Listen to the article
Immigration enforcement operations across the United States are targeting cities with significant immigrant populations and sanctuary policies, according to former acting ICE Director John Sandweg, who served under President Barack Obama from 2013 to 2014.
In an interview with Fox News Digital, Sandweg explained that the selection of cities for enhanced immigration enforcement is primarily driven by two factors: the size of the immigrant population and the existence of sanctuary policies that may increase the number of “at-large targets” – individuals ICE wants to apprehend who aren’t currently in custody.
“The biggest driver would be immigrant population, how significant a population is there in that particular community,” Sandweg said. “And then the second thing is, is there something like a sanctuary policy that would increase the number of at-large targets.”
The Trump administration has recently deployed additional ICE agents to cities including Minneapolis, Los Angeles, Portland, and Chicago – all major urban centers with substantial immigrant communities and sanctuary policies. According to Sandweg, these operations are “just beginning.”
The former ICE director pushed back against accusations from some Democrats that the agency is politically targeting Democratic-led cities. Instead, he emphasized that operational efficiency drives these decisions.
“You want to go where the criminals are… and so, you’re going to be looking at data about where is it that we can find the biggest bang for our buck,” he explained. “Traditionally, that’s going to be in larger urban cities, just because they’re higher density population, and you’re more likely to find your criminal populations there.”
Sanctuary jurisdictions, which limit local cooperation with federal immigration authorities, present particular challenges for ICE operations. Sandweg noted that “sanctuary policies are not all equal.” While some jurisdictions will cooperate with ICE to detain individuals with serious criminal charges such as violent crimes, others maintain stricter non-cooperation policies.
A key point of contention is how sanctuary jurisdictions respond to ICE “detainers” – requests to hold undocumented immigrants until federal agents can take custody. When local authorities refuse these requests, ICE must allocate more resources to locate and apprehend these individuals after their release.
“There are jurisdictions… that have very restrictive sanctuary policies, where you’re sitting there scratching your head saying, these are bad guys, why won’t they give us custody of this person in jail?” Sandweg said. “In those jurisdictions, you’re going to find more targets because those people, ICE normally would take custody of them in jail or prison.”
Despite the public focus on high-profile confrontations between protesters and immigration agents in cities like Minneapolis, Sandweg emphasized that much of ICE’s work happens behind the scenes. “ICE is really good at getting people in prisons and jails. There isn’t a person booked into a prison or jail in the United States today that ICE doesn’t get visibility on,” he said.
The increased enforcement actions have sparked protests in several cities, with some local officials and community members expressing concern about the impact on immigrant communities and potential civil rights violations. In several instances, demonstrators have confronted federal agents during operations, highlighting the contentious nature of immigration enforcement under the current administration.
Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security has reported a significant surge in traffic to its website, with thousands reportedly using what critics have dubbed the administration’s “self-deportation app” for voluntary departure from the United States.
As these operations continue to expand across the country, the tension between federal immigration enforcement priorities and local sanctuary policies appears likely to intensify in the coming months, creating increasingly complex challenges for communities, law enforcement, and immigrant populations nationwide.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
10 Comments
As someone who believes in compassionate immigration reform, I find the former ICE director’s comments troubling. Targeting cities with significant immigrant populations and sanctuary policies smacks of political grandstanding rather than measured, humane enforcement. I hope the new administration will take a more balanced approach.
I agree completely. A more nuanced, community-oriented approach to immigration enforcement is sorely needed. Hopefully the new administration will chart a different course that respects the rights and dignity of all people.
While I understand the need for effective immigration enforcement, the former ICE director’s comments raise red flags about potential civil liberties issues. The focus on immigrant populations and sanctuary policies could lead to discriminatory practices. Careful scrutiny of ICE’s activities is warranted.
The focus on immigrant populations and sanctuary policies as the key drivers for ICE’s targeted enforcement is concerning. This seems to reinforce the perception that the agency is more interested in making political statements than promoting public safety. I hope there is more nuance to their approach that isn’t being conveyed here.
I share your concerns about the potential for ICE’s tactics to be politically motivated rather than driven by legitimate public safety needs. More oversight and accountability around their decision-making would be welcome.
As someone concerned about civil liberties, I’m curious to learn more about the specific criteria ICE uses to identify “at-large targets.” What constitutes a “sanctuary policy,” and how does that factor into their enforcement strategy?
Those are good questions to raise. The definitions and implementation of sanctuary policies seem to vary across jurisdictions, so more clarity around ICE’s targeting would be helpful for understanding their approach.
I appreciate the former ICE director’s willingness to explain the agency’s process, even if I don’t agree with all their methods. Transparency is important, especially on such a politically charged issue. It will be interesting to see how these tactics evolve under the new administration.
Interesting insight into how ICE selects target cities. It makes sense that they would focus on areas with significant immigrant populations and sanctuary policies. Though I have mixed feelings about the agency’s tactics, it’s helpful to understand their process.
I agree, transparency around their decision-making is important, even if one disagrees with their overall approach. It’s a complex and contentious issue.