As part of its full-court press on immigration, the Trump administration has increasingly sought to punish Democratic-led states that have tried to curtail their cooperation with federal immigration agencies.
Trump officials argue that the policies of “sanctuary jurisdictions” have enabled the release of sex offenders, killers and other criminals — the “worst of the worst” — and President Trump has gone so far as to call the actions of blue-state leaders a “lawless insurrection.” The administration has threatened federal funding cuts, lawsuits and travel restrictions if state and local authorities don’t fall in line.
But the very states the Trump administration is pillorying — from California and Minnesota to New York and Massachusetts — already cooperate closely with Immigration and Customs Enforcement on tens of thousands of criminal cases a year, regularly turning over people charged with or convicted of serious and violent offenses for detention and deportation.
A New York Times review of policies, statutes and practices in the 18 states targeted by President Trump shows extensive cooperation and coordination with federal immigration agencies when it comes to people convicted of serious crimes. Data show all but one of these states have sharply increased the number of people they have moved each month from local and state authorities into federal immigration custody during Mr. Trump’s second term, as compared with the last year of Biden’s term.
In 12 of them, the number of custodial arrests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement more than doubled, according to a Times analysis of ICE data obtained by the Deportation Data Project.
The Trump administration has suggested that “sanctuary” states refuse to cooperate with ICE agents and deny them entry into jails. But by and large, these blue states have been assisting in federal efforts targeting violent offenders, while pushing back on the federal dragnets across the country that have ensnared immigrants without criminal records.
At the height of a federal crackdown in Minneapolis earlier this year, Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota accused ICE of targeting people of color with no criminal background while failing to pick up hardened criminals in state custody ready to be transferred to the agency.
The tensions have only been rising as federal immigration officials have received an infusion of dollars to carry out more operations and, in recent weeks, more than doubled their daily arrests, often with the help of local authorities in red states.
State officials from both blue and red states agree that cooperation with federal authorities is critical to criminal investigations, and none would dispute that the release of dangerous people into communities is bad for public safety or politically unpalatable.
But governors and top law enforcement officials in Democratic-led states say they are trying to disentangle their role in criminal investigations from federal immigration enforcement. That delicate balance, they say, preserves their time and resources and engenders trust from immigrant communities.
So-called sanctuary laws enacted in Democratic-led states do limit cooperation with immigration authorities in many ways. Most largely bar state and local officers from assisting federal agents on civil immigration violations and put parameters around ICE’s access to jails and prisons as well as designated protected zones, such as schools, churches and courthouses. A slate of state court rulings and policies have also prohibited local and state agencies from holding people for immigration officers beyond their release dates. And many prohibit authorities in most cases from alerting ICE that an inmate is about to be released, though release dates for all offenders are publicly available online.
Of all the states targeted, California, perhaps, has become the administration’s most prominent adversary. The state, which emerged as a battleground over “sanctuary” policies well before Mr. Trump first took office in 2017, barred state and local law enforcement agencies — including school police and security departments — from using public funds or personnel for civil immigration enforcement during his first term.
But the Trump administration’s criticism has focused heavily on the idea that serious criminals are being allowed to walk free — something California has specifically sought to avoid.
State lawmakers and law enforcement officials negotiated a list of exceptions to allow greater coordination when those wanted by ICE have criminal records or face serious criminal charges. Since 2019, the state’s corrections department has coordinated with the agency to transfer nearly 13,000 people convicted of murder, sexual assault, child molestation or other grave felonies into federal custody.
“Not all sanctuary policies are created equal,” said John Sandweg, a senior Department of Homeland Security official under the Obama administration.
Many states or local jurisdictions with progressive politics “may not hand over someone convicted of driving without a license or some petty misdemeanor,” he added, “but would work collaboratively with ICE to ensure that individuals with violent criminal histories were not released in the streets.”
Democratic officials have argued that local limitations on ICE cooperation ensure that victims of crimes can approach police without worrying about being swept up in unrelated immigration actions.
“People need to feel comfortable talking to police,” said Ronnell Higgins, the commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, the state’s top law enforcement agency. “Wherever you go, the police need the public’s help in preventing crimes and in solving crimes as well.”
At the crux of this sanctuary debate has been a push for partnerships with ICE under a program known as 287(g). The initiative, a central pillar of the Trump administration’s mass deportation agenda, trains sheriff’s deputies, police and highway patrol officers to act as immigration agents in the course of their daily duties, and the program has become a force multiplier for enforcement.
Fifteen of the 18 states reviewed by The Times have passed laws that restrict their local and state law enforcement agencies from entering into contracts to help enforce civil immigration laws. The other three limit participation in the program under governor’s executive orders and state court rulings. But no states prohibit their officers from assisting federal agencies on criminal violations.
All allow the transfer of inmates into federal custody if the authorities present a criminal warrant signed by a judge.
Mr. Trump’s fight with Democratic leaders over “sanctuary” policies dates to his first term. Since his return to the White House, his administration has only ramped up the stakes further. Last month, Republicans passed a sweeping immigration package signed by Mr. Trump. It includes $31 billion for ICE activities, such as supporting local and state authorities that have signed 287(g) partnerships with the agency, and earmarks another $350 million to expand enforcement operations in jurisdictions that refuse such partnerships.
During budget negotiations in late May, Markwayne Mullin, Mr. Trump’s new homeland security secretary, floated the idea of pulling customs officers from airports in major liberal hubs, which business groups warned would lead to chaos for travelers and harm the economy. In recent weeks, Tom Homan, his border czar, has repeatedly vowed to flood New York with agents.
Although neither of the plans has transpired, the administration’s strikes have turned Democratic-led cities and states into political foils in the rhetorical fight over immigration policy. That fight has played out in the public sphere and in the courts, where the Trump administration has had less success. Last month, federal judges dismissed, for now, federal government lawsuits challenging a Los Angeles ordinance and executive orders in several New Jersey cities that prohibit the use of city resources for federal immigration enforcement. (The decisions followed similar rulings last year in favor of Rochester, N.Y., and the state of Illinois.)
In June, the Department of Justice and New York State sued and countersued each other over expansive immigrant protections the state passed a month earlier. The new rules, among other provisions, banned partnership agreements with ICE, barred all local, state and federal officers from wearing masks and ended ICE contracts to house inmates with federal civil immigration violations.
Testifying before the House Appropriations Committee days later, Mr. Mullin said “sanctuary governors and sanctuary mayors” were advising their local and state authorities to not cooperate with ICE. He argued that this hampered federal authorities’ immigration efforts, as well as investigations into human trafficking and retail theft.
“And so it really handcuffs us,” he said.
Asked whether exceptions or carve-outs for violent and serious offenders in state laws helped offset their restrictions on civil immigration enforcement, officials at D.H.S., the parent agency of ICE, suggested they had broader latitude under federal law to carry out immigration arrests than state statutes allow.
In a statement, Lauren Bis, a Homeland Security spokeswoman, suggested that the agency’s partnerships with law enforcement justified the surges in arrests.
“When politicians bar local law enforcement from working with D.H.S., our law enforcement officers have to have a more visible presence so that we can find and apprehend the criminals let out of jails and back into communities,” she said.
Some law enforcement associations defend the administration’s position, and several county sheriffs and officials have gone so far as to sue their own states over their policies, arguing they should have the authority to operate as they see fit to protect their communities’ interests.
In the meantime, states are split on whether to embrace the “sanctuary” label, which is ill-defined and traces to the 1980s, when local governments began adopting policies to shield people fleeing civil war in El Salvador. And many have increasingly backed away from it, particularly as the number of migrants crossing at the border reached record levels under the Biden administration.
Yet officials in Democrat-led states reject the claims from Trump administration officials that they are harboring criminals.
Diana Crofts-Pelayo, a spokeswoman for Gov. Gavin Newsom of California, said the Trump administration’s agenda was about “chasing quotas, sowing fear in diverse communities and targeting families, businesses and workers who pose no threat to public safety.”
In some states, where immigration hard-liners are pushing for a tougher stance, the battles are intensifying. An initiative on Colorado’s November ballot would require local law enforcement to attempt to verify the immigration status of a person who has a prior felony conviction or is facing a violent-crime charge. It would also require officers to notify ICE if they cannot confirm the person is legally in the country.
The post Trump Blasts ‘Sanctuary’ States, but Many Still Aid Deportations appeared first on New York Times.
