Local governments across the country, many of them having expressed strong agreement with the administration on immigration control, were taken aback by finding their names on an extended list of places receiving official admonitions to reconsider their approaches. This pertained to an impactful immigration raid that unfolded in Denver early in February. Inexplicably, the vote held in January saw everyone in agreement.
The City Council of Huntington Beach, California, proudly presented their stance, announcing the city as ‘a non-sanctuary for illegal immigration’. Therefore, it was a perplexing moment for the municipal officers of this conservative haven of Orange County when they discovered on a placid Friday morning that their city had been inadvertently tagged as a so-called ‘sanctuary jurisdiction’. This tag came from the Department of Homeland Security, which criticized these places for ‘intentionally and disgracefully hindering the enforcement of federal immigration laws’.
Huntington Beach’s Mayor, Pat Burns, expressed his skepticism, stating ‘this is an absolute contradiction with the truth’. He was quick to reach out to the federal authorities to clarify and rectify the miscommunication. Skeptically, he wondered aloud ‘Who compiled this list, really?’. He opined that such an error was intensely lax.
Amazingly, Huntington Beach is just one among an astonishingly extensive list of over 600 locales, including cities, counties, and states, which the federal government has controversially accused of providing sanctuary to ‘perilous criminal aliens’. This list was released on Thursday, in accordance with an April executive order.
The executive order was forthright in its threats to these jurisdictions. It not only put their federal contracts at risk of termination but also brought up the possibility that these places might be in violation of the law. It was clear the stakes were high for those listed.
There were indeed some jurisdictions on the list that had willingly designated themselves as sanctuary cities by passing resolutions or executing orders to that effect. Administrations in other regions posited that the label ‘sanctuary city’ did not technically fit, despite their pledges to safeguard immigrants.
Intermingled on the list were also a considerable number of cities and counties that were quite vocal in their endorsement for strict immigrant regulation and deportation strategies. Quite a few of these places have been actively collaborating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement agencies.
Ironically, officials in other locales that had cast their vote overwhelmingly for President Trump, found themselves estranged from this action, while not being directly involved in the immigration debates. Their bewilderment was palpable.