The current administration is targeting “Sanctuary” laws because it’s easy. For the most part, those laws don’t exist or don’t do what critics say they do. There is no official, legal definition of “sanctuary city” or “sanctuary policy,” so the Department of Justice and the assorted Republican talking heads can throw the phrase around casually and demonize city and state elected officials who won’t substitute the administration’s priorities for their own.
In short, the federal government wants city and state law enforcement agencies to help it carry out immigration enforcement actions.
On August 13, Attorney General Pam Bondi sent 12 states, four counties, and 18 cities letters that read, “You are hereby notified that your jurisdiction has been identified as one that engages in sanctuary policies and practices that thwart federal immigration enforcement to the detriment of the interests of the United States. This ends now. By Tuesday, August 19, 2025, please submit a response to this letter that confirms your commitment to complying with federal law and identifies the immediate initiatives you are taking to eliminate laws, policies, and practices that impede federal immigration enforcement.”
Bondi wrote that she was looking for those who use “their official position to obstruct federal law enforcement,” and “obstruct” in this case is most accurately understood to mean “don’t make our jobs easier.”
Elected representatives pushed back. The Oregon Governor Tina Kotek responded, “You demanded a response by today. On behalf of the state of Oregon and its citizens, I respectfully disagree with your assertions. The state of Oregon, its public officials and its law enforcement officers do not engage in conduct that thwarts federal immigration enforcement.”
Newark, New Jersey received the letter from Bondi, but according to Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals found that the state’s Immigrant Trust Directive doesn’t interfere with federal immigration enforcement. “As a result, we are not in violation of any constitutional laws, and your assertion that our policy is criminal in nature is flat out wrong,” Baraka said. In California, Governor Gavin Newsom pointed to decisions from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that ruled that the Tenth Amendment and its anti-commandeering rule allows states to choose not to assist with the enforcement of federal immigration laws.
“The courts have reaffirmed the validity of California’s laws time and again,” Newsom said in a press release.
The decision not to support federal immigration actions beyond the letter of the law isn’t one made to be oppositional. Immigrant communities tend to be insular since some members are undocumented, and others simply don’t trust authority because they have feared the sort of sweeps that the current administration has undertaken.
The more isolated they are though, the more vulnerable they are to crime since the victims feel like they have nowhere to turn. A 2017 study showed that in counties that didn’t honor detainer requests from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), people were safer. There were on average 35.5 fewer crimes—murders, rapes, robbery, assaults, burglaries, larceny, motor vehicle thefts, and arsons—per 10,000 people than in counties that honored ICE detainers. The current administration links deportation with public safety, but we’ve pointed out in the past that studies show immigration improves public safety.
The Department of Justice is threatening to withhold grants and federal money from the cities, states and counties that don’t comply, which in Portland, Oregon means potentially losing $349 million in active federal grants and $31 million in new money. Those stakes highlight a theme we see again and again in this administration’s actions. If that money is withheld, the people who will suffer will be the people of Portland. The ruthless pursuit of immigrants only hurts America by making it less safe and less prosperous.
Photo by Miko Guziuk on Unsplash.
Are you having legal issues with Immigration? Do you need legal representation?
