Trump threatens to cut funding for sanctuary cities. Here’s what you need to know: NPR

With tensions already high in Minnesota after an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent killed Renee Macklin Good, the Trump administration is stepping up pressure on cities and states to cooperate with its immigration crackdown.

The administration had already sent federal agents – sometimes accompanied by military troops – to Los Angeles, Portland, Chicago, Charlotte, Memphis, Washington DC and New Orleans.

Now the White House is threatening to cut funding for sanctuary cities. Here is a brief explanation of how local governments interact with federal law enforcement on immigration matters, and what the White House can and cannot require of them.

A fight for federal money

President Trump this week threatened to “significantly” cut federal funding for sanctuary cities. He has not specified exactly which budgets his administration wants to cut, although he has set the deadline for February 1.

Trump also has not specified which cities or states will be targeted, although the Justice Department has. publish a list from more than 30 cities, states and counties in August. (This list includes the state of Minnesota, but not Minneapolis, St. Paul or their respective counties).

In Remarks At the Detroit Economic Club on Tuesday, Trump appeared to focus on areas that limit their cooperation with ICE.

“They’re doing everything they can to protect criminals at the expense of American citizens. And that breeds fraud, crime and all the other problems that come with that,” Trump said. “So we are not making any payments to anyone who supports sanctuary cities.”

This is not the first time President Trump has made such a threat. During his first term, the president attempted to strip some federal funding from sanctuary cities. More recently, nearly a year ago, Trump signed an executive order ordering the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to compile a list of sanctuary cities and withhold money from them.

But courts have ruled against the administration in almost every case, saying the federal government cannot use the funds to force state and local governments to change their immigration policies.

“Here we are again,” said U.S. District Judge William Orrick in San Francisco. written in April. Orrick granted (and then extended) a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration from withholding federal funds in 16 jurisdictions, including San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis, St. Paul and New Haven.

“The threat of withholding their funding causes them irreparable harm in the form of budgetary uncertainty, a deprivation of constitutional rights, and an attack on trust between cities and counties and the communities they serve,” Orrick said.

No precise legal definition of “sanctuary”

There is no exact legal definition of a “sanctuary city.” But generally speaking, the term refers to any city, state or county that limits its cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

The legal issues here are nuanced. Local law enforcement cannot stop federal agents from doing their jobs, but courts have said state and city officials can refuse some cooperation.

The legal arguments are rooted in the U.S. Constitution and the division of powers between the federal government, which is responsible for enforcing immigration, and state and local governments, which operate their own police and sheriff’s departments.

Courts have supported states that do not want to share resident data in their records, including driver’s license information. And in many places, state and local law enforcement won’t honor what’s called an ICE “detainer request,” which essentially asks police to keep a person in custody until immigration authorities can arrest them.

Local authorities react

Virtually every city and state the administration has focused on so far is led by Democrats, who don’t appear to be backing down after Trump’s threat to cut federal funds.

“This is simply a threat to intimidate states like New York into submission. And that’s something we will never do,” New York Governor Kathy Hochul said earlier this week. “If you get any more money from the state of New York, we’ll see you in court again.”

State and city leaders say their sanctuary policies are based on a fundamental rationale of public safety. They say working with ICE would harm trust and cooperation between local law enforcement and immigrant communities in their efforts to prevent crime.

There is clearly a political aspect to this as well. In many sanctuary cities, voters are asking Democratic leaders not to cave in to the White House and its immigration agenda, so local leaders could have strong incentives to stand their ground.

Why local cooperation is important

In the past, ICE has found that it is quicker and safer to arrest people already detained in local jails. And that’s one of the reasons why ICE was able to make so many arrests during President Obama’s administration, for example, before sanctuary policies were as prevalent as they are today.

The White House says lack of local cooperation is hampering its efforts to carry out “the largest deportation operation in our nation’s history,” a pledge Trump has frequently during his re-election campaign.

“Minnesota’s ‘leaders’ have chosen challenge over partnership,” the White House said in a statement Friday.

But Democrats say the administration is deliberately creating clashes in cities and states run by political opponents, intentionally provoking chaotic scenes for reasons that go beyond simply enforcing immigration law.