DHS’ name-and-shame sanctuary list fizzles out

The Department of Homeland Security’s name-and-shame list for sanctuary jurisdictions appears to have landed on the scrap heap.

In May, the department released its nearly 600-name list — then pulled it down just days later with indications it would return. Four months later, that reboot has been benched.

Instead, the department now links to the Justice Department, which released its own slimmed-down sanctuary list of fewer than three dozen jurisdictions in August. One person involved with that effort said it has supplanted Homeland Security as the Trump administration’s lead on sanctuary cities.

“DOJ’s is the list,” the person said. “I’m pretty proud of where we got. I think most of the jurisdictions are OK with their status on it.”

The two departments took decidedly different approaches.

Homeland Security was opaque in its criteria, presenting the names without saying how they earned their way onto the list. All the usual suspects were on there, but so were jurisdictions that vehemently protested.

The National Sheriffs Association was particularly pointed.

“This list was created without any input, criteria of compliance, or a mechanism for how to object to the designation. Sheriffs nationwide have no way to know what they must do or not do to avoid this arbitrary label,” said NSA President Kieran Donahue, sheriff of Canyon County in Idaho.

He said the list “could create a vacuum of trust that may take years to overcome.”

The list came down the next day.

The Justice Department list, released two months later, was explicit in listing nine criteria used to judge sanctuaries. That included public pronouncements, policies limiting cooperation on deportation “detainer” requests, blocks on access to prisons and jails, and offering benefits to illegal immigrants.

The initial list was also much smaller, with just a dozen states, four counties and 19 cities.

“Transparency’s the critical function here,” said the person involved with crafting the list. “You’ve got to tell agencies or the governing entity that they’re on the list for x, y and z reasons.”

He said some jurisdictions want to be on the list. In some circles, defying Homeland Security on immigration enforcement earns bragging rights. Others don’t have clear rules on cooperation.

“It allows the government, in a very transparent way, to have a clear argument or disagreement on what it, the federal government, can do and what the states and local governments can do.”

The Justice Department list has already had one success.

Nevada worked its way off the list late last month after Gov. Joe Lombardo signed a deal with the department promising cooperation on immigration efforts “to the extent allowed by law.”

Homeland Security gave a nod to the Justice Department’s effort in a statement to The Washington Times even as it denounced sanctuaries.

“These policies undermine law enforcement efforts and jeopardize the safety of American citizens. DHS continues and work closely with the Department of Justice to eradicate these harmful policies around the country,” Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said.

This is the second time Homeland Security has stumbled.

In 2017, its deportation agency, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, attempted to create a sanctuary list. It lasted several weeks before it was taken down amid complaints from local jurisdictions that got listed but insisted they cooperated.

This time around, the list lasted just a matter of days.

Homeland Security released it on May 29, and it was pulled by June 1.

Two months later, on Aug. 5, the Justice Department posted its list, and within several days, Homeland Security linked to it.

Jessica Vaughan, who maintains an independent sanctuary list at the Center for Immigration Studies, said Homeland Security ran into a tricky political situation with many of the local departments — particularly sheriffs who want to cooperate but find their hands tied by local laws.

“These local agencies are inclined to cooperate with ICE as much as they can, and don’t want to be considered a sanctuary, so they push back on the designation, even though the reality is that ICE is being hindered. For its part, ICE is sometimes uncomfortable going negative on fellow law enforcement agencies that are doing as much as they can,” she said. “I would like to see more local law enforcement agencies push back on their local leaders instead of on the federal government, and make the case for changing the sanctuary policy.”

She said other federal agencies are also involved in the Trump effort to target sanctuaries, including the Small Business Administration and the Transportation Department. They may use their own criteria to come up with targets, she said.

“The Trump administration has taken the most comprehensive and toughest approach ever attempted to addressing the problem of sanctuaries, whether by ramping up street-level enforcement or penalizing through denial of eligibility for certain funding, and eventually this is going to cause many of the sanctuaries to rethink their policies, which is to everyone’s benefit in the long run,” Ms. Vaughan said.