MADISON, Wis. (AP) — A recent list published by the Trump administration identifying over 500 ‘sanctuary jurisdictions’ has sparked backlash across various communities, irrespective of their political affiliations and support for the president’s immigration measures.
Local leaders from both red and blue states vehemently criticized their inclusion on the list, which the Department of Homeland Security claims contains areas obstructing immigration enforcement.
The implications of the list came into sharp focus when officials from areas known for their support for Trump’s strict immigration policies expressed confusion over their classification. For instance, Jim Davel, the administrator for Shawano County, Wisconsin, underscored that the county overwhelmingly voted for Trump in the 2020 election, with 67% support, and could not fathom how it ended up on the sanctuary list.
Davel suggested there was likely a clerical mistake, possibly confusing the county’s designation as a ‘Second Amendment Sanctuary County’ with a sanctuary for immigrants. He asserted that no immigration sanctuary policies have been adopted by Shawano County.
Meanwhile, urban officials with policies designed to protect immigrant rights voiced concerns about the motivations behind the list. Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell criticized the Trump administration’s tactics as an attempt to intimidate local jurisdictions into altering their policies regarding immigrant protections, asserting that the law supports their stance.
This list coincides with a broader initiative by the Trump administration to fulfill campaign promises aimed at strengthening immigration enforcement, as Immigration and Customs Enforcement prepared to announce significant leadership changes.
The administration’s approach includes formal notifications to jurisdictions labeled as noncompliant, with potential implications for their federal funding related to public safety and social services.
Localities’ understanding of their inclusion on the list varies significantly, leading to questions about the criteria used to designate these jurisdictions as noncompliant. For example, Huntington Beach in California has found its name on the list despite having taken legal action against state policies designed to protect immigrants, while the nearby city of Santa Ana, which has supported immigrants’ rights, is not included.
Furthermore, several small rural counties in North Dakota, which predominantly supported Trump, were also included in the list. County officials are in the process of seeking clarification from state authorities on how to address the situation, indicating an urgency for transparency regarding the list’s compilation method.
Jonathan Thompson, the executive director and CEO of the National Sheriffs’ Association, expressed harsh criticism of the list, calling it ‘fatally flawed’ and highlighting a lack of transparency regarding the inclusion criteria. He emphasized that blaming communities without factual backing is not only misguided but counterproductive.
In contrast, cities with immigrant protection policies have defended their measures, asserting their commitment to the safety and security of all residents. Hartford, Connecticut, for instance, has implemented laws that prevent individuals’ immigration status from being a factor in accessing city services, a move praised by Mayor Arunan Arulampalam as vital to enhancing community vibrancy and safety.
Arulampalam also emphasized that current federal policies threaten to undermine the progress made in providing a safe community for residents regardless of their immigration status.
Nithya Nathan-Pineau from the Immigrant Legal Resource Center noted the apparent randomness in the compilation of the list, where numerous jurisdictions lack any documented policy limiting cooperation with ICE.
The lack of clarity regarding the definition of ‘sanctuary jurisdiction’ adds another layer of complexity to the ongoing debate. The term generally refers to regions that intentionally limit collaboration with federal immigration authorities, a practice that dates back to the 1980s when U.S. churches began protecting asylum seekers.
Last month, Trump issued an executive order mandating the Department of Homeland Security and the attorney general to identify states and localities obstructing federal immigration enforcement, with the commitment to regularly update the list.
The implications of this list could extend to federal grants and contracts, with departments tasked to evaluate and potentially cut funding to jurisdictions deemed noncompliant.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which operates under the Department of Homeland Security, plays a crucial role in enforcing immigration laws across the nation. It usually relies on cooperation from state and local governments to identify individuals wanted for deportation and to detain them until federal authorities can take over.
The strong reactions from both sides of the immigration debate indicate a significant divide in how communities are navigating federal policies. While some jurisdictions brace themselves for potential repercussions stemming from their inclusion on the list, others remain steadfast in their commitment to protect all residents, immigrant or otherwise.
The ensuing debate highlights the complexities of immigration policy in America today, where local governments grapple with the federal government’s approaches while striving to balance safety and community values.
As this situation develops, communities across the nation are left questioning the integrity and intent behind the Trump administration’s list, advocating for more transparency and accountability in the enforcement of immigration laws.
image source from：https://apnews.com/article/immigration-sanctuary-jurisdictions-reaction-81059c23b02f82c7dbf6ae77c21bfab8
