In Washington, congressional Republicans are targeting four major cities often denoted as “sanctuary cities,” due to their policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities. This week’s hearing surfaces as part of President Donald Trump’s drive for extensive deportations. Mayors Michelle Wu of Boston, Brandon Johnson of Chicago, Mike Johnston of Denver, and Eric Adams of New York, are scheduled to testify before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on Wednesday.
A precise definition of sanctuary cities isn’t legislatively set; however, it roughly outlines limited collaboration with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). ICE, responsible for implementing U.S. immigration laws, often solicits assistance from state and local law enforcement for executing large-scale deportations, requesting these agencies notify them about and detain individuals pending federal custody.
Nonetheless, certain cities and states assert that compliance with ICE hampers true justice, as victims and witnesses, when undocumented, might shun cooperation with law enforcement. Moreover, they argue for fostering an inclusive atmosphere for immigrants. Despite the recurrent legality confirmations of sanctuary laws by courts, the Trump administration regards these policies as significant hindrances, suing several states, including New York and Illinois.
Here’s an overview of the immigration strategies and migration dynamics of the cities whose mayors will provide testimony:
**Boston**
Boston’s sanctuary status stems partly from its Trust Act, which limits cooperation with ICE, though cooperation is permitted under specific Homeland Security Investigations involving severe crime. Additional restrictions are imposed by a 2017 state supreme court ruling, barring detention of individuals solely on federal detainers. Boston’s approach has faced criticism, notably from Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, which Mayor Wu has labeled as “clueless” and “insulting.” Suffolk County District Attorney, Kevin Hayden, supports the stance, asserting it crucial for crime investigations involving immigrants.
**Chicago**
Holding one of the nation’s strongest immigrant protection frameworks, Chicago forbids cooperation between federal agents and municipal employees. Originating in the 1980s, these policies have only strengthened over time. Despite federal lawsuits, the city and Illinois enforce their rights to immigration leniency, including the ability for residents to obtain driver’s licenses regardless of status. Mayor Brandon Johnson, facing a migrant crisis immediately after his inauguration in 2023, has maintained the city’s welcoming attitude, notwithstanding logistical challenges. Attempts to undermine these measures have floundered in the predominantly Democratic City Council.
**Denver**
Having hosted around 43,000 arrivals in the past two years, Denver has evolved into an immigrant hub. Mayor Mike Johnston faced substantial challenges, reallocating city resources extensively, and appealing for federal help, often insufficiently met. A contentious period arose following erroneous claims by Trump about a Venezuelan gang’s alleged takeover, resulting in controversial ICE operations in the metro area. Johnston emphasizes a welcoming stance, with exceptions for individuals engaged in violent crimes. Recently, Denver Public Schools uniquely sued the Trump administration over ICE’s freedom within educational premises.
**New York**
New York City grapples with the arrival of approximately 231,000 immigrants since 2022, incurring a financial toll exceeding $7 billion. Legal actions against the Trump administration over retracted immigrant aid reimbursements have unfolded. Mayor Eric Adams supports service access regardless of status but seeks to refine certain policies allowing the city to better collaborate with ICE in holding individuals due to immigration enforcement, stirring critiques from political rivals. Adams’ intentions to modify these collaborations occasionally meet with skepticism about political motives.
