President Trump came into office promising to conduct “the largest deportation program of criminals” in the nation’s history, with a goal of deporting 1 million undocumented immigrants this year.
To reach that lofty target, administration officials have pushed Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to increase deportation numbers by casting a wider net that includes anyone without documentation, not just those with criminal records. A top Trump adviser told ICE officials in late May that the administration wants to see “at least” 3,000 immigration arrests a day, a marked increase from the roughly 650 daily arrests seen through the first four-and-a-half months of this year.
This intensified pressure has led to a more aggressive posture from ICE, the diversion of other federal law enforcement agency resources, and greater demand for cooperation from local authorities.
Related: GOP lawmakers attack Walz for ‘sanctuary’ policy at testy Capitol Hill hearing
ICE enforces immigration laws nationwide, but often seeks state and local help in alerting federal authorities of immigrants wanted for deportation and holding people until federal officers take custody.
This pressure has led to varying levels of pushback from immigration advocates, as well as states and localities that say working hand in glove with ICE will erode trust and decrease cooperation between local law enforcement and the communities they serve.
In response to what the administration perceived as stonewalling from local and state partners, a list of “sanctuary jurisdictions” was made public in late May, which included Minnesota.
Gov. Tim Walz pushed back, denying that Minnesota is a sanctuary state, citing specific laws other states have, and the lack of such laws in Minnesota
“It is ridiculous to suggest that Minnesota — a state that is over 1,500 miles away from the Southern border, and a thousand miles from lawmakers in Washington, D.C. who decide and implement border policy — is somehow responsible for a failure of immigration enforcement,” Walz said during the hearing.
He also tried to draw a line separating states that are de jure sanctuary jurisdictions, with sanctuary policies enshrined in state law, and states that might be seen as de facto sanctuary jurisdictions, where guidance from state and local officials simply recommends that law enforcement limit certain kinds of cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
Some states have specific statutes that prevent ICE access to local and state jails, or ban law enforcement from detaining individuals solely based on immigration status or an immigration detainer.
For example, New York’s Protect Our Courts Act imposes criminal liability for anyone who detains an individual for immigration charges while the individual is in court or on their way to or from court. The Illinois TRUST Act “generally prohibits local law enforcement in Illinois from participating in immigration enforcement” and requires state, county, and local law enforcement to provide annual reports detailing their compliance with the law. California’s Values Act bars law enforcement from using their resources to detain undocumented immigrants, though it makes an exception for those suspected of serious crimes.
In addition to these laws, some Democrat-led states have scrambled to pass and enact new laws in the past weeks and months to try to protect immigrant communities from ramped up enforcement.
California saw more than a dozen pro-immigrant bills pass either the state Assembly or Senate last week, including one prohibiting schools from allowing federal immigration officials into nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant. In one of his first moves of his second term, Trump reversed longstanding policy that discouraged detentions at sensitive locations like schools, churches, and hospitals.
Colorado Gov. Jared Polis signed legislation in early May designed to protect immigrants from having their status inadvertently disclosed by imposing a penalty of up to $50,000 for public schools, colleges, libraries, child care centers and health care facilities that collect information about people’s immigration status, with some exceptions.
Despite this new law, Polis argued that Colorado was not a “sanctuary state,” but that “state and local law enforcement cannot be commandeered to enforce federal civil immigration laws.”
This is similar to the argument Walz is making – while Minnesota may have some pro-immigrant policies, that does not itself make Minnesota a “sanctuary state.”
“The Minnesota Legislature has passed no such law making Minnesota a sanctuary state and I have signed no such law,” Walz said.
See a roundup of recent state laws relating to immigration in this AP article.
Who’s telling the truth? Both, probably. Let’s break it down…
The fact that Minnesota does not have a “sanctuary” law enshrined in state statute does not necessarily mean state entities will work as closely with federal immigration authorities as the Trump administration and some Republicans would like. There is significant room for discretion on the part of the attorney general as well as other officials in how Minnesota’s laws will be implemented. So even without a law on the books, the state’s executive and judicial branches retain a certain amount of wiggle room.
That means Walz’s statement that Minnesota is not a “sanctuary state” may be true by some measures, especially when compared to laws enacted in California, Illinois, New York, and other states. But it is hard to argue with the idea that Minnesota would prefer to keep state and local law enforcement from getting entangled in the process of immigration enforcement, especially following a legal opinion issued by the attorney general earlier this year.
Another thing that has hurt Walz’s argument that Minnesota is not a “sanctuary state” is the fact that he called ICE a “modern day Gestapo” in a commencement address at the University of Minnesota. While this is not an admission that Minnesota is a “sanctuary state,” it set him up for some combative lines of questioning from Republicans on the Oversight Committee. Several Republican lawmakers demanded that he recant the statement, which he did not do.
At the same time, Walz could be considered correct that Minnesota is not a “sanctuary state,” since, as he pointed out, no law that actually penalizes law enforcement or local officials for cooperating with immigration officials has passed the Minnesota House and Senate and received the governor’s signature.
What makes a state a “sanctuary state”?
There is no agreed-upon legal definition of a “sanctuary jurisdiction,” making it more useful as a political statement than a true descriptor of how a state or city interacts with federal immigration officials. The phrase seems to have been initially embraced by liberal cities and states that wanted to send a more welcoming message to newcomers, prevent a rift between immigrant communities and government officials, and allow immigrants certain privileges that would also increase public safety, such as letting them get a driver’s license regardless of their status.
Now, with stepped up immigration enforcement and a shift in public sentiment toward immigrants, it appears that the idea of being a “sanctuary” jurisdiction is less of an asset, and more of an albatross around the neck of state and local politicians.
Today, the phrase is commonly used derisively or negatively by Republicans and those who want to deport people who are in the U.S. illegally. In some cases they use it to lump many jurisdictions with varying levels of protections for undocumented immigrants together and paint them all as “uncooperative” with immigration enforcement. The Trump administration’s recent release of the list of “sanctuary jurisdictions” included a statement from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem that politicians who support such policies are “endangering Americans and our law enforcement in order to protect violent criminal illegal aliens.”
(It’s worth pointing out that while the Trump administration emphasizes undocumented immigrants who have committed crimes, studies have shown immigrants, regardless of legal status, commit crimes, violent and otherwise, at lower rates than American-born individuals.)
Because it is open to interpretation, the phrase “sanctuary jurisdiction” may mean different things to different states and cities, as well as to the federal government and outside observers.
Does Minnesota have a state law telling law enforcement not to cooperate with ICE?
No. Walz was correct in saying that the state Legislature has not passed an explicit “sanctuary jurisdiction” law. Despite their tough questions of the governor, Republican lawmakers could not point to a state law that specifically bars state and local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration authorities.
However, U.S. Rep. Tom Emmer had a laundry list of laws Walz had signed when Democrats previously controlled the governor’s mansion and both chambers of the Legislature that the congressman suggested were proof of the state’s “sanctuary” policies.
“You signed a health and human services omnibus bill into law in May of 2023. That bill expanded MinnesotaCare to provide free healthcare to illegal aliens. You signed the higher education omnibus bill into law in May of 2023. That bill allows illegals to have their college tuition paid for by the state. You signed the Driver’s License For All Act into law in March of 2023, and that bill allows illegals to receive driver’s licenses,” Emmer said.
“So you claim you’re not a sanctuary state, but you just provide free health care, free college, and driver’s licenses to illegal aliens,” Emmer added.
(MinnesotaCare, the state’s subsidized health insurance program for lower-income residents, does not provide free health care, as those on the program still have to pay premiums. In addition, the Minnesota Legislature earlier this week voted to end MinnesotaCare coverage for adults as part of a budget compromise with Republicans.)
None of the laws Emmer pointed to address the core issue when it comes to defining a “sanctuary state,” which is how the state cooperates (or refuses to cooperate) with ICE and federal authorities in identifying, detaining, and flagging for deportation any undocumented immigrants that state officials may interact with.
What has AG Ellison told law enforcement to do? Do they have to follow his guidance?
Attorney General Keith Ellison who, like Walz, served in Congress alongside some of those who questioned the governor this week, released a legal opinion in February to state and local officials. The directive was issued in response to Ramsey County Attorney John Choi, who requested clarification on if his county could lawfully hold individuals based solely on “immigration detainers” issued by ICE.
The directive clarifies that immigration detainers are requests, not legal orders, for state and local law enforcement to detain an individual suspected of immigration violations until ICE can take custody of the individual. This is based on the federal definition of an immigration detainer, and has been upheld by federal courts, the opinion says.
“Because continued detention due to an immigration detainer is an arrest, the question
becomes whether the detainer alone authorizes Minnesota officials to hold someone. The answer is no. Minnesota law does not authorize state and local officials to hold or arrest someone based on an immigration detainer. Nor does federal law grant such authority,” Ellison’s directive said.
Related: Minnesota under threat after Trump Justice Department sues “sanctuary state” Illinois
As for whether or not officials have to follow Ellison’s legal opinions, the short answer is no, they do not.
“These opinions do not generally have legally binding effect as a court decision, but they can be helpful to inform the actions of local public officials,” an explanation of the attorney general’s role says.
However, because there is no state statute authorizing such a detention, state, county, and local officials open themselves up to potential lawsuits arguing that they are unlawfully arresting and holding an individual if they are detaining them on an immigration detainer when that person would otherwise be released if there was no detainer.
Related: Why Minnesota jails can’t legally hold people past their release time for an ICE detainer
As the opinion’s summary points out, “Minnesota law enforcement agencies risk significant civil liability if they enforce immigration detainers.”Thanks for
So while they do not have to follow the attorney general’s lead on this, Ellison has made clear that those who do not do so are increasing their legal exposure. In all likelihood, most officials would prefer to err on the side of caution and will not do anything that puts them or their agencies in legal jeopardy.
The post Is Minnesota a ‘sanctuary state’? Clarifying law vs. language from immigration hearing in Congress appeared first on MinnPost.
