Sanctuary Cities

Even Trump Administration Not Quite Sure What Counts as a 'Sanctuary City'

Report to track uncooperative communities suspended over accuracy issues.


Immigration protest
Alex Milan Tracy/Sipa USA/Newscom

President Donald Trump administration's plan to call out cities that don't cooperate with immigration deportations has hit a snag over the fact that the list doesn't seem to be terribly accurate, and it's already being suspended.

The first report came out only a month ago and there was an immediate backlash by some communities that were targeted by the administration. The report, based on an executive order from Trump early in the administration, was an attempt to try to shame "sanctuary cities" that do not check immigration status of people in their custody. The administration's goal was to force these cities to help officials deport those here illegally who are also connected to crimes.

Several law enforcement agencies who were singled out by the report say they actually do cooperate with immigration officials. The New York Times reports:

In Minnesota, the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office called the report "incorrect in many ways" and also demanded an apology from ICE officials.

Sheriff Richard Stanek of Hennepin County said his office had cooperated with requests from ICE and notified immigration officials when two undocumented immigrants wanted by the federal authorities were going to be released. He said both inmates were transferred into ICE custody when they were released from jail.

During a news conference last month, Mr. Stanek displayed time-stamped pictures from his jail showing the two inmates being picked up by deportation agents the day they were released.

So they're stopping the program for now to "refine its reporting methodologies."

Even beyond the basic issue of accuracy, what exactly does "cooperation" mean here, anyway? The administration is selling this plan as a way of getting illegal immigrants who have committed crimes (beyond not having permission to be in the United States) out. But even the initial report, which had only a little over 200 cases out of 3,000 where authorities didn't assist, was full of people who had merely been charged and not convicted of crimes. And as the Times notes, it's not clear whether even those 200 cases were accurately described.

This discrepancy is relevant because many of these cities and communities do cooperate with immigration in deporting immigrants who are convicted of crimes and when they're given an arrest warrant or court order. What the feds are attempting to accomplish here is to have cities and jails turn over illegal immigrants on a simple immigration hold "detainer" orders. But these detainers are really legally considered to be simply formally written requests. Local police and jails are under no legal obligation to do anything at all under federal laws (state and local laws may vary).

So, really, this particular immigration enforcement fight is turning into a case where the administration and Department of Justice is going to try to punish "sanctuary cities," except they can't even seem to adequately explain what cities are doing that is in violation of any federal law. Cities are under no obligation to assist in helping immigration officials as long as they don't do anything to try to outlaw or forbid communication between police and the feds about a person's immigration status.

Read more here.

NEXT: Sean Spicer Implies Hitler Didn't Gas His Own People, United Airlines Also Having a Pretty Bad Day: P.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So they’re stopping the program for now to “refine its reporting methodologies.”

    Uh oh. Sounds like Trump is stopping another program in order to put advanced vetting in place. Steel yourselves.


    Sacred transexuals assault sacred Mexicans within blocks of reason headquarters. Oh the humanity of it all.

    1. And all 5 of them are commenting here under 37 different names.

      1. All of the transsexuals and Mexicans.

        1. If you add Mexicans to the list, it actually reduces the number of accounts. Don’t ask me how that works.

          1. They share usernames and passwords, of course.

          2. Weird Al was way ahead of his time, singing about transsexual Nazi eskimos.

    2. You’re a traitor to your race!

      They’re really flipping the script lately.

  3. OT: At NYU Law School, the “Center for Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging” is presenting a panel on how Trump’s “alternative facts” are threatening “the integrity of civil-rights narratives.”

    “Alternative facts” versus the “Integrity of Narratives.” This is the choice we are given.

    1. Thinking “alternative facts” = “lies” is pure question-begging. If I say I saw the defendant at location X at time t and another witness claims he saw the defendant at some distant location Y at time t, each of our accounts is an alternative to the other. Is the first account that happens to be made to be taken for the truth, and the latter the “alternative”?

      What matters is what’s true, not “alternative”.

  4. OT: The stuff of nightmares. On the bright side, it has garnered only 1.5 stars on Amazon.

    “MIT Press has just published Communism for Kids by Bini Adamczak (a translation of his German language book).”


    1. Chapter about ratting on your parents?

    2. The entry at Amazon says for grade levels 3 to 7, ages 18 and up. Sounds about right.

  5. Oh yeah? Can you play golf and define “sanctuary” at the same time?

    1. DanO, we have a new contraceptive for you: Chewing gum.

    2. Not sure why you’re bringing Obama into this. I must be dumb. Explain?

      1. Sure! Trump (the current president) has spent more time golfing (what Obama’s Republican and libertarian critics complained about obsessively) than any other president in the first 100 days of his first term. Happy to help.

  6. If a mayor declared his city a sanctuary for the unborn, would he live past sundown?

    1. If it was Philly, the NBA would threaten to pull the basketball team out of town. Oh wait, the NBA doesn’t have a pro basketball team in Philly.

      1. Yeah, pro football fans in SF are familiar with that condition. We also had a guy arrested recently for impersonating an NFL QB. Some guy with a lot of tats who can’t count to 40.

  7. Some help for the fucking House of Trump or whatever niggling concern it is these days:…..ities.html

    Maybe one day Scott the Shack could stop shitting Cato out from his Koch paycheck ass and actually post some shit actual eagles want to read.

    1. Do you self-identify as an eagle, Agile?

      1. In the mossy cliff-hung future the babbling offspring will sit on the craggy knee of muscular men and chirp, “Daddy Lord, what is Chipper and why does it bequeath the names of all the great warriors on the tombstones of our legends?”

        The muscular Daddy Lord will gaze gently into the crow-like eyes of the offspring of his lover tribe, “Little man, those with ‘Chipper’ leading their warrior scream have been forgotten by their great gang. Left to wander the timber of castaways, my boy, the term ‘Chipper’ is a great old robin lost to the incoming voices and tappings… but vast in power and strength. Find a ‘Chipper” knight, my son, and you have discovered a neon prophet aglow with exquisite fiords.

  8. BTW, the thumbnail is indicative of lefty ‘argument’; convert your view-point into bumper-sticker prose and hope to confuse people.
    Yes, lefties, bank robbers are “illegal”.
    Slimy twits.

  9. I’m going to go off on a tangent and comment on the insipid banner in the photo….. “No One Is Illegal!” Holy crap, is that one covered up in stupid. And it fully sums up what is wrong with people of the left in one simple banner.

    Everyone knows exactly what is meant by “illegal alien” – a person who is in the country without proper authorization, hence illegally. Abbreviating “illegal aliens” as “illegals” is a pretty obvious choice. There is not really any room for controversy here.

    But the nitwits of the left play their word games, pretending that there is outrage in a label. And a significant chunk of people fall for this idiotic gambit every time.

    If the label for immigrants entering the country without permission had originally been “undocumented worker” (a somewhat more inaccurate term applying only to workers) then they would be marching behind banners that say “No One is Undoc’d”.

    Just like they claimed “Negro” was a derogatory term and championed the word “black” in its stead, just like they panic about naming a brain disorder that slows one’s thinking “retardation”…. the actual words matter not a whit, but they attach all the importance to the label.

    And it seems to work. It distracts the mind from the real argument and displaces it to arguments over vocabulary, framing it as a personal insult. And suddenly the issue is displaced from enforcing immigration laws to “disrespectful words”.

    It is really frustrating watching the same gambit work

    1. Everyone knows exactly what is meant by “illegal alien” – a person who is in the country without proper authorization, hence illegally.

      And that’s why you call unlicensed drivers “Illegal Drivers,” routinely. Or don’t you?

      Just because you don’t carry the transit papers with you doesn’t mean you’re “illegal”. The government doesn’t get to shape reality. No one has that right.

      1. No, generally we call unlicensed drivers ‘illegal aliens’ as well. Because that’s what quite a few of them are.

        The person isn’t ‘illegal’–they’re an alien. It’s being here without permission that makes them an ‘illegal’ alien. There ARE ‘legal’ aliens.

        English, how does it work?*

        *Sorry, I know it’s racist to expect you to know that, you being an old Mexican and what not–and Mexico having magically transformed from being a nation into a race of people so utterly defeated that they demand that everyone speak the language of the people that crushed them.

        1. Re: Azathot!,

          The person isn’t ‘illegal’–they’re an alien. It’s being here without permission that makes them an ‘illegal’ alien.

          I told you the government doesn’t get to reshape reality. The only reason you would call a human being “illegal alien” is because the government said they’re illegal aliens, not because of anything fundamentally different about the person or his or her actions.

          Rationality – how does that work?

      2. And that’s why you call unlicensed drivers “Illegal Drivers,” routinely. Or don’t you?

        Ummm,,, yes, If you drive without a license, you are an “illegal driver”. In fact, I even call the “undocumented” dude who “hit and ran” on me with no license or insurance an “illegal, illegal, illegal” driver.

        Is this “problematic”?

        1. I would welcome your help to pay my increased insurance premiun,,, because he is helping an American business

  10. He’ll know it when he sees it

  11. Even beyond the basic issue of accuracy, what exactly does “cooperation” mean here, anyway?

    “The leader expects nothing less but total obedience. No ifs or buts about it.”

    That’s all the definition you need in this Nation Of Laws?. “Cooperation” no longer means what you think it means.

  12. I’m thinking the problem with the list isn’t the list itself, but the law enforcement agencies of the various places who’ve declared themselves to be ‘sanctuaries’ who aren’t paying attention to that leftist nonsense.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.