America’s leaders have sold out our country. Something has got to give.
And now DHS uncovered hundreds of Democrats aiding and abetting a dangerous foreign enemy.
Identifying Sanctuary Jurisdictions
The DHS list names 14 states, including California, Maryland, and the District of Columbia, along with nearly 600 cities and counties, as “sanctuary” jurisdictions that restrict cooperation with federal immigration authorities to varying degrees.
California stands out with 111 cities and counties, alongside its statewide sanctuary status. In the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, jurisdictions like Arlington, Fairfax, Montgomery, Prince George’s, and cities such as Alexandria and Baltimore are listed, with Virginia totaling 33 and Maryland 18 entries.
In contrast, states like Florida and Texas have no listed sanctuary jurisdictions.
DHS emphasized that these areas are “deliberately obstructing” federal enforcement, with policies ranging from declining to hold illegal immigrants for pickup to outright refusing all cooperation, as noted by a senior ICE official during the Biden administration who reported that some jurisdictions automatically bounced back ICE emails.
Federal Response and Legal Tensions
DHS announced it will send formal notifications to each listed jurisdiction, warning of “potential violations of federal criminal statutes.”
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem stated, “These sanctuary city politicians are endangering Americans and our law enforcement in order to protect violent criminal illegal aliens. We are exposing these sanctuary politicians who harbor criminal illegal aliens and defy federal law.”
The administration has initiated lawsuits against states like New York and Illinois to challenge their sanctuary policies.
However, sanctuary jurisdictions have fought back, with a federal judge in California, U.S. District Judge William Orrick, ruling in their favor, stating, “The threat to withhold funding causes them irreparable injury in the form of budgetary uncertainty, deprivation of constitutional rights, and undermining trust between the cities and counties and the communities they serve.”
This ruling has led to an injunction against the administration’s efforts to withhold grant money from sanctuaries.
Reviving a Controversial Policy
This list marks a revival of a similar effort from the first Trump administration, which was discontinued after inaccuracies led to the inclusion of cooperating jurisdictions. DHS acknowledged potential errors in the current list, including a typo listing Takoma Park as “Tacoma,” and included a disclaimer: “no one should act on this information without conducting their own evaluation of the information.”
The absence of a universal definition of “sanctuary” complicates the issue, as policies vary widely—some jurisdictions notify ICE about serious crimes or impending releases, while others, like Rhode Island under a court-ordered policy, impose stricter non-cooperation.
The list’s release points to ongoing friction between federal immigration priorities and local governance, with both sides leveraging legal action to advance their positions.
The DHS list and its fallout highlight the complex interplay between federal immigration enforcement and local policies, with legal battles and public debates shaping the path forward.
