The thugs from ICE whom the federal government has sent to Minneapolis have produced murder and mayhem on a scale far more violent, disruptive and disturbing to human life than have the immigrants residing there without papers.

Under the Constitution, immigration — who can legally come to and remain in the United States — was left to the states to regulate; and naturalization — who can become an American citizen — was left to the feds.

Notwithstanding the plain text of the Constitution, Congress — motivated by racial animus against those who looked and sounded differently from the White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant elites who controlled the government — enacted the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. When this was challenged, the Supreme Court upheld congressional authority in a truly bizarre opinion written by Justice George Sutherland, himself an immigrant.

The court held — for the first time — that Congress could exercise regulatory powers from a source other than the Constitution. It reasoned that when British troops left the colonies after their surrender in 1781, the power to regulate immigration stayed behind and metaphysically transferred itself to the new federal government here. A rationale from nowhere.

Since then, federal immigration regulations have waxed and waned, usually depending upon contemporary economic trends and prevailing racial attitudes. A century after the ruling on the Chinese Exclusion Act, at President Ronald Reagan's prompting, Congress enacted the Simpson-Mazzoli Act, which granted amnesty and permanent legal residence to all immigrants then in the U.S. The sky did not fall.

The White House has defended the ICE killings of two innocent Americans in the maelstrom of Minneapolis by using phrases like terrorist, agitator, assassin and self-defense. In the process of politically smearing two dead victims, it has tried to divert attention away from the ICE Gestapo-like tactics in the streets. And, in an act of obstructing justice, ICE has kept all the evidence of these murders from state investigators.

Are the masked men in the streets immune from prosecution for murder as the White House claims?

Federal and state laws mandate — and all police, even DHS agents, know this — that if the driver of a vehicle moving less than 5 miles per hour is trying to turn away from you, you don't kill the driver; you let her turn or get out of the way. If somehow you feel threatened by a man on all fours on the ground whose lawfully carried handgun you have already seized, and whom you have temporarily blinded with pepper spray because he photographed you, you restrain him, you don't shoot him in the back.

The reason police foreknowledge of right and wrong (who doesn't know it is wrong to shoot an unarmed person in the back?) and of lawful and criminal use of force is relevant is another bizarre Supreme Court ruling which declared that prosecutions of government agents for excessive use of force will rise or fall on whether other similarly situated government defendants manifested this foreknowledge. Another legal principle from out of nowhere.