This event scores low on constitutional damage (A=5.59) as it represents routine partisan pushback to policy discussions rather than concrete constitutional harm. Rule_of_law=2 and civil_rights=2 reflect potential concerns about immigration enforcement, but no actual policy implementation is described. The mechanism_modifier of 1.15 applies for policy_change discussion, but the event is primarily political theater. B-score of 18.05 reflects moderate hype through partisan framing (outrage_bait=6, media_friendliness=7) and strategic narrative positioning (pattern_match=7 for immigration debate cycles). However, both scores fall well below the 25 threshold. The event lacks concrete mechanism of constitutional damage - it's officials 'pushing back' and having meetings, not implementing changes. This is classic political noise: predictable partisan positioning around a perennial issue with symbolic meetings generating media coverage but no substantive constitutional impact.