As Chicago’s political leaders clash with Washington over immigration enforcement, a fatal shooting in Pilsen exposes the growing hostility toward federal law enforcement and raises a disturbing question: How far can political resistance go before it threatens the unity of the republic?
Watching the political commercials during this election season, you might get the impression that Chicago is living under Nazi occupation and that the Democratic Party is the French Resistance, courageously fighting to liberate the country from fascist tyranny. The rhetoric has become so overheated, the political divisions so pronounced, and the confrontations between local and federal authorities so frequent that one might reasonably wonder whether we are witnessing the makings of a new American civil war. Not the kind fought between 1861 and 1865, but a political and constitutional conflict in which elected officials increasingly treat the federal government not as another level of government with which they disagree, but as an occupying power to be resisted.
In Chicago, Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) politicians are among the most vocal participants, while Mayor Brandon Johnson and Governor J.B. Pritzker conduct their own confrontations with Washington. Is this perpetual warfare accomplishing anything constructive for the people of Chicago?
The latest flashpoint occurred Monday evening, October 26, when an off-duty FBI agent fatally shot 27-year-old Oscar Isaya-Corrales, a Venezuelan national, near 18th Street and Union Avenue in Pilsen. According to the FBI, the agent was driving home in a government vehicle around 5:30 p.m. when he witnessed Isaya-Corrales firing a handgun “into a group of innocent people.” The agent intervened and shot him, the bureau said, “to stop the ongoing threat.” Chicago police officers arriving at the scene reportedly found the agent still pointing his weapon at the wounded man. A handgun was discovered beneath a nearby bicycle. Isaya-Corrales died at Stroger Hospital. The FBI’s Inspection Division is investigating the shooting, and the bureau’s account remains subject to review.
According to federal authorities, Isaya-Corrales was a Venezuelan national without lawful immigration status who had been apprehended at the southern border and released into the United States in 2023. The Chicago Sun-Times reported that he had stayed at Pacific Garden Mission, a homeless shelter on Chicago’s Near West Side, where a worker described a man without family in the area who had hoped to improve his life but struggled with drug addiction. His circumstances are tragic, but they do not settle the question of whether the FBI agent acted properly. What matters is the evidence. If the agent witnessed someone firing into a crowd and intervened to prevent further violence, that is a very different situation from the image of indiscriminate federal brutality suggested by some of the political rhetoric surrounding immigration enforcement.
Enter Alderman Byron Sigcho-Lopez, whom readers of these columns know as BSL, one of the City Council’s most outspoken opponents of federal immigration enforcement. His reported appearance at the scene and demand for an investigation fit his familiar political posture, although his precise remarks and what he knew at the time require verification. There is nothing improper about demanding an investigation when a law enforcement officer uses deadly force. But there is a considerable difference between seeking accountability and suggesting wrongdoing before the evidence is available. If BSL was jumping to conclusions, it would be indicative of the reflexive hostility toward federal authority that has become so prominent in Chicago politics. An alderman does not supervise the FBI, and political theater is no substitute for an impartial investigation.
More importantly, this episode reflects the broader confrontation between Chicago’s political leadership and Washington. The DSA-aligned faction of the City Council has been particularly vocal in opposing federal immigration enforcement, while Johnson and Pritzker have engaged in their own battles with the administration. Cook County’s restrictions on cooperation with immigration authorities add another dimension. These officials do not necessarily share every political position, but their policies frequently place them in opposition to federal immigration priorities. The danger comes when legitimate disagreement becomes reflexive resistance, and every federal law enforcement action is viewed through the prism of partisan politics.
This confrontation has deep roots. Chicago’s sanctuary policy dates to 1985, when Mayor Harold Washington restricted municipal cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. Mayor Richard M. Daley reaffirmed the policy in 1989, and the City Council codified it in the Welcoming City Ordinance of 2006. Subsequent administrations strengthened or revised those restrictions. Supporters argue sanctuary policies encourage immigrants to report crimes and cooperate with police without fear of deportation. Critics contend they impede federal immigration enforcement. Both arguments deserve consideration. But Chicago has spent more than four decades moving toward an increasingly adversarial relationship with Washington on this issue.
There is an important constitutional distinction. The federal government has the authority and responsibility to enforce federal immigration law. State and local governments generally cannot be compelled to administer those laws using their own personnel and resources. That is the Constitution’s anti-commandeering principle. Refusing voluntary cooperation is therefore not necessarily unlawful, much less an insurrection. Actively obstructing federal officers in the lawful performance of their duties is another matter. The distinction is fundamental. Political disagreements must be resolved through elections, legislation and the courts, not through intimidation or interference with lawful enforcement.
What troubles me is the political culture surrounding these disputes. There seems to be an increasing temptation to portray every disagreement over federal policy as a moral emergency requiring resistance rather than negotiation. The language of occupation, fascism, and liberation may excite activists, but it makes ordinary compromise more difficult. Federal agents become symbols of oppression rather than public servants whose conduct should be judged on the facts. Governors and mayors become resistance leaders rather than executives responsible for delivering public services. Citizens are encouraged to view political opponents not merely as mistaken, but as enemies of the republic.
The financial implications deserve attention because Chicago can scarcely afford another self-inflicted problem. Our city is already struggling with enormous pension obligations, recurring budget deficits, and deteriorating financial flexibility. In February 2026, KBRA downgraded Chicago’s general-obligation bond rating to BBB+, citing deteriorating reserves, narrowing liquidity, and a heavy fixed-cost burden. Illinois has improved its historically poor credit standing but still faces substantial pension obligations. Cook County has fiscal pressures of its own. None of these governments can afford to treat financial management as an afterthought while fighting endless political battles.
Unlike Washington, Chicago, Cook County and Illinois cannot create money to finance their obligations. Their budgets ultimately depend on taxpayers, borrowing, and outside assistance, including federal grants. Federal officials cannot simply withhold appropriated funds because they dislike a city’s politics; constitutional and statutory restrictions apply. Nevertheless, persistent confrontation can complicate cooperation on infrastructure, transportation, housing, and public safety. Neighboring Indiana generally maintains a more cooperative relationship with the current administration on immigration enforcement. That does not automatically entitle Indiana to additional federal funding, but relationships matter. Chicago’s leaders should be able to disagree with Washington without sacrificing opportunities to advance their constituents’ interests.
And then there is the historical analogy that gives this column its title. The American Civil War remains the deadliest conflict in our history, with estimates of the death toll ranging from approximately 620,000 to 750,000. Americans killed Americans over four years of catastrophic violence. The war ended slavery and settled the question of secession, but its consequences remain with us more than 160 years later. Today’s immigration disputes are not equivalent to the armed rebellion of 1861. Nevertheless, that history reminds us of the importance of resolving political differences within a common constitutional framework. Imagine the devastation of widespread political violence in a modern America equipped with weapons and technologies that nineteenth-century soldiers could scarcely comprehend.
The 2028 presidential election may produce an administration with different immigration priorities. Chicago’s 2027 municipal elections may likewise change the direction of City Hall. That is how our system is supposed to work. Elections allow Americans to change public policy without treating every disagreement as an existential struggle. In the meantime, federal officials must respect constitutional limitations on their authority, and state and local officials must respect the lawful authority of the federal government.
So here is the question Chicagoans should be asking: Do we want elected officials spending their time staging confrontations, trading accusations, and turning law enforcement incidents into political spectacles? Or do we want them working to make our streets safer, government more affordable, infrastructure more reliable, and economy more prosperous?
What Chicago needs is competent government, respect for the rule of law, and a willingness to negotiate across political boundaries. Our elected officials can vigorously oppose federal policies without treating Washington as an enemy. They can defend immigrants’ constitutional rights without dismissing federal law enforcement responsibilities. And they can demand accountability without presuming wrongdoing before the facts are known.
The answer to our political divisions is not surrender by either side. It is a return to the common constitutional ground that allows Americans to disagree without becoming enemies.
That is a call to sanity. A call to pragmatism. A call to common sense.
And that is the Contrarian point of view.
George Shay is a conservative activist and writer. His Common Sense Substack can be found here.
