Sanctuary cities were always a bad idea. The notion that city or state leadership can declare a jurisdiction exempt from federal law is antithetical to core American principles.
The American experiment was founded upon a system of laws that all must follow — laws intended to restrain power, protect liberty, and ensure that no individual stands above the rules that govern the nation. From its earliest days, the republic has depended upon a shared commitment to constitutional order, equal justice, and accountability under the law. This principle has been the bedrock of American stability and the measure by which the nation judges its own legitimacy.
The system begins to fracture when citizens, particularly elected officials, convince themselves that disagreement confers exemption, that laws may be obeyed selectively and ignored at will. This is precisely the logic embraced by blue-state governors and mayors who proclaim certain state and local jurisdictions as sanctuary territories.
HOW LOCAL BUSINESSES ARE HELPING ANTI-ICE ACTIVISTS OBSTRUCT IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT
Madison, Wisconsin, and San Francisco, California, were among the first cities to embrace sanctuary policies. In 1985, Madison’s city leaders passed “a resolution declaring itself a sanctuary for Central Americans.” Four years later, San Francisco enacted Ordinance No. 12-H, which restricted the use of city resources for federal immigration enforcement. Although other blue cities followed suit in subsequent years, these developments attracted little attention from most Americans.
The July 2015 murder of Kate Steinle in San Francisco by an illegal immigrant thrust sanctuary cities into the national spotlight. Steinle’s tragic death became a central theme of Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.
While the concept of sanctuary cities raised concerns then, the issue has now reached a critical mass. The Biden administration’s open-border policies allowed at least 10 million illegal immigrants to enter the United States, transforming local acts of defiance against federal law into a nationwide crisis. What was once dismissed as a theoretical concern has become an undeniable reality, straining public resources, undermining public safety, and eroding the rule of law on a massive scale.
Proponents of sanctuary policies often invoke the Supreme Court’s anti-commandeering doctrine to argue that states and cities have no obligation to assist in federal immigration enforcement. While it is true that the federal government may not compel state or local officials to administer or enforce federal law (Printz v. United States, 1997), that principle has clear limits.
NOEM HAS CALLED VICTIMS OF ICE SHOOTINGS DOMESTIC TERRORISTS. DO THEY FIT THE DEFINITION?
The Constitution does not permit states or municipalities to obstruct federal enforcement, declare themselves exempt from federal law, or adopt policies designed to frustrate federal objectives. Yet that is precisely what is occurring in Minneapolis and other blue cities. The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line between lawful noncooperation and unlawful interference — one that many sanctuary jurisdictions increasingly cross.
There’s no question that Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz’s and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey’s insistence on flouting federal immigration law is directly responsible for the current mayhem gripping the state. Cloaking their actions in professed concern for the welfare and supposed “rights” of their “neighbors,” they have effectively declared Minnesota off-limits to ICE and Border Patrol agents.
Their open support for and encouragement of the highly organized anti-ICE groups that have converged on the state to target and even sabotage federal agents have turned Minneapolis into a powder keg over the past month.
They are attempting to exempt themselves and their constituents from federal law, which is the very definition of a confederacy. And just as the original Democrat-led Confederacy resisted federal authority in order to preserve slavery, today’s Democrats are not only resisting federal authority to shield illegal aliens from enforcement, but they are impeding the government’s efforts to enforce immigration laws.
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION MESSAGING ON ICE AT ODDS WITH PUBLIC SUPPORT
In a Sunday evening Truth Social post, Trump wrote that he was “calling on the United States Congress to immediately pass Legislation to END Sanctuary Cities” and asking for Walz, Frey and all Democratic mayors and governors “to formally cooperate with the Trump Administration to enforce our Nation’s Laws, rather than resist and stoke the flames of Division, Chaos, and Violence.”
Senate Republicans are currently working on a bill to do just that. Earlier this week, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) joined Fox News’ Sean Hannity to discuss the proposed legislation.
While I applaud their efforts, for the reasons outlined above, enacting such legislation is far more complex than it initially appears. Any measure will have to be drafted with precision to avoid constitutional scrutiny. And rather than abolishing sanctuary cities, a final bill may ultimately focus on curbing the ability of state and local officials to condone and even encourage agitators who interfere with federal agents during the execution of their duties.
Regardless of the numerous provocations that preceded them, the recent shooting deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti have, for the moment, shifted public opinion against Republicans and handed Democrats a powerful propaganda weapon.
BIG SURPRISES IN THE 2030 CENSUS ESTIMATES
That reality cannot be ignored, but it can’t be allowed to dictate policy either. The GOP must cut through the Left’s manufactured outrage and reassert the central truth: restoring the rule of law is neither optional nor negotiable.
Deporting the millions of illegal immigrants ushered into the country under the Biden administration was never going to be easy, nor was it ever going to be bloodless in political terms. But for the good of the nation — and the survival of constitutional order — the Trump administration must press forward without apology or retreat.
