Some sanctuary policies went way too far," warned former Obama ICE Director John Sandweg, as he cautioned progressive leaders against undermining public safety in their defiance of Trump’s immigration crackdown.
John Sandweg, who served as Acting ICE Director under President Obama, delivered a stark message to progressive politicians seeking to block the incoming Trump administration’s immigration crackdown: some sanctuary policies may do more harm than good.
Speaking Monday on *NewsNation’s "Dan Abrams Live,"* Sandweg acknowledged the legal and practical limitations cities face in resisting federal immigration enforcement. “A city like Denver probably can’t do as much as the mayor thinks,” Sandweg said, referencing bold declarations from local leaders.
Citing the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, Sandweg explained that mayors have no authority to prevent federal agents from enforcing immigration laws, including conducting area sweeps. However, he pointed to critical vulnerabilities in ICE’s operations that local jurisdictions can exploit, particularly access to jails.
“Ninety to ninety-five percent of ICE’s interior arrests come from prisons and jails,” Sandweg noted. “If localities restrict ICE’s access to inmates or withhold information from the criminal justice system, they can severely hinder ICE’s ability to carry out mass deportations.”
While Sandweg expressed understanding for certain limitations—such as preventing ICE from targeting individuals arrested for minor offenses to avoid creating a "chilling effect" on crime reporting—he warned that some sanctuary policies go too far.
“There were cases where convicted murderers, who were foreign nationals, weren’t handed over to ICE,” Sandweg said. “That undermines public safety.”
Sandweg’s comments highlight the fraught balance between local resistance to federal policies and the potential consequences for public safety. As the Trump administration prepares to implement its enforcement agenda, his words serve as both a cautionary tale and a call for nuanced policymaking.
The stage is set for a contentious battle over immigration enforcement, with legal, ethical, and public safety implications looming large.
.png)