At the Intersection of Fear and Federalism: When Mayors Make Immigration Law

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.

By George Farag
June 30, 2025

My stepfather Sam came to the United States from Egypt on a tourist visa and never left. He spent his days pouring concrete, paid his taxes, loved this country and raised me as his own. After the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, an attack linked to the blind Egyptian cleric Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, law enforcement began sweeping through our Jersey City neighborhood targeting undocumented Arabs they viewed as threats. We would turn off the lights, sit in silence and pray no one knocked. That kind of fear burrows deep.

Years later, I found myself on the other side of that door. I was a U.S. diplomat and consular officer enforcing the very immigration laws that once threatened to shatter my own family. That journey gave me a uniquely intimate and conflicted view of the vast divide between federal immigration policy and the lived experience of those in its shadows.

Nowhere is that chasm more visible or more politically charged than in the rise of sanctuary cities. Sanctuary cities are jurisdictions that limit their cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, particularly Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). They often prohibit local police or officials from inquiring about immigration status or detaining individuals solely based on ICE requests. In doing so, they are not defying federal law outright but are asserting their right to withhold local resources from federal immigration efforts.

This tension lies at the heart of American federalism.

A Federalism Flashpoint

Federalism in the U.S. Constitution creates a division of powers between federal and state governments. The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states all powers not delegated to the federal government. Immigration enforcement is clearly a federal responsibility but does that mean local governments must cooperate?

The courts have repeatedly said no. In the 1997 case Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government cannot commandeer local officials to enforce federal law. More recently in April 2025, U.S. District Judge William Orrick issued an injunction preventing the Trump administration from withholding or conditioning federal funds to sanctuary jurisdictions like San Francisco, Seattle and Minneapolis for refusing to assist ICE. These principles undergird the legal foundation of sanctuary cities: while federal agents may enforce immigration law, local governments are under no obligation to help them do it. However, this legal position has not stopped political backlash.

Washington Pushes Back

In recent years, the federal government has attempted to penalize sanctuary cities by withholding federal grants, particularly law enforcement funds. The Trump administration led this charge but courts largely blocked those efforts, finding them unconstitutional. These rulings reaffirmed that while the federal government can set immigration policy, it cannot coerce states or cities into enforcement partnerships.

Still, the political pressure remains intense. Some states have gone the opposite direction by passing laws that prohibit sanctuary policies at the local level, effectively punishing cities that try to set their own path. This intra-state conflict introduces another layer to the federalism debate: how much autonomy do cities have not just from Washington but from their own state governments?

Public Safety or Political Theater?

Supporters of sanctuary policies argue that immigration enforcement is not the job of local police and that involvement erodes trust between law enforcement and immigrant communities. If people fear that reporting a crime could lead to deportation, they will stay silent, putting everyone at risk.

Los Angeles, California, offers a compelling case study. As one of the most prominent sanctuary cities in the country, LA has long limited local cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) through Special Order 40 and subsequent policies. City leaders argue this approach has improved community safety by encouraging undocumented residents to report crimes, send their children to school and access health services without fear. Law enforcement officials, including former LAPD Chief Charlie Beck, have publicly stated that immigration enforcement must remain separate from local policing to be effective.

Critics argue that sanctuary policies like those in Los Angeles create safe havens for criminals and undermine national sovereignty.

De Facto Immigration Policy

Whether one supports or opposes sanctuary cities, the broader reality is unavoidable: they represent a form of de facto immigration policy created at the local level. In the absence of comprehensive immigration reform, cities and counties have become key players in shaping how laws are felt and enforced on the ground.

This isn’t just a political divide. It’s a governance divide, where the federal system itself is being tested by the gap between national mandates and local values.

Toward a Cooperative Federalism

What’s needed now is a more cooperative model that recognizes the practical limits of federal power and the constitutional rights of local governments while also providing a coherent national strategy on immigration. Until then, sanctuary cities will continue to fill the vacuum left by congressional inaction and the courts will remain the referees in a game that should be decided by policymakers.

As someone who’s stood at the intersection of law, diplomacy and lived immigrant experience, I believe federalism is not a flaw but a framework. But it only works when both sides honor its balance.

---

Author: Dr. George Farag is a former United States Diplomat and Consular Officer who currently advises on immigration policy and procedures.

(No Ratings Yet)
Loading...