In a recent interview on Fox News Sunday, Border Czar Tom Homan sharply criticized Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), accusing her of offering misleading advice to illegal immigrants. The tension began after AOC responded to a Department of Justice warning by telling Homan to “learn to read” the Constitution. Homan, however, argued that her comments reflected a significant misunderstanding of U.S. immigration laws.

Clarifying Legal Boundaries

Homan, reflecting on a 2019 congressional hearing, reminded viewers of his prior attempts to explain the legal realities of U.S. immigration to the New York congresswoman. He asserted, “I’ve forgotten more about the Constitution and immigration enforcement than she’ll ever know.” Homan emphasized that entering the U.S. without proper authorization isn’t simply a policy violation but a crime under federal law, citing Title VIII of the United States Code 1324 and provisions within Title 25 that make illegal entry a criminal act.

According to Homan, AOC’s attempt to advise illegal immigrants about their constitutional rights, he claimed, was not only misguided but also provided them with information that could help them evade law enforcement. “It’s a crime to enter this country illegally,” he stated. He also noted that anyone harboring, concealing, or obstructing law enforcement during the process of removal is committing a felony.

Past Confrontations and Continued Tension

The conflict between Homan and AOC is not new. In a heated exchange during a 2019 hearing focused on family separation policies at the border, AOC falsely accused Homan of being responsible for the policy memo outlining family separations. Homan quickly corrected her, pointing out that such policies were rooted in the enforcement of existing immigration laws and that family separations were sometimes necessary when illegal immigrants were detained, regardless of their status.

These confrontations have continued as both figures remain deeply divided over the handling of the border crisis. For Homan, AOC’s public statements on constitutional rights do little to address the actual legal violations that occur when people enter the country illegally. He sees her rhetoric as counterproductive, as it could potentially encourage migrants to evade federal enforcement efforts.

Raising Serious Concerns

Homan took his criticism further, warning that AOC’s advice could have serious real-world consequences. He pointed to a tragic incident involving 22-year-old Laken Riley, a nursing student from Georgia who was murdered by an individual in the U.S. illegally. “Let’s hope she’s not educating the next person who gets out and murders a young college student,” Homan warned. For him, the issue goes beyond politics—it is a matter of public safety.

Homan emphasized that individuals in the U.S. illegally, especially those with removal orders, pose an ongoing risk. His concern is that AOC’s advice to migrants could make it easier for dangerous individuals to evade detection, putting Americans at risk in the process.

The “Know Your Rights” Controversy

The tension escalated again in January when AOC hosted a virtual event titled “Know Your Rights With ICE” on Facebook, where she provided guidance to illegal immigrants on how to handle encounters with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers. Homan took issue with this, claiming it could undermine the work of ICE agents and obstruct their ability to carry out their duties. In response, Homan stated that he is collaborating with the Department of Justice to determine whether AOC’s actions could be seen as hindering federal law enforcement efforts.

The Broader Immigration Debate

This clash between Homan and AOC represents the larger, polarizing debate on U.S. immigration policy. Homan’s stance aligns with those who advocate for strict enforcement of existing immigration laws, believing that such measures are essential for national security and public safety. On the other hand, AOC and her supporters argue that focusing on constitutional rights is crucial, especially in light of the perceived harm caused by overzealous immigration enforcement practices that they argue disproportionately affect vulnerable communities.

For Homan, the legal framework surrounding immigration is straightforward. He argues that illegal entry is a crime and that any interference with law enforcement is equally problematic. His criticism of AOC’s advice is a call for a more informed and balanced discussion about the rule of law.

Looking Ahead

As this debate continues, both sides remain firmly entrenched in their positions. Homan continues to argue that enforcing the law as written is crucial for the safety of the nation, while AOC pushes for a reevaluation of immigration enforcement practices, emphasizing the protection of civil liberties. This ongoing ideological divide over immigration policy reflects the broader challenges the U.S. faces as it seeks to balance national security with human rights.

The confrontation between Homan and AOC is more than just a personal dispute; it symbolizes the deep divisions over how to manage the U.S. border and the broader implications of immigration policy in the country. As legal battles and public debates continue, the future of U.S. immigration enforcement will undoubtedly be shaped by these ongoing discussions.