of sanctimony.

Remember 2022? When Governor Ron DeSantis flew just 50 migrants to Martha’s Vineyard, the island declared a “humanitarian crisis,” activated the National Guard, and shipped the arrivals off to—what do you know—a federal military base within 48 hours.

How’s that for irony?

You’d think they had landed a battalion in a 12-meter yacht. The spectacle exposed the central hypocrisy of liberal sanctimony: open borders for thee, but not for me. Not in my backyard, you hoi polloi!

Now, less than three years later, federal agents carry out a lawful operation and remove convicted felons—and the governor’s concern isn’t that criminals were roaming free in her state, but that their removal upset the delicate sensibilities of the brunch crowd. Oh dear—can you pass the crumpets?

What we’re seeing is a fundamental inversion of duty—and, let’s face it, a hostile governor trying to fan outrage because she doesn’t like the result of the last presidential election. The elected leader of a state casts federal law enforcement as the invader and portrays criminal aliens as the victims.

It’s not reality. It’s her truth—and it’s clearly false.

The Constitution—and public safety—must not become collateral damage in a narrative war that prioritizes ideological defiance over lawful governance. 

Otherwise, the very underpinnings of the Republic are compromised. But maybe that’s the point.

After all, this comes from the same party that spent last year lecturing Americans about the “rule of law” and branding itself the self-styled guardian of democracy.

Have you no shame, Madam Gahv’nah?

Charlton Allen is an attorney and former chief executive officer and chief judicial officer of the North Carolina Industrial Commission. He is founder of the Madison Center for Law & Liberty, Inc., editor of The American Salient, and host of the Modern Federalist podcast. X: @CharltonAllenNC

Public domain.

American Thinker