Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has accused the mayors of four U.S. cities of obstructing federal immigration enforcement by shielding criminal aliens. The mayors of Boston, Denver, New York City, and Chicago testified during a March 5 hearing. The mayors’ testimony highlighted the ongoing tension between local governments and federal immigration agencies over the handling of undocumented immigrants, particularly illegal aliens accused of committing crimes.

The hearing centered around the question of whether sanctuary city policies, which limit local law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration authorities, undermine efforts to combat crime. Despite these concerns, the mayors of the four sanctuary cities adamantly argued their policies were designed to protect the rights of all residents, including immigrants, while still maintaining public safety.

Prior to their testimony, Comer sent letters to Mayor Michelle Wu, Mayor Mike Johnston, Mayor Eric Adams, and Mayor Brandon Johnson, requesting communications related to the sanctuary city status of their respective cities. Three of the four mayors refused to state outright that their cities were “sanctuary cities” when questioned by Chairman Comer, with all but Mayor Adams using euphemistic terms like “safe” and “welcoming” as substitute words for their sanctuary city policies. Chicago has actually put in place an ordinance called the “Welcoming City Ordinance” to protect immigrant communities.

Comer and other Republicans provided numerous examples of sanctuary policies that either allowed criminal aliens to evade ICE detainers or be released by courts that “declined to press charges,” despite the individuals having committed heinous crimes.

While addressing Mayor Wu, arguably one of the more liberal mayors, Comer described an incident that occurred in a Boston suburb last year,

“Last year, in a Boston suburb, an illegal alien raped and impregnated his 14-year-old daughter while living in a shelter for illegal aliens. In Chicago, an illegal alien, who is a suspected member of a violent foreign gang, was brought into custody for his potential involvement in a murder. He was released when Cook County declined to press charges. This illegal alien is also facing charges for kidnapping and sexually assaulting his former girlfriend last year. Now, he is on the streets.”

Later in the hearing Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) described the way Denver’s sanctuary policy allowed a criminal alien to evade an ICE detainer. Immigration detainers hold aliens for up to 48 hours beyond the time they would ordinarily release them to the streets so that DHS has time to take custody in accordance with federal immigration law. Jordan posed his question to Mayor Johnston, who admitted they released the alien to the streets. The criminal alien ended up assaulting an officer during the arrest which took place in a parking lot.

“Abraham Gonzalez is a Venezuelan gang member arrested by Border Patrol on September 20, 2023. Released into the country by the Biden Administration. A few months later, he’s arrested in Denver, charged with aggravated assault. On March 11, 2024, he’s charged with motor vehicle theft, stole a car. And then on March 20, 2024, Mr. Gonzalez is charged with felony menacing.” Jordan continued, “Six days after that last charge, ICE sent you a detainer which includes an administrative warrant. Basically, it says if you’re going to release this bad guy, this gang member who allegedly stole a car, menaced people, and assaulted people, give us a 48 hour heads up. Is that right? Does that refresh your memory?… You had him in your custody for how long?”

“345 days you had him in custody.” Jordan later added, “And ICE said, hey, can you give us 48 hours heads up? You gave them one hour notice…  An officer got assaulted because of your policy, which says we’re going to release him to, in your words, not mine, to the streets. They have to arrest him in a parking lot. They bring six officers, where they could’ve had one or two just come in your facility in the jail and just take the guy there. But you won’t do it that way.”

Despite evidence to the contrary, the Democrat mayors adamantly defended their policies as being tough on crime. Each mayor affirmed that their jurisdictions comply with the law and that they would release individuals to law enforcement if a valid arrest warrant were issued, irrespective of their immigration status.

David Bier, the minority witness representing the CATO Institute, accused Czar Tom Homan and President Trump of disregarding “due process laws for people accused of being in this country illegally.” Bier further argued that the actions taken by federal immigration authorities have sidelined established constitutional protections. He claimed that sanctuary cities, in contrast, uphold the Constitution by limiting law enforcement's role in immigration enforcement, particularly when it comes to civil violations of immigration law.

Bier also contended that sanctuary cities are not obligated to help the government with mass deportations, despite Homan having made it abundantly clear he is pursuing the “worst criminal illegal aliens” in his immigration arrests. Bier added that sanctuary cities have “good reasons not to indiscriminately aid the federal government in removing individuals” because immigrants are good for communities. He argued that “illegal aliens provide goods and services that improve the lives of Americans,” are “providers for US citizen family members,” and that they “reduce crime rates by committing fewer crimes.”

The discrepancies in compliance stem from the difference between administrative and judicial warrants. Andrew Arthur of the Center for Immigration Studies writes that “[p]roponents of sanctuary policies” often distinguish between “administrative warrants” -- those issued by ICE under sections 236(a) and 287(a) of the INA -- and “judicial warrants” to justify the way sanctuary cities handle cases involving criminal aliens. Sanctuary city mayors view ICE detainers as “a request,” with no legal obligation to comply.

Instead, sanctuary city mayors require judicial warrants, which are based on probable cause of criminal activity and signed by an Article III federal judge or magistrate. However, Arthur points out that there is “no mechanism under current law that would allow ICE officers and agents to obtain a judicial warrant for an alien wanted on civil immigration violations.” Sanctuary city proponents often overlook this fact. Additionally, officials in sanctuary cities contend that “ICE’s and CBP’s power to enforce immigration law is limited by our Fourth Amendment constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.”

ICE is therefore often left powerless to take custody of alien criminals in controlled environments (like jails or prisons), environments that keep officers and the public safe. Drawing from three-plus decades of experience,  Arthur clarifies the frequent harsh reality of street or home arrests. “[m]any criminals don’t simply surrender when the law shows up at their doors or approaches them on the street.” Arthur explains, “They attempt to resist (violently) or flee, which poses the risk of harm to both officers and passers-by.”

Toward the end of the hearing, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) referred the sanctuary city mayors to the Department of Justice for criminal investigations based on Wednesday’s testimony, emphasizing that she didn’t “think they are bad people,” but are rather, “ideologically misled.” Luna added that sanctuary city policies “are hurting people on both sides, meaning the people who are coming here illegally and then American citizens as well.”

Image: Daniel Lobo