Posted on by rjonakait · 1 Comment

Who Are These ICE People Anyway?

Two related but separate federal agencies are the primary enforcers of our immigration laws. One is the Customs and Border Protection Agency (CBP) whose diverse responsibilities include the collection of import duties and the regulation of international trade. It examines people and cargo at ports of entry for such concerns as smuggling and the curtailment of the spread of harmful pests. This agency also protects and patrols our Mexican and Canadian borders. It is part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). CBP does not have primary responsibility for the enforcement of immigration laws within the country.

That falls to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE), which is also part of DHS. ICE is headed by Acting Director Todd Lyons. ICE has not had a Senate-confirmed director since 2017.

ICE has two primary components: the Homeland Security Investigations Division, which is concerned with transnational crimes, and the Enforcement and Removal Operations Division, which enforces immigration laws within the country. While ICE does not patrol the border, increasingly the border patrol (CBP) has been enforcing immigration laws away from the border, including in Minneapolis.

Under the One Big Beautiful Bill, ICE became the largest, most well-funded law enforcement agency in American history.

Although for a hundred years states tried to regulate immigration, the Supreme Court in the 1870s held that immigration and naturalization were solely under federal jurisdiction. Although immigration is a federal responsibility, ICE seeks the help of states and cities in immigration enforcement. Some jurisdictions, however, are reluctant to provide that help and claim status as a “sanctuary” city. While there is no legal definition of a sanctuary city, the term usually refers to a locality that refuses to cooperate or limits its cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Moreover, the use of the term “sanctuary” is misleading. An undocumented person does not get sanctuary from immigration laws by residing in a sanctuary city. The undocumented can be deported wherever they are in this country.

ICE officials have sought local assistance in several different ways. ICE might ask cities and counties to tell ICE when the localities have encountered an undocumented immigrant. Sanctuary cities usually do not honor these requests. They don’t share their databases with the federal officials. Some localities even forbid the collection of information about immigration status.

ICE often asks to interview people in local jails. Non-sanctuary places may freely allow that. Sanctuary localities, however, may not permit it at all or allow it only if the inmates voluntarily sign a consent form informing them that they don’t have to talk to ICE and are waiving that right.

ICE also lodges requests, called administrative detainers, asking to be informed when an inmate that ICE believes is deportable is to be released from a state or local lockup. Sanctuary cities differ in their responses. Many will tell ICE about the release of someone who has been convicted of a violent offense but not otherwise. Some sanctuaries will not tell ICE about the release of any inmate.

Trump officials suggest that this non-cooperation is illegal. That is not true. No law requires states and cities to cooperate with ICE, and no law probably can require that. That conclusion is based on the 1997 Supreme Court case, Printz v. United States.

At that time a federal law required “local chief law enforcement officers” to perform background checks on prospective handgun purchasers. The Supreme Court concluded that requirement was unconstitutional given the established constitutional principle that state legislatures are not subject to federal direction. The Supreme Court extended that maxim to local law enforcement, which the Court held is also not subject to federal direction. The Constitution does not empower the federal government to compel state law enforcement officers to fulfill the national government’s federal tasks. Assuming these principles still apply, the federal government cannot commandeer localities to enforce immigration laws.

The administration and other right wingers say, however, that sanctuary cities are making their communities unsafe by not helping deportations. Conservative media often scroll names of deportees along with the heinous crimes they supposedly committed. Trump’s press secretary has averred that the sanctuary jurisdictions are endangering their citizens by giving a safe haven to dangerous criminals. Trumpian attacks on the sanctuary states and cities are, therefore, “focused on protecting American communities from criminal aliens.”

Are the ICE actions focused on dangerous criminals? A fact-checking organization says that the administration has not provided enough information to substantiate that claim. The fact checkers say that the percentage of those detained without a criminal conviction or charges doubled in 2025 to 40%. However, most of the convictions are not for violent felony offenses. The Cato Institute has looked at the records of ICE detainees and concluded that a mere 5% of them had violent felony convictions. The New York Times also concluded from similar data that 7% had violent felony convictions.

Are sanctuary cities endangering their citizenry? Sanctuary jurisdictions maintain that their lack of cooperation is not only legal but is good policy. They point out that in sanctuary cities local resources are properly allocated to local priorities, not to enforcing laws that are the responsibility of the federal government.  Sanctuary cities also maintain that they are safer because of their policies.

The jurisdictions highlight that deportation before a verdict or punishment, which often happens in non-sanctuary jurisdiction, deprives communities of the deterrence provided by the criminal justice system. Sending a person to his home country without serving a sentence here in the U.S. does not act as a deterrent to others.

The sanctuary jurisdictions also want undocumented people to feel comfortable cooperating with the local police. Without that cooperation crimes will not be reported and prosecuted. Undocumented immigrants won’t come forward to report crimes or become witnesses if, as a consequence, they will be deported.  Criminals, whether citizens or not, will go free, and the community will be more crime-ridden.

Furthermore, a city may be healthier, safer, and more community-friendly if undocumented people are reasonably comfortable interacting with government authorities — not just police, but also schools, hospitals, clinics, employment agencies, and housing authorities.

Sanctuary cities point to study after study showing that sanctuary cities are safer than other cities and that sanctuary cities have, on average, more vibrant economies than non-sanctuary jurisdictions. The Trump administration, as it often does, avoids or denies the accuracy of such studies.

Finally, is there sanctuary for the undocumented in churches and elsewhere? President Obama issued orders that protected immigrants in hospitals, churches, courtrooms, funerals, weddings, and schools. Trump reversed that order. That there was an order and that it was reversed tells us something. We may have an image of Quasimodo swinging on a Notre Dame bell rope with Esmeralda under his arm and crying “Sanctuary,” but there is no accepted American legal principle that people are free from deportation (or prosecution for crimes) because they are sheltered in a house of worship.

Posted on by rjonakait

Sanctuary       

It’s a free country, or so the cliché goes. We (supposedly) have free speech. We can travel and live freely within the country without the need for “papers.” We don’t need government approval to seek a job, an education, a lover, or a meal. We can’t lose life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

And part of the reason it is a free country is that we are not required to be a police informer. We do not have to tell law enforcement about the wrongs or suspected wrongs of others. If the police ask me questions about where I or someone else was last night, I don’t have to answer. I have known undocumented immigrants; I am under no obligation to report them. This is a free country partly because we are not forced to be informants. That basic principle is the foundation for the sanctuary city movement.

There is no official definition of a sanctuary city. However, the term usually refers to a locality that refuses to cooperate or limits its cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials have sought local assistance in several different ways. ICE asks cities and counties to tell ICE when the localities have encountered an undocumented immigrant. Sanctuary cities usually do not honor these requests. They don’t share their databases with the federal officials. Some localities even forbid the collection of information about immigration status.

ICE often asks to interview people in local jails. Non-sanctuary places may freely allow that. Sanctuary localities, however, may not permit it at all or only if the inmates voluntarily sign a consent form informing them that they don’t have to talk to ICE and are waiving that right.

ICE also lodges detainers asking to be informed when an inmate that ICE believes is deportable will be released from a state or local lockup. Sanctuary cities differ in their responses. Many will tell ICE about the release of someone who has been convicted of a violent offense but not otherwise. Some sanctuaries will not tell ICE about the release of any inmate.

A sanctuary city does not cooperate with federal immigration authorities, and it does not act as an informant. That, however, does not mean that an undocumented immigrant gets sanctuary from deportation. ICE may still arrest undocumented people and deport them even if they are found in a sanctuary city. They just have to do so without local help. (Many states and cities, of course, do cooperate with federal immigration authorities, and some states have banned sanctuary cities within their borders. This cooperation, however, is voluntary.)

Trump, however, has taken steps to change the long-established norms that have led to sanctuary cities. Last month Trump ordered the attorney general to publish a list of jurisdictions “that obstruct the enforcement of Federal immigration laws.” If, after notice, the jurisdictions “remain in defiance of Federal law,” their federal funds may be cut. Lower courts have already preliminarily blocked such Trumpian actions because the constitutional “spending clause” gives Congress, not the president, the power to finance programs.

The Trump administration has also sued some states and cities, including Colorado and Illinois and Denver, Chicago, and Rochester, NY, for laws and policies that restrict or prohibit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

I have not been able to find the legal papers filed in the recent Colorado and Denver suits (if you know how to access them, let me know), but news reports say that lawsuits contend that the state and local laws are unconstitutional. The Trumpian actions want to “restore the supremacy of federal immigration law.” I like to think that I have a reasonable grasp of constitutional law, but I can’t figure out the government’s claim. And non-cooperation with federal law enforcement does not destroy the supremacy of federal laws.

A small (but relevant) digression on legal procedure:

The Trump administration recently arrested a Milwaukee judge for a sanctuary-like action. It appears that an undocumented immigrant was appearing in the judge’s courtroom as a defendant in a domestic violence case. ICE agents, armed with an “administrative warrant,” came into the courtroom to arrest the defendant. The judge would not permit the apprehension in her courtroom and told the agents to wait outside. After the court proceeding, she helped the defendant to leave the courtroom by a door not used by the general public. The agents apprehended the man not far from the courthouse and a week later arrested the judge for obstructing their duties.

The judge’s arrest highlights a legal reality: while we free citizens do not have to cooperate with ICE and hand over or identify undocumented people, that does not mean that we can obstruct ICE agents. However, the line between noncooperation and obstruction can be a fine one. Misleading an agent may be obstruction, but lying to a federal officer is a crime. Take my advice: Even though you may lie to friends, relatives, or lovers, don’t lie to law enforcement. You may choose not to speak or respond at all, but don’t actively mislead.

On the other hand, law enforcement agents are not prohibited from lying to or misleading us. An “administrative warrant” is misleading. A real warrant is issued by a judicial officer and gives law enforcement general powers to arrest. An administrative warrant, however, is not issued by a neutral magistrate. It is an in-house document, issued by ICE itself to itself. In essence, it is merely a note-to-self to arrest someone. The administrative warrant gives law enforcement no more authority to apprehend someone than if the warrant did not exist. Without a citizen’s consent law enforcement can only enter a non-public space to arrest someone if they have a judicial warrant. They can’t do so with an administrative warrant. However, if they have good grounds to do so, law enforcement can arrest a suspect in a public place with an “administrative warrant,” but they can also do so without one.  An “administrative warrant” may sound as though it carries some weight, but it doesn’t. It is a meaningless document.

Back to sanctuary cities:

Sanctuary jurisdictions maintain that their lack of cooperation is not only legal but also good policy. They point out that in sanctuary cities local resources are properly allocated to local priorities not to areas under federal government jurisdiction.  The federal government, however, says that sanctuary policies endanger the citizenry. Trump’s press secretary, who might be an Amy Schumer relative if the she had either charm or wit, announced that the sanctuary jurisdictions are giving a safe haven to criminals and endangering residents and that the Trumpian attacks on the states and cities are “focused on protecting American communities from criminal aliens.” Sanctuary cities, however, maintain that they are safer because of their policies.

The jurisdictions highlight that deportation before a verdict and/or punishment (which often happens) deprives communities of the deterrence provided by the criminal justice system. A person returned to his home country before serving a sentence does not send deterrence message to the community that jail followed by deportation is a circumstance to avoid.

The sanctuary jurisdictions also want undocumented people to feel comfortable cooperating with the police. Without that cooperation crimes will not be reported and prosecuted. Undocumented immigrants won’t come forward to report crimes or be witnesses if, as a consequence, they will be deported.  Criminals, whether citizens or not, will go free, and the community will be more crime-ridden.

Furthermore, a city might be healthier, safer, and more of a community if undocumented people become more comfortable interacting with government authorities, not just police, but schools, hospitals, clinics, employment, and housing authorities.

Those opposed to sanctuary policies contend they make places dangerous. They often support that assertion with an anecdote about a single, heinous crime. On the other hand, sanctuary cities point to study after study showing that sanctuary cities are safer than other cities and that sanctuary cities, have, on average, more vibrant economies. The Trump administration, as it often does, avoids or denies the accuracy of such studies and blindly continues its activities unfettered by data and truth.

Posted on by rjonakait

Snippets

In Lupin, the mystery drama currently on Netflix, one nefarious character said to another the notable cliché of financial crime dramas: “The money will be transferred to an offshore account in the Cayman Islands.” Are there onshore accounts in the Caymans?

I watched the delightful first season of Kim’s Convenience, also on Netflix. I learned that in spite of logic and experience, it is always delightful, summery weather in Toronto.

It seems years ago, but it was actually only a few seasons back, that conservative politicians and commentators were railing against “sanctuary cities.” These were localities that did not always obey federal requests to detain a person whom feds claimed was an undocumented migrant. In what was a common situation, a person driving to work was stopped by local police for a traffic offense. The detainee, call him Sean, would have his fingerprints sent off to the FBI. Someone at the FBI would conclude that Sean was not in the country legally and would send a request to the local police to detain him until the feds could get a legal detention warrant. The FBI detention request was just that—a request. It is not a legal order to keep someone behind bars. Sanctuary cities, acting within the law, did not honor such requests. Indeed, detention because of an FBI request beyond what was authorized by the local law might have proven illegal. Whether the locality’s policy was wise or not, it caused something akin to apoplexy among conservative politicians and commentators who claimed that the rule of law was ending and everyone in a sanctuary city was in mortal danger from a horde of undocumented aliens. Following the lead of at least eight other states, Missouri has recently enacted a law that threatens a penalty of $50,000 against any local policing agency that enforces certain federal gun laws and regulations. This is, of course, analogous to the policies of sanctuary cities, but don’t expect to hear a similar outcry about “sanctuary states” from conservative politicians and commentators.

Old saying: It’s not fair to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

If you are a non-conservative, shouldn’t you reconsider leftist politics and actions when you learn what has happened in Portland, Oregon?

I wonder how many people who have opinions about the 1619 Project have read at least a quarter of it.

In one of my first post-Covid trips onto the subway, I was greeted by a usual sight. A young man, speaking so that the entire car could hear him, said that he was staying out of trouble by selling M&M’s and other sugary snacks for a buck a pop. As the train approached the next station, he got ready to exit and move to another car. He then enjoined, “Don’t buy a Lotto ticket. Don’t go to the liquor store. My candy is guaranteed.” And I wondered what that guarantee was and how I would ever collect on it.

Two Miami men sat at the next table after a round of golf. After introductions, my companion asked them if they were concerned about the rising water levels in Florida. They said that Dade County was taking some steps to alleviate high water, but nothing as drastic as a sea wall. One of them continued, “I’m not really that concerned; I’ll be dead.” I wondered if I would adopt that attitude if I lived in Miami.