N※N

Minneapolis Joins Sanctuary Cities, Sparks Debate

  //politics-government.news-articles.net/content/ .. apolis-joins-sanctuary-cities-sparks-debate.html
  Published in Politics and Government on Thursday, February 19th 2026 at 22:53 GMT by thedispatch.com
      Locales: Minnesota, N/A, UNITED STATES

Minneapolis, MN - February 20, 2026 - Minneapolis has officially joined a growing number of cities across the United States in adopting a policy that significantly limits local law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration authorities. The newly enacted policy restricts the Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) from proactively notifying Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) when a potentially deportable individual is in custody. Crucially, it also limits the honoring of ICE detainers - requests to hold individuals for additional time while ICE agents arrange deportation proceedings. This move has officially designated Minneapolis as a "sanctuary city," sparking a national debate about states' rights, federal authority, and the critical balance between community policing and immigration enforcement.

The policy, approved by the Minneapolis City Council last week, comes amidst increasing tension surrounding federal immigration laws and a nationwide push for localized immigration policies. Proponents of the measure argue that it fosters trust between law enforcement and immigrant communities, encouraging residents to report crimes without fear of deportation. They maintain that focusing police resources on local crime, rather than federal immigration enforcement, ultimately enhances public safety for all residents.

However, the policy has drawn sharp criticism from former ICE Director Tom Homan, who recently discussed the implications on The Dispatch's "Boiling Frogs" podcast with editor-in-chief Nick Eberstadt. Homan characterized the Minneapolis decision as a "disaster," asserting that it prioritizes the protection of individuals with questionable legal status over the safety and well-being of the city's law-abiding citizens. He strongly refuted the claim that the policy is about humanitarian concerns, stating, "This isn't about protecting people; it's about protecting criminals."

Homan's argument centers on the vital role local law enforcement plays in identifying and apprehending individuals with prior criminal records who are subject to deportation. He contends that by hindering ICE's ability to collaborate with the MPD, the policy creates a safe haven for criminal aliens, potentially allowing them to re-offend and endanger the community. According to Homan, the lack of cooperation isn't merely an inconvenience; it's a systemic impediment to enforcing existing immigration laws and removing dangerous individuals from the country. He painted a grim picture, stating, "The more we allow [criminals] to stay here, the more they're going to commit crimes." He suggested that a significant portion of individuals entering the U.S. illegally do so with the intention of engaging in criminal activity, though this claim has been contested by immigration advocacy groups who point to economic hardship and political persecution as primary drivers of migration.

The Minneapolis situation is not isolated. Homan highlighted a discernible trend of cities, counties, and even states actively defying federal immigration laws. This resistance has been building for years, fueled by a growing sense of frustration with federal immigration policies and a desire for local control. The legality of these "sanctuary" policies has been repeatedly challenged in court, with varying degrees of success. The federal government's options for challenging these policies are limited, often relying on withholding federal funding - a tactic that has faced its own legal hurdles and political backlash.

Eberstadt questioned Homan about the potential legal ramifications of Minneapolis's defiance. Homan acknowledged the challenges the federal government faces in directly challenging the policy, but suggested that sustained public pressure and potential litigation could eventually compel the city to reconsider its stance. He expressed optimism that residents would eventually recognize the negative consequences of the policy on their community and demand a change in direction.

The debate surrounding Minneapolis's new policy underscores the complex interplay between federal and local authority in immigration matters. While federal law generally governs immigration enforcement, local jurisdictions often argue they have the right to prioritize community policing and limit their involvement in federal enforcement efforts. This conflict raises fundamental questions about the balance of power and the appropriate role of local governments in addressing a national issue. As more cities consider similar policies, the legal and practical implications of sanctuary city status will likely remain a contentious issue for years to come. The situation in Minneapolis will be closely watched as a potential bellwether for this growing national debate, potentially setting a precedent for other municipalities grappling with similar decisions.