President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to identify local jurisdictions that withhold cooperation with federal immigration enforcement could put millions of dollars in federal aid for critical services at risk, Minnesota city and county leaders say.
States and cities on the list will face “consequences” to federal funding, according to the order, which city and county leaders say they feel is an attempt to pressure them into cooperating with Trump’s crackdown on immigration. Minneapolis could lose millions in funding that supports opioid response, rapid rehousing and lead abatement in homes with children. In St. Paul, $260 million could be at-risk for affordable housing and emergency response services.
“In our city, immigrants are not illegal aliens, they are our neighbors,” Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey said in a written statement.
Trump signed the order Monday requesting a list of cities and states that he called “sanctuary jurisdictions” because of their policies to limit cooperation with federal agencies’ targeting undocumented immigrants.
Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi were given 30 days to publish the list and provide it to Trump’s administration. The term “sanctuary” jurisdiction has no single definition. It has commonly been used for cities, counties and states that have similar policies to deter helping immigration enforcement. Some states like New York, Illinois and California have those policies.
Some Minnesota counties, such as Nobles County and Anoka County, are identified as a “sanctuary” in a map by the Center of Immigration Studies, a nonprofit research organization. However, some Minnesota county leaders say they’re listed on the map not because of any “sanctuary” policy, but because they do not hold detainees for federal immigration enforcement. State court rulings in the past have prevented county officials from complying with federal agencies’ requests to hold detainees. So leaders in some counties say they will have to wait to see if they end up on the list.
Trump tried to block federal funding to sanctuary cities in his first term as president and once again after taking office in January for his second term. Sixteen cities across the country, including St. Paul and Minneapolis, joined a federal lawsuit to halt an order issued on Trump’s first day in office this year that would have ceased federal funding to sanctuary cities that declined to work with federal immigration enforcement. Last week, the federal judge presiding over the lawsuit temporarily blocked that order.
Minneapolis
Minneapolis passed an ordinance more than 20 years ago that guides city employees on how to provide services to help undocumented immigrants, said Michelle Rivero, director of the city’s Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs. That ordinance’s objective is to promote community safety, she added.
“We want people to feel confident that their interactions with municipal employees will not result in an enforcement action or a call to immigration and customs enforcement,” she said.
The city enforces a “separation” ordinance that guides city employees on how to provide services to undocumented immigrants. City employees and police cannot use city resources to arrest or identify undocumented immigrants, and cannot help federal agents with those activities unless federal agents have a legally authorized subpoena. City employees and police cannot discriminate against any person based on their immigration status, according to the city ordinance.
Minneapolis received more than $54 million in federal funds last year for workforce development training, rapid rehousing for people experiencing homelessness, opioid response and reducing lead in homes for children in north Minneapolis and the East Phillips neighborhood.
“We don’t know whether Minneapolis is, or will be, on any ‘list.’ Either way, we’ve said it before, and we’ll say it again, ‘It is not the City’s job to enforce federal civil immigration law,’” Minneapolis City Attorney Kristyn Anderson said in a written statement issued to Sahan Journal. “Any attempts to force us to do so is not only wrong, but also clearly unconstitutional.”
The city also passed a resolution affirming that Minneapolis is a “welcoming city” to people of different backgrounds, including undocumented immigrants, to live and visit in.
“The president can issue all the executive orders he wants — it doesn’t change who we are. Minneapolis will remain a welcoming city for all, regardless of immigration status,” said Frey’s statement.
St. Paul
St. Paul Mayor Melvin Carter issued a statement last week saying that Trump’s threats to cut federal funding puts $260 million at risk that affect affordable housing, infrastructure and emergency response services.
Carter’s office and the city attorney’s office did not return messages seeking comment for this story.
The city has an ordinance that guides city employees and police on their interactions with undocumented immigrants. City employees and police cannot ask about immigration status or request documents to verify status, unless it’s required because of a subpoena. City employees and police cannot discriminate against any person based on their immigration status, according to the city ordinance.
City employees cannot use city resources to arrest or identify undocumented immigrants, and cannot help federal agents with those activities unless it is ordered by a subpoena, according to the ordinance.
Statewide
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison’s office is still reviewing Trump’s order, and had no comment, said his press secretary, Brian Evans.
Ellison issued a statement in early February responding to Ramsey County Attorney John Choi’s request for an advisory opinion. Ellison said that the U.S. Constitution and state law prohibit keeping people in custody on federal immigration detainers if they would have otherwise been released. A detainer is a request from U.S. Immigration and Enforcement to hold a detainee for 48 hours beyond the date they would normally be released from custody as a result of their initial arrest.
“Because no Minnesota civil law authorizes immigration detainer arrests, Minnesota law enforcement agencies risk significant civil liability if they enforce immigration detainers,” read Ellison’s statement.
Sahan Journal reached out to several county officials on the list from the Center of Immigration Studies about their policies on cooperating with federal agencies on immigration matters. Ramsey County officials did not respond before publication time.
When asked if Hennepin County has any policies limiting county employees’ cooperation with federal agents to deport immigrants, Chief Public Relations Officer Carolyn Marinan issued a brief statement: “We abide by state and federal law. We also serve and support all Hennepin County residents.”
She also provided a “Frequently asked questions” document listing guidelines for how county employees should interact with federal agents and undocumented clients. Some of the guidelines include:
- Consult with a supervisor if a federal agent asks for information that is not public information.
- Do not assist or interfere with federal agents who are detaining someone in a public place.
- In general, county employees should only collect the minimum information required to provide a service and if immigration status is not specifically required, “You should not make this inquiry.”
Nobles, Anoka and Kandiyohi county officials said their jurisdictions do not have policies limiting county employees’ cooperation with federal agents to deport immigrants. Some officials said they’ve faced legal challenges in the past for complying with an ICE detainer, so they’ve typically refused to follow those requests.
“This matter has been extensively litigated,” said a statement by Anoka County chief communications officer Erik Thorson.
Sahan Journal reported in early April that Cass, Crow Wing, Freeborn, Itasca and Jackson County sheriff’s offices entered agreements with ICE since Trump took office. The agreements are part of a program that allows ICE to delegate authority to local law enforcement to perform some federal immigration functions. The agreements have historically led to complaints of racial profiling, and could lead to greater risks to immigrant communities, according to local immigration experts.
