On January 20th, 2025, President Trump will be sworn in as the 47th President of the United States.
One of his top campaign promises was to immediately address the failed immigration and border security policies of the Biden Administration – policies which resulted in a record 11 million illegal border crossing encounters and another 2 million “got aways” in four years, and which increased the illegal immigrant population in the US to an estimated 16.8 million people.
To drive home the importance of this effort, one of the first moves President Elect Trump made was to name former acting ICE Director Tom Homan as his “Border Czar.” This position is new and is not considered a Cabinet position which would require Senate approval. As the Border Czar, Homan will lead the White House effort in developing and implementing border security policies designed to strengthen our border and reduce the threats posed by illegal immigration – such as human, drug, and weapon trafficking, as well as terrorism and nation state infiltration.
A key component to this effort will be to aggressively locate and deport those people who violated our border laws and crossed into the country illegally, prioritizing the estimated 650,000 illegal immigrants who have criminal records (many of whom are in state and local correctional facilities), or those who pose national security threats.
Homan has been unambiguous in asking state and local governments to cooperate with ICE and other federal law enforcement as they begin this deportation effort, and if they aren’t in a position to physically assist federal authorities in this effort, at least don’t obstruct the effort by implementing “sanctuary” policies that overtly prohibit cooperation and information sharing. Homan’s recommendation to the White House is to cut federal funding to those state and local governments which continue to actively obstruct and hinder the federal government’s efforts to enforce immigration and border security law.
Homan’s ask is a reasonable one, and one that exposes the insincerity of many progressive state and local governments which have tried to claim various sanctuary policies are simply needed to ensure finite state resources remain focused on the work of the state, because after all immigration issues are the “responsibility of the federal government.”
The dirty and not so secret, secret is that these progressive state and local governments expend considerable time, energy, and resources developing and implementing sanctuary policies that are not earnestly implemented to focus state and local resources on state tasks. They are ideologically driven and implemented specifically to thwart federal efforts to effectively enforce immigration laws. The Minnesota DFL sponsored “North Star Act” which was introduced in 2024 but thankfully did not pass is the perfect example of such ideologically driven legislation.
Many of these sanctuary policies create firewalls on information sharing that hinder federal authorities in carrying out their work. Information sharing could occur automatically and would represent little to no work on the part of state and locals, but the policies block such efficiencies. They also create policies that prohibit any pro-active or physical cooperation with ICE, such as turning over to ICE an inmate set to be released from state or local custody. These policies are antithetical to the established notion of law enforcement agencies cooperating with one another to ensure public safety, and they put ICE agents and the public at greater risk of injury.
Homan has pledged to withhold federal funding for state and local governments that don’t cooperate with ICE deportation efforts, saying, “That’s going to happen, I guarantee you.” In a war of words Homan has also threated arrests and criminal prosecution of state and local officials who overtly try to block ICE efforts. Some of those officials include Denver’s Mayor who stated he would deploy Denver PD to the city border and prevent ICE from entering the city, and Illinois’s Governor who stated, “If you come for my people, you come through me.” It’s doubtful either extreme will play out, but it underscores the seriousness the Trump Administration is applying toward the immigration crisis.
One thing that Homan and the White House would be wise to address, is the fact that ICE currently handles the majority of illegal immigration and deportations as a civil matter – despite the fact that crossing into and remaining in the country without authorization violates federal criminal code. Absent a criminal warrant, state and local law enforcement and correctional agencies are not able to hold a criminal suspect beyond the time in which their state hold expires. Traditionally ICE has asked state and local authorities to honor and continue to hold the person on an ICE Detainer request – a civil document produced by ICE and not backed by a judicial criminal warrant. State and local law enforcement and correctional facilities cannot hold people based solely on an ICE Detainer request, and to do so puts them at significant risk of being sued. Most county attorneys across the State of Minnesota have made this point clear to the sheriffs they represent. If ICE was able to handle a larger percentage of cases as a criminal matter, the detainer issue would be greatly diminished.
Regardless, state and local law enforcement should not purposefully fail to be good partners with their federal counterparts. Establishing efficient electronic information sharing about who is in custody and when someone is slated to be released would allow ICE more time to properly fulfill its mission and prevent someone wanted by ICE from returning to the street. Making reasonable efforts to securely hand off people to ICE while still in custody is imperative to officer and public safety. Knowing ICE is prioritizing people with criminal records and those representing a national security risk makes these efforts even more appropriate.
As with any dispute, there are things that can be adjusted and improved on both sides of the argument. But overtly and intentionally preventing ICE from fulfilling its mission shouldn’t even be a consideration. Such actions fray the strong bonds that have traditionally existed between law enforcement agencies, and that ultimately undermines public safety.