12 Jun Banners of Shame: Al-Qassam, ‘Free Palestine,’ and Sheinbaum’s Disgraceful Silence
By,
Jesús Romero. Co-Founder & Senior Fellow, MSI²
Introduction: Legal Clarity in a Politicized Debate. On June 6, 2025, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement conducted lawful enforcement operations across California.
Over 100 individuals were arrested, each found to be unlawfully present in the United States. According to the Immigration and Nationality Act, these individuals are properly classified as illegal aliens. That is the legal term used in the U.S. Code. It is not a political invention; it is the language of the law.
Despite the legal foundation of these actions, political leaders from both inside and outside the United States quickly reframed these operations. The narrative shifted. Law enforcement became oppressive. Sovereign action became discrimination. At the forefront of this reframing effort was Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, whose rhetoric clearly sought to delegitimize U.S. enforcement policy.
U.S. Law Is Clear and Binding
The U.S. Code is unambiguous. The term ‘illegal alien’ appears in numerous statutory provisions and judicial interpretations. Section 1325 of Title 8 criminalizes unlawful entry. Section 1227 provides the legal basis for the removal of those who lack lawful status. Section 1101 defines an alien as any person not a citizen or national of the United States.
Attempts to replace these terms with vague and sanitized alternatives, such as ‘undocumented immigrant,’ may serve political messaging. They do not serve the law. Nor do they serve the truth.
President Sheinbaum’s Rhetoric Was Timed and Strategic
President Claudia Sheinbaum did not simply respond to the events in California. She intervened rhetorically at the precise moment when federal enforcement actions became the subject of political protest. Her statements characterized U.S. immigration operations as discriminatory and as a danger to migrant families. She framed lawful arrests as human rights violations. These remarks were echoed by Mexican consular officials and amplified through Spanish-language media in the United States.
This was not an innocent diplomatic gesture. It was a deliberate attempt to influence U.S. law enforcement policy. Sheinbaum did not call for violent protest. She did not call for confrontation, yet she framed the enforcement of U.S. law as a moral offense. That framing provided rhetorical cover to activist groups already mobilizing in California. It gave them legitimacy. It gave them fuel.
Strategic Interference Through Moral Framing
Sheinbaum’s approach is a case study in modern soft power. Without issuing a single directive or deploying a single agent, she exerted pressure on U.S. domestic operations. She used moral language to question the legitimacy of sovereign enforcement. She used diplomatic visibility to elevate voices of protest, suppressing the legal facts in the process.
This is not the first time a foreign leader has engaged in rhetorical interference. But the Sheinbaum case is different in scale, timing, and consequence. It coincided directly with civil unrest. It challenged U.S. institutions at a moment of heightened political tension. And it introduced a foreign narrative into a domestic debate that is already deeply polarized.
Conclusion: Sovereignty Requires Precision and Resolve
President Claudia Sheinbaum’s remarks were not harmless. They were strategic. She used her platform to erode the moral and legal clarity of U.S. immigration law. That is not diplomacy. It is narrative manipulation.
Sheinbaum is not a friend of the United States. Her behavior shows no respect for American sovereignty or for the rule of law. She continues the ideological legacy of her predecessor, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who allowed cartels to strengthen, migration flows to expand unchecked, and bilateral security cooperation to weaken.
While Sheinbaum criticizes lawful U.S. immigration enforcement as inhumane, her country remains overwhelmed by criminal groups. Mexican cartels have taken control of key corridors, cities, and ports. Their influence stretches across institutions. Her own government has yet to articulate a serious security doctrine, and the National Guard she relies on has proven both ineffective and complicit.
At the same time, Sheinbaum faces credible allegations of narco-financing and money laundering connected to her presidential campaign through the MORENA party. Whistleblowers and intelligence sources have identified suspicious funding networks tied to cartel interests, raising urgent questions about the integrity of her administration and its independence from organized crime.
Sheinbaum has also begun to resist U.S. efforts to increase counter-narcotics pressure along the southern border. Her hostility to Trump-era enforcement policies is particularly dangerous given Mexico’s deteriorating internal conditions. Over the past weekend, Mexican security forces violated Guatemalan territory in La Mesilla, a serious breach that further damaged regional confidence in her leadership.
Even more disturbing is Sheinbaum’s visible alignment with Colombian President Gustavo Petro and Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro, two leaders widely criticized for enabling or profiting from the cocaine trade. These shipments do not bypass Mexico. They pass through it. Large-scale cocaine flows from Colombia and Venezuela continue to enter the United States through Mexico, using cartel-controlled logistics networks.
The only force keeping Sheinbaum marginally cooperative on immigration and counter-narcotics is the economic pressure of the United States, including renewed threats of high tariffs on Mexican exports. Faced with this leverage, her government engages not by principle, but by necessity. Otherwise, she would have continued her tacit and direct support for cartels and coyoteros.
This is not a partnership; it is asymmetric manipulation.
The United States must respond with clarity. Immigration law is not subject to foreign veto. The term ‘illegal alien’ is not offensive. It is precise, legal, and enforceable. Sovereignty must be defended in law, in language, and in policy.
When a foreign leader compromised by cartel financing and allied with narco-regimes seeks to undermine the enforcement of U.S. law, she must be challenged directly, decisively, and unapologetically.
President Sheinbaum’s record is clear. The United States must act accordingly.
References
Cornell Law School. (n.d.). 8 U.S. Code § 1101 – Definitions. Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1101
Cornell Law School. (n.d.). 8 U.S. Code § 1227 – Deportable aliens. Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1227
Cornell Law School. (n.d.). 8 U.S. Code § 1325 – Improper entry by alien. Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325
El País. (2025, June 10). La secretaria de Seguridad de EE UU acusa a Sheinbaum de alentar las protestas en Los Ángeles. https://elpais.com/mexico/2025-06-10/
InSight Crime. (2024). Cartel de los Soles profile. https://insightcrime.org/venezuela-organized-crime-news/cartel-de-los-soles/
InSight Crime. (2024). ELN and FARC dissidents expanding coca cultivation in Colombia. https://insightcrime.org/news/farc-eln-control-coca-colombia/
Reuters. (2025, June 9). Mexican president condemns violence in Los Angeles protests. https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/mexican-president-rebukes-violence-los-angeles-protests-2025-06-09/
Times of India. (2025, June 10). Mexico’s president refutes US claim she incited LA protests. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/mexicos-president-refutes-us-claim-that-she-incited-la-protests-calls-it-absolutely-false/articleshow/121762458.cms
U.S. Department of State. (2024). Foreign terrorist organizations. https://www.state.gov/foreign-terrorist-organizations/
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Miami Strategic Intelligence Institute (MSI²).