The administration under Donald Trump has been fervently moving forward with mass deportations, continually expelling illegal immigrants. However, a recent incident in California has cast a shadow of doubt on the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), enough to spark protests against it. Interestingly, while the White House is keen on expelling illegal immigrants, several American states are extending protection to them.
What was the incident that trapped the agency?
On January 7, in California, during ICE's operation, a woman named Renee Nicole Good tragically died from a gunshot. Officials reported that Renee was allegedly blocking agents with her car. As an officer approached her, the car moved forward; to save himself, the officer opened fire, resulting in her death. This incident fueled the outcry against ICE.
What is ICE and how does it operate?
ICE is a federal agency entrusted with investigating, arresting, and deporting individuals staying without proper documentation. No state or city can entirely prevent ICE from operating in their area, as federal laws are applicable nationwide, signaling ICE’s solid paper authority despite its operational challenges without local support.
Source: aajtak
Many states have previously been tough on ICE, even restricting agency access without state permission, although it's fundamentally a federal body with broad access rights.
The Justice Department, under Trump’s directive last April, outlined a list of regions offering sanctuary to undocumented migrants, spanning California, New York, Washington, and 14 other states. In recent months, legal actions against such states have been instigated by the DOJ.
What rules empower sanctuary states?
Sanctuary states create local rules that obstruct full cooperation with federal immigration tasks. Despite variations, these policies clash with central immigration laws, leading at times to withheld information about undocumented individuals, hindering federal actions.
These policies are sometimes deemed unconstitutional as the U.S. Constitution accords immigration decision capacity to the central government, surpassing state jurisdiction. Simultaneously, the President is tasked with effectively enforcing these laws; however, sanctuary states present hurdles.
The core safety issue emerges as federal agencies encounter barriers to accessing unauthorized immigrants, some of whom may have criminal backgrounds, potentially compromising the safety of lawful residents and the community.
Source: aajtak
Currently, sanctuary-related rules are active in 17 U.S. states and Washington D.C., with over a thousand regions where local policies constrain federal actions.
Washington Adopts Sanctuary Status
In February 2017, then-Governor Jay Inslee issued an executive order establishing Washington as a sanctuary state. By 2019, they implemented the Keep Washington Working Act, prohibiting detention based solely on ICE's request. Shortly after, local police distanced themselves from apprehending illegal immigrants, and undocumented minors were given access to schools. Sanctuary provisions thus permeate Washington's police, jail, and education systems.
Why did states feel the need for sanctuary laws?
Primarily, to avoid alienating immigrants from law enforcement. If local authorities collaborated with federal immigration agencies, immigrants might avoid contacting police, reducing crime reporting. Local officials argued that community cooperation would only exist if people were not in constant fear of deportation.
Another reason eyed human rights; it was seen as unfair to detain or arrest someone solely based on immigration status, motivating local agencies to refrain from assisting ICE operations.
States like Washington, with substantial immigrant populations contributing to agriculture, construction, healthcare, and service sectors, feared disruption in their systems if these communities were removed.
Source: aajtak
How does the federal government apply pressure on states?
The central government may attempt to withhold grants or tie financial support with conditions linked to police, transportation, or housing funds, although courts have occasionally restricted this.
The Federal Government can contest sanctuary laws in courts, arguing their contradiction to the Constitution and federal laws, frequently culminating in Supreme Court battles.
Federal agencies can perform raids, arrests, and deportations sans state aid, albeit with a higher demand for resources and time.
Congress might draft new laws to impose clearer responsibilities on states, contingent on achieving political consensus.
Rhetorically, the Federal Government can accuse sanctuary states publicly, creating political pressure for policy alteration.
Finally, Federal agencies can audit state programs to flag any misuse of federal funds, further tightening the leash on sanctuary policies.
