New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy recently found himself in hot water after suggesting he might be housing an undocumented immigrant above his garage. During an interview with the liberal group Blue Wave New Jersey, Murphy appeared to reveal he'd offered sanctuary to an individual "whose immigration status is not yet at the point that they are trying to get it to." He even seemed to taunt Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), daring them to try and apprehend the individual. This public declaration drew the attention of former border czar Tom Homan, who vowed to investigate.

Murphy's actions sparked criticism, with some accusing him of using the situation to boost his progressive credentials at the expense of the person he claimed to be protecting. The incident drew comparisons to the Martha's Vineyard situation, where undocumented individuals were relocated to a military base shortly after being welcomed. Murphy's description of the individual's immigration status also raised eyebrows, as he seemed to avoid using terms like "undocumented migrant" or "illegal alien."

However, the story took a turn when an associate of Murphy later claimed the situation was a misunderstanding. The associate stated the individual was not undocumented but a legal resident, and that Murphy had merely mentioned they could stay above the garage if needed. This clarification contradicted Murphy's initial account, leaving many confused and questioning the governor's motivations.

Beyond the specifics of this incident, the controversy highlights a larger issue: the conflict between state and federal immigration policies. Governors like Murphy and Wisconsin's Tony Evers have pledged to resist federal immigration enforcement, even if it means losing federal funding. These actions are likely to lead to further clashes with the federal government, which may seek to withhold funds from sanctuary states and cities. The financial implications of these decisions could be significant, adding billions to the already substantial costs associated with housing and benefits for immigrants.

Regardless of the truth behind Murphy's initial claims, the incident serves as a reminder of the potential pitfalls of virtue signaling. The governor's actions, whether intentional or not, sparked a controversy that ultimately cost him credibility and raised questions about his judgment. This serves as a cautionary tale for other politicians who might be tempted to prioritize public perception over practical considerations.