Of course it does, because holding someone in prison on the condition of them doing something is a good way to coerce them into doing something, unless they are happy to remain in prison.

When their boss is actively forbidding them from doing it you’re not punishing them for anything. You’re just punitively locking them up for the sins of their boss.

Presumably when the most senior official is unavailable, their authority temporally passes to someone else, who can then decide to be comply or be arrested themselves. I don't know the granular details of office seniority, but it would be a silly system if it ground to a halt in the event the most senior official died or was incapacitated.

When the President is actively forbidding it the opinions and desires of DHS officicals are irrelevant.

No, the primary purpose of the contempt power in this case is to compel compliance, which is done by leveraging continued punishment (imprisonment, increasing fines).

I’m well aware of how the contempt power works and why it exists. However, when the options are sit in jail or get fired there’s not anything the person you are punishing can do about it.

I'm suggesting nothing more than the use of the Court's inherent and statutory powers to enforce its own orders through the power to punish contempt. The fact that this is a controversial opinion to someone who is subbed to the law subreddit is surprising to me.

Ad hominem much? What I’m saying is that you are simply going straight to the sledgehammer without taking into account any of the underlying reasons that compliance isn’t happening.

If a court orders someone to show up for my deposition and they deliberately fail to comply with the court's order, should the court have no recourse? Should the judge shrug and say "oh well, we ordered him to do something but he didn't want to, guess that's the end of it"? Without the power to punish contempt the court would be entirely toothless.

My, my what a strawman. That’s not at all what is being suggested.