Fact: ICE Targets Immigrants Regardless of Local Policies
The argument that passing pro-immigrant legislation (like sanctuary policies) makes immigrants more of a target for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is a common but flawed claim as actual data proves otherwise.
ICE conducts enforcement based on its own priorities, not just because a city or county has protective policies. In fact, ICE often increases operations in anti-immigrant areas where local law enforcement collaborates with them (e.g., via 287(g) agreements). Sanctuary policies do not attract more ICE activities— on the contrary, by limiting local resources from being used to assist ICE, they make large-scale ICE raids harder, not easier.
- Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC, 2019): Showed that ICE arrests were 2x higher in areas where local law enforcement cooperated with ICE (e.g., through 287(g) agreements).
- ICE’s Own Data (2018): Revealed that non-sanctuary jurisdictions accounted for 78% of ICE arrests where local law enforcement assisted.
It is not local policies but unfettered and potential local cooperation by city / county agencies due to lack of strong legislation that bolster ICE’s effectiveness.
Fact: Sanctuary Policies Reduce ICE’s Effectiveness, Not Increase It
When cities refuse to honor ICE detainers (requests to hold immigrants) or limit police collaboration and with legislation backing these policies up, ICE has to expend more resources to conduct raids. This makes indiscriminate enforcement harder, forcing ICE to focus on targeted operations rather than sweeping arrests. Studies (e.g., from the Center for American Progress) show that sanctuary policies reduce deportation rates in those areas.
- ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Reports (2016-2020): These reports showed that raids in sanctuary cities were more costly and less efficient, forcing ICE to focus on easier targets in cooperating jurisdictions.
Fact: ICE Retaliates Against Resistance, But That Doesn’t Mean Policies Are the Cause
There may be cases where ICE has increased raids in sanctuary cities (e.g., under Trump), but this is political retaliation, not a natural consequence of the policies. The argument blames cities for ICE’s aggression rather than holding ICE accountable for its enforcement tactics. The solution isn’t rolling back protections or not passing stronger legislation — it’s fighting back against federal overreach. Another related point is that retaliation / attacks on immigrant communities which are already under way in any case will be less effective in case of communities that feel stronger with legal protection by their city / county. In other words, empowered communities are safer communities.
City of Aurora Example Case
The city of Aurora’s immigrant communities were already targeted by right wing news outlets. Some were concerned that turning Aurora into a sanctuary city would only draw more attention and crackdowns by ICE. Aurora declared it was not a sanctuary city in May of 2017. In March of 2024 they passed a resolution explicitly declaring themselves a non-sanctuary city that wouldn’t allocate public funds for services, staff, or resources for migrant support.
These declarations did nothing to stop ICE and the Trump administration from targeting the city of Aurora. The immigrant community of Aurora still remains a focus of right wing media attacks. Trump even went as far as naming his mass deportation plan Operation Aurora.
ICE is still sending massive deportation raids of over 400 officers to the city. Without legislative help the only thing protecting the immigrant community is sustained grassroots organizing.
Fact: Pro-Immigrant Policies Strengthen Community Trust, Making Targeted Enforcement Harder
When immigrants feel safe reporting actual crimes or accessing city or county services (because local police aren’t acting as ICE agents), they are less isolated and vulnerable. This makes it harder for ICE to easily track and arrest them. In contrast, in places where police cooperate with ICE as there is no legislation that prevents police from doing so, immigrants avoid authorities altogether, making them easier targets for deportation.
- University of Illinois Study (2019): Found that Latinx residents in sanctuary counties were 35% more likely to report crimes to police, reducing ICE’s ability to exploit arrests for deportations. (📄 Source )
Fact: Data Shows Sanctuary Cities Have Lower Deportation Rates
Multiple studies have found that cities, counties with sanctuary policies have lower rates of deportation compared to non-sanctuary areas. If sanctuary policies truly made immigrants bigger targets, we’d see the opposite trend.
- Cato Institute (2020): Found that ICE deportations were 24% lower in sanctuary counties compared to non-sanctuary counties. (📄 Source)
- PNAS Study (2020): Sanctuary policies reduce deportations without increasing crime (📄 Source)
Myth: If cities or counties pass sanctuary legislation, they can lose their federal funding
Here are some reasons this claim is not accurate:
- The Constitution limits what the federal government can do:
The U.S. Constitution does not allow the federal government to force local governments to carry out federal duties—like immigration enforcement. This principle was affirmed in the 10th Amendment (anti-commandeering doctrine). - Multiple Courts Have Ruled Against Cutting Funds:
Federal courts have repeatedly struck down attempts to withhold funding from sanctuary jurisdictions. Key rulings include:
– City of Chicago v. Sessions (2018) – The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the U.S. Attorney General could not impose new conditions on federal grants to cities, such as requiring cooperation with immigration enforcement, without congressional authorization. The court emphasized that only Congress has the authority to impose such conditions. ( 📄 Source)
– San Francisco v. Trump (2017) – A federal judge blocked Trump’s executive order threatening sanctuary cities, calling it unconstitutional.
Courts have made it clear—federal grants cannot be withheld arbitrarily, especially when they’re not related to immigration enforcement. ( 📄Source)
– City of New York v. U.S. Department of Justice (2018): A federal judge ruled that the Department of Justice could not withhold law enforcement grants from New York City and other jurisdictions that refused to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. The court held that the federal government lacked the authority to impose such conditions. - Most Federal Funding Can’t Be Touched:
Much of the funding cities receive from the federal government is congressionally authorized (e.g., transportation, housing, education). The executive branch does not have the power to unilaterally take this away—even if a city adopts sanctuary policies.
Only in very narrow cases, with clear legislative conditions, could some funding potentially be affected—and even then, legal challenges usually succeed in blocking it. - Threatening funding is more political posturing for the right-wing voter base than policy:
This argument is often a political scare tactic, not a practical or legal reality. During Trump’s first rule and hostility to sanctuary cities, almost no jurisdiction actually lost significant funding as a result of its policies.
Key Takeaways
✅ Sanctuary policies reduce deportations by limiting ICE’s ability to exploit local police. This is actually testified by right-wing think tanks like the Cato Institute, actually complaining about the sanctuary legislations.
✅ Non-sanctuary areas see higher ICE arrests because police act as force multipliers for ICE.
✅ ICE raids increase in anti-immigrant areas, proving that cooperation (not resistance) makes immigrants bigger targets. The real targets are places where police work with ICE, making arrests easier. Sanctuary policies force ICE to do their own work, which limits their reach.
✅ Blaming sanctuary cities for ICE raids is like blaming a better locked door for a burglar trying harder to break in—the problem is the burglar, not the lock. It is absurd to argue against a bigger lock as opposed to fighting the burglar.