House Committee Hearing Focuses on “Sanctuary City” Policies, Tensions Rise

A hearing before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on Wednesday saw Republican members of Congress sharply criticizing four Democratic mayors over their cities’ “sanctuary city” policies, The Associated Press reports.

Republicans accused the mayors of endangering American citizens and raised the possibility of prosecuting local officials. In response, the mayors defended their communities, emphasizing their welcoming nature and urging Congress to enact comprehensive immigration reform.

The hearing featured heated exchanges, with Republicans asserting that the mayors’ policies undermined federal immigration enforcement efforts. Representative James Comer, in his opening statement, stated that these policies “only create sanctuary for criminals,” and Republicans repeatedly cited instances of violent crimes committed by immigrants who had entered the U.S. illegally.

Mayors Michelle Wu of Boston, Brandon Johnson of Chicago, Mike Johnston of Denver, and Eric Adams of New York defended their policies as legally sound, although they carefully avoided explicitly using the term “sanctuary.” While a precise legal definition of “sanctuary city” policies is absent, they generally involve limitations on local law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration officials. Courts have consistently affirmed the legality of such laws.

Representative Comer commended Mayor Adams for his collaboration with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). It was also reported that the Trump administration had previously ordered prosecutors to drop a case against Adams, citing concerns that it was hindering his work on immigration enforcement and his reelection efforts.

Republican representatives, including Representative Anna Paulina Luna of Florida, raised the potential for prosecuting officials in sanctuary cities for alleged violations of federal law, with Luna stating she would refer the mayors to the Justice Department for investigation.

A recurring point of questioning revolved around the mayors’ willingness to cooperate with ICE. The mayors consistently responded that they would cooperate in cases involving a criminal warrant. This distinction is significant, as the legality of sanctuary laws often hinges on the difference between criminal warrants (signed by judges) and administrative warrants (issued by ICE). Sanctuary policies typically require local law enforcement to honor criminal warrants, while administrative warrants, often used for immigration law violations, are not always recognized by local jurisdictions and do not grant agents the authority to enter homes without permission.