The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has taken down its long-anticipated list of ‘sanctuary jurisdictions’ from its website, sparking questions about its current status and future implications for immigration policies. The list, which had outlined states and the District of Columbia where, according to the DHS, ‘undermine the rule of law and endanger the lives of Americans and law enforcement,’ now no longer appears on the site.
A senior Homeland Security official informed Fox News that the list is subject to frequent review and could be updated at any time. ‘Designation of a sanctuary jurisdiction is based on the evaluation of numerous factors, including self-identification as a Sanctuary Jurisdiction, noncompliance with Federal law enforcement in enforcing immigration laws, restrictions on information sharing, and legal protections for illegal aliens,’ the official added.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem reiterated that the list remains in active use, identifying jurisdictions that ‘are not honoring law and justice.’ In her comments on Fox News’ ‘Sunday Morning Futures,’ she emphasized that some jurisdictions have pushed back against the designation, arguing they do not meet the criteria for being sanctuary cities. She explained that the pushback could be due to some jurisdictions feeling they do not qualify because they lack specific laws on the books.
However, the absence of the list on the DHS website has led to questions about its current availability and effectiveness. Users attempting to access the list are now greeted with a ‘Page Not Found’ message, indicating the document may have been removed, altered, or is temporarily unavailable. This has sparked debates over the transparency of the policy and its impact on jurisdictions and local government operations.
Local officials have raised concerns over their inclusion on the list, with some arguing it was a clerical error. In California, Huntington Beach was listed despite its previous legal challenge to the state’s immigration sanctuary law and its recent declaration as a ‘non-sanctuary city.’ Similarly, in Wisconsin, Shawano County’s administrator suggested the inclusion may have been an error, pointing out that the county’s recent vote to become a ‘Second Amendment Sanctuary County’ was misinterpreted as a sanctuary for immigrants.
These controversies highlight the ongoing tensions between federal and local governments regarding immigration enforcement. As discussions continue, the future of the ‘sanctuary jurisdictions’ list remains uncertain, prompting further scrutiny over its impact on immigration policy and local governance.