Sanctuary policies broke the system – but federal overreach won’t solve the problem

Border czar Tom Homan recently announced 700 federal immigration agents would be pulled out of Minnesota, leaving roughly 2,000. The move comes after what Homan describes as “unprecedented” cooperation from local leaders. This drawdown follows weeks of unrest, heightened scrutiny of federal immigration enforcement tactics and renewed public concern over how interior enforcement is conducted in American cities.

The principle at stake is accountability. It shouldn’t be controversial. Accountability is what sets the American system apart, and the sudden scale-back itself suggests that federal officials recognize the costs of operating without it. Any federal or state agency entrusted with the use of force — including Border Patrol and ICE — must operate with accountability.

But at the same time, we have to remember how we got here. The current immigration debacle is not merely a failure of federal law enforcement — and it cannot be solved by tactical adjustments alone — but one rooted in how many American cities, particularly sanctuary cities, have approached immigration enforcement.

A sanctuary city, at its root, is a local government’s decision to refuse to enforce immigration law. This is rooted in the U.S. Constitution’s 10th Amendment, to ensure that communities are self-governed and law enforcement is accountable to the community. Some supporters of sanctuary policies argue that federal commandeering of local departments into enforcing immigration law drains resources that would otherwise go to more pressing matters.

That argument deserves to be taken seriously. Local police departments do not have the resources, staffing, or mandate of the federal government. Their job is to keep communities safe, not to act as full time immigration officers.

But many sanctuary policies have gone beyond practical restraint and into pure politicization. Blanket non-cooperation rules have, in practice, prevented local law enforcement from assisting in the removal of even those immigrants convicted serious of violent crimes. By refusing to distinguish between low-level civil violations and genuine threats to public safety, many sanctuary jurisdictions have undermined their own credibility.

We have not reached this moment simply because of a single bad event. ICE and Border patrol are on the streets because of systemic ambiguity in how federal immigration enforcement interacts with local communities. But the federal government’s answer to that ambiguity — aggressive interior enforcement — has only fueled intense distrust and deep frustration within the very communities it claims to protect.

This skepticism isn’t limited to progressive activists. Broad swaths of the public — especially Hispanic and Latino communities — express discomfort with aggressive interior enforcement. According to the Pew Research Center, 71% of Latinos believed the Administration was doing “too much” in its deportation efforts. More troubling for the department is a poll from YouGov which shows that a majority of Americans, especially 67% of independents, have “very little confidence” in ICE.

The longer federal officials remain on the streets “going at it alone,” the more distrustful Americans will be of them and the harder it will be to enforce immigration laws. Minnesota’s partial drawdown may ease immediate tensions, but it does not alter the national architecture that produced the surge in the first place.

The alternative isn’t to abandon enforcement. It’s to fundamentally rethink interior immigration enforcement.

There is a role for federal officers when public order is seriously threatened, especially when local law enforcement is genuinely overwhelmed. But those engagements should be short, narrow, and overseen with clear standards and local cooperation. Federal officers in American cities should not be treated as a matter of course, but only used in extreme circumstances.

In part, that’s because federal officers are not as directly accountable to the people they serve, and routine federal enforcement risks antagonizing the very communities local law enforcement depends on to maintain public trust. Community policing, where officers are known, embedded, and answerable to their neighbors, should be the standard for American cities.

What’s needed is a clear and workable division of labor, backed by transparent accountability. That division cannot exist if local political leaders bind law enforcement with absolutist mandates that prioritize symbolism over public safety. Federal agencies must respect local limits and priorities, but local officials also have a responsibility to cooperate in good faith when serious threats emerge.

Interior immigration enforcement must be structured to balance federal authority with local legitimacy — minimizing escalation, preventing tragedy, and ensuring that no level of government can evade responsibility by blaming another. Minnesota shows what happens when cooperation is forced by crisis rather than built into the system. If leaders revert to absolutism once the cameras leave, this cycle will repeat.

Instead of blanket non-cooperation, many jurisdictions have found common ground by establishing clear guidelines that distinguish between routine civil immigration violations and serious, public-safety threats. For example, honoring ICE detainers for specified serious or violent offenders in local jails allows federal authorities to take custody of those individuals after local criminal processing, focusing enforcement where it matters most without turning every neighborhood traffic stop into an immigration dragnet.

It remains to be seen exactly how Minnesota will collaborate with the federal government moving forward, though the Minnesota Star Tribune reported, “Homan said the removal of the 700 agents was a direct result of Minnesota counties giving federal officers better access to county jails.”

This bears some resemblance to the kind of targeted, accountable cooperation that’s needed— a model that respects community trust while addressing genuine public-safety risks.

Gabriel Nadales is the national director at the Our America Foundation and a graduate of Citrus College.