Sanctuary Isn’t What You Think

By Sarah Pierce

The White House has painted so-called “sanctuary” jurisdictions as lawless safe havens that “harbor criminals” and “block” federal enforcement. The reality is far different. In fact, no state or city stands in the way of federal immigration of cers doing their jobs. Instead, local law enforcement agencies make careful choices about how and when they aid federal immigration enforcement—balancing the demands of limited resources, public trust, and local priorities. Even those that affirmatively call themselves “sanctuary” jurisdictions participate in federal immigration enforcement in meaningful ways. For example, every jurisdiction shares data with the FBI that gets run through ICE and informs the agency of unauthorized or potentially removable immigrants in custody. But the Trump administration’s aggressive focus on ensuring local participation in federal immigration enforcement begs the question of how far Washington can go to force local police to serve as a national force—and what such a power grab risks. In this paper, we explain the different ways states and localities tailor their participation in federal immigration enforcement, including highlighting the ongoing participation of several of the administration’s most vili ed, so-called “sanctuary” jurisdictions. We also explain why some jurisdictions limit or tailor their enforcement more than others and what local public safety measures may be lost as a result of the administration’s hyper xation on hitting numerical deportation quotas. 

Washington, DC: Third Way, 2025. 11p, October 10, 2024