Listen to the article
The Minnesota Department of Corrections has issued a strong rebuttal against claims made by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), calling allegations that the state fails to honor ICE detention requests “categorically false.”
The dispute emerged after the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) repeatedly called on Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis officials to honor ICE arrest detainers. On Thursday, ICE responded to Governor Walz’s request to “turn down the temperature” by demanding that he and the state comply with immigration detainers.
ICE detainers are requests for local authorities to hold non-citizens who would otherwise be released from local custody until federal immigration agents can take them into custody. These detainers typically apply to non-citizens who have been arrested, charged, or convicted of local or state crimes and who are subject to deportation either due to their immigration status or criminal offenses.
The Minnesota Department of Corrections firmly asserted that it honors all federal detainers, including those from ICE. This contradicts DHS claims that the state is failing to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.
In its statement, the corrections department specifically challenged DHS assertions that “1,360 aliens, including violent criminals, are in the state’s custody” and that Minnesota “has released nearly 470 criminal illegal aliens back onto the streets of Minnesota since President Trump took office.” State officials described these claims as “unsupported by facts, and deeply irresponsible.”
According to the Minnesota Department of Corrections, there are currently 207 individuals in state custody who might be subject to ICE detainers, significantly fewer than the 1,360 claimed by DHS. The department emphasized that it does not have jurisdiction over county jails, where many of the individuals referenced by DHS might be held.
“Many individuals cited by DHS were never in DOC custody and were instead held in county jails, under ICE-only custody, or in other states’ correctional systems,” the agency stated. “DHS continues to conflate local jail custody, ICE custody, and state prison custody, misleading the public about the role and authority of the Minnesota Department of Corrections.”
The dispute highlights the complex relationship between federal immigration enforcement and state and local jurisdictions. While the state corrections department maintains it follows federal detainer requests, many “sanctuary jurisdictions” across the country limit cooperation with ICE. Cities like New York, states like California, and Minnesota’s own Hennepin County have policies restricting compliance with ICE detainers.
ICE officials have long argued that lack of cooperation from sanctuary jurisdictions forces the agency to conduct more community operations to locate individuals released from local custody. These operations often require more resources and can create tension in immigrant communities.
Sanctuary jurisdictions defend their policies by pointing to concerns about legal liability and community trust. Many local officials argue they lack legal authority to hold individuals solely on immigration detainers once they’re eligible for release on local charges. They also contend that close cooperation with ICE can erode trust between immigrant communities and local law enforcement, potentially making immigrants less likely to report crimes or cooperate with police investigations.
This stance was reinforced last year when Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison issued a formal opinion stating, “Minnesota law prohibits law enforcement from holding someone on an immigration detainer if the person would otherwise be released from custody.”
The ongoing disagreement between federal immigration authorities and Minnesota officials reflects broader national tensions over immigration enforcement policies. As both sides present conflicting data and interpretations of legal obligations, the dispute underscores the complicated interplay between federal immigration priorities and state and local governance in an increasingly polarized political environment.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
5 Comments
This dispute highlights the ongoing tensions and complexities around immigration enforcement and the balance of authority between states and the federal government. It’s an issue that warrants close scrutiny and evidence-based analysis.
The Minnesota Department of Corrections’ strong rebuttal against the DHS claims is noteworthy. It raises questions about the accuracy and transparency of the federal government’s allegations.
You’re right, the state’s firm assertion that it honors all federal detainers does seem to contradict the DHS claims. More clarity on the data and documentation behind each side’s position would be useful.
This seems like a complex issue with disagreement between state and federal authorities. I’m curious to learn more about the legal and policy nuances around detainers and how they are handled in practice.
Indeed, the differing claims from state and federal officials suggest there may be ambiguity or dispute over the protocols here. It would be helpful to see a more detailed analysis of the relevant laws and procedures.