Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Pritzker uses State of the State to defend immigrants, says Chicago targeted by federal actions

News

Pritzker uses State of the State to defend immigrants, says Chicago targeted by federal actions

Governor JB Pritzker delivers his FY2027 state budget proposal at the Illinois State Capitol in Springfield, Ill. on Wednesday, Feb. 18th, 2026.

Angeles Ponpa, Illinois Latino News

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker used part of his State of the State address Wednesday to criticize federal immigration enforcement actions and contrast Illinois’ approach with federal policy.

The annual address largely centered on the governor’s proposed state budget and affordability agenda, but Pritzker devoted his last remarks to immigration, framing the issue as a broader test of national values.


“The problem for Donald Trump and Stephen Miller was that Illinoisans did notice,” Pritzker said. “Last year was not the first time a President has tried to subdue the Illinois population with hired thugs.”

Pritzker also referenced remarks from his address a year earlier, saying recent federal actions answered his warning about escalating enforcement tactics.

“Masked, unaccountable federal agents — with little training — occupied our streets, brutalized our people, tear gassed kids and cops, kidnapped parents in front of their children, detained and arrested and at times attempted to deport US citizens, and killed innocent Americans in the streets,” Pritzker said.

The governor’s comments echoed historic tensions between Illinois leaders and federal intervention. He gave the example of the 1894 Pullman labor strike where workers walked off their railroad jobs to protest a percentage cut in their wages. At the time, President Grover Cleveland sent thousands of federal marshals and troops into the state to suppress unrest, an action condemned at the time by Illinois Gov. John Peter Altgeld as federal overreach.

“Illinois was the canary in the coal mine for what we saw happen in Minnesota,” Pritzker said. “It’s a playbook as old as the game – overwhelm communities, provoke fear, suggest that those tasked with enforcing the law are also above it, and drip authoritarianism bit by bit into our veins in the hopes that we won’t notice we are being poisoned by it.”

According to Pritzker, federal policies have cost Illinois residents $8.4 billion through tariff taxes on working families and small businesses, trade wars devastating farmers, cuts to healthcare, food assistance and education, and increased bureaucracy on states such as Illinois.

Pritzker also described community responses across Illinois, pointing to residents supporting immigrant neighbors, including volunteers assisting families, parishioners protecting places of worship and residents demonstrating in public spaces.

He cited examples he said showed public reaction across the state, including bicyclists in Chicago’s Little Village neighborhood buying food from street vendors so they could safely leave, parishioners forming human chains outside churches so immigrants could worship, and parents organizing outside schools during enforcement activity.

He concluded by urging residents to view the immigration debate beyond party politics, but rather about whether Illinois will be a state of empathy.

“Love is found in every act of courage – large and small – taken to preserve the country we once knew. You will find it in homes and schools and churches and art. It is there; it has not been squashed,” Pritzker said.

“What you choose to arm yourself with in this fight – love or hate – exposes which side you are fighting on. Only the weakest of people believe that love is the weakest of weapons. And it turns out that love actually is all around – and that those who think that cruelty can destroy it, are incapable of understanding the power of a nation moved by it.”

Lawmakers will continue budget negotiations in the spring legislative session.

Pritzker uses State of the State to defend immigrants, says Chicago targeted by federal actions was first published on Illinois Latino News and republished with permission.

Angeles Ponpa is a journalist based in Illinois.


Read More

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adult man holds a microphone while asking a question during a town hall meeting.

Congress ignored 90% of public support for background checks. Learn how citizen assemblies and sortition helped Ireland break gridlock and could work in the US.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Consensus Without Power: How Sortition Could Break America's Legislative Gridlock

In April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting killed twenty children, the US Senate voted on the Manchin-Toomey Act to expand background checks and to include gun-show and internet sales of firearms. Roughly nine in ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners, supported the bill—a figure that has held steady across more than a decade of polling. It fell short of the 60-vote threshold by six votes. This was not an outlier. On complex issues, representatives often fail to translate public consensus into reality. Research shows that legislators consistently vote in line with donor and interest group preferences over constituent opinion. Before the vote, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned every senator it would “rate” their vote on its annual rating system, and a low NRA rating could cost senators their next primary. Consequently, the bill died 54-46, and the majority of Americans watched, powerless, as their consensus was overridden by self-interested representatives.

Liberal democracies need a method to bypass electoral incentives that run counter to public opinion. One already exists: Ireland faced the same stalemate on complex issues before it instituted a process called sortition. The beauty of sortition lies in its removal of the primary pressure that misaligns representatives’ interests from public interest: reelection. Much like jury duty, citizens are randomly drawn from the population. An independent body then stratifies the pool, so the final group mirrors the country by age, gender, geography, and income. The group meets over weeks or months, hearing from experts and the public, as well as debating frequently. At the end, it issues a recommendation that parliament may then put to a referendum or pass into law.

Keep ReadingShow less