According to the Wikipedia article on sovereign immunity, there are two types: "absolute immunity" and "qualified immunity". If that's right (I have no idea) then they're not incompatible.

When it's ICE it's both :-(

Quoting the article:

>In court filings, attorneys representing the state and Bradley have argued Holland's lawsuit should be dismissed as the trooper has "sovereign immunity" as a member of law enforcement, and that it was a "lawful" traffic stop.

Sovereign immunity is the more general problem. The media focuses on qualified immunity because it's the specific justification that is often used for applying sovereign immunity to the actions of individual people. But really we need to significantly neuter that entire base concept of sovereign immunity. First, it's the background that causes individual officers to think "they are the law" and go down paths of wanton criminality illustrated here. But in general it's also what allows police forces, even congruent with all their rules and procedures, to still harm innocent citizens and then never make them whole for that harm. "You can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride" shouldn't be thought of as some witty insight, rather it's a grave subversion of justice.