Sanctuary policies face limits as ICE arrests expand nationwide

Dive Right Into

Key Takeaways

• On January 20, 2025, Trump signed an EO intensifying immigration enforcement, targeting criminal noncitizens and enhancing federal-local cooperation under INA 287(g).
• New ICE directives starting January 25, 2025, require field offices to detain 75 individuals daily, totaling 1,800 arrests nationwide.
• A January 21, 2025 Federal Register Notice expanded expedited removal, enabling deportation of noncitizens unable to prove 2-year U.S. residency.

The increasing reach of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) across the United States has had a profound effect on the ability of sanctuary policies to shield undocumented immigrants from detention and removal. Despite the measures championed by some states and localities to limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities, the Trump administration’s sweeping immigration enforcement changes, initiated in January 2025, have made it clear that even these protective policies cannot stop ICE operations entirely.

On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed the “Protecting The American People Against Invasion” Executive Order (EO). This directive set the stage for a more aggressive approach to immigration enforcement. The executive order aimed to maximize enforcement by prioritizing individuals with criminal records for apprehension while strengthening federal-state cooperation under agreements like INA 287(g). It also mandated the sharing of information between federal and local authorities to streamline detention and deportation efforts.

Sanctuary policies face limits as ICE arrests expand nationwide

Three days later, on January 23, 2025, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Acting Secretary Huffman escalated the administration’s efforts with a “Finding of Mass Influx of Aliens” under 28 CFR § 65.83. This finding claimed that an overwhelming influx of migrants at the southern border endangered public safety in all 50 states and called for states’ assistance in federal immigration enforcement. Additionally, the Justice Department intensified focus on sanctuary jurisdictions through new policies outlined in the “Interim Policy Changes Regarding Charging, Sentencing, and Immigration Enforcement” memorandum, which was issued by the Deputy Acting Attorney General on January 21, 2025. Among its initiatives was the creation of a Sanctuary Cities Enforcement Working Group, designed specifically to target cities and states that enacted sanctuary policies.

Sanctuary cities, defined as jurisdictions that limit their involvement in federal immigration enforcement to protect undocumented residents, have traditionally sought to insulate noncitizens from detention or deportation. However, the Trump administration’s policies went as far as threatening to cut federal funding to these jurisdictions. Some local governments balked at this pressure. Legal challenges arose, with Illinois and New York becoming central battlegrounds between federal authorities and sanctuary jurisdictions. On February 6, 2025, the Department of Justice sued Illinois, arguing that its sanctuary policies violated the Supremacy Clause, a legal doctrine affirming the federal government’s authority over states. Days later, on February 12, 2025, the Department of Justice similarly filed a lawsuit against New York, taking issue with its Green Light Law, which allows the issuance of driver’s licenses to undocumented individuals.

Even as these cases unfold, sanctuary jurisdictions continue to defend their stance. The attorneys general from 13 states, including California 🇺🇸, Washington 🇺🇸, New York 🇺🇸, and others, released a joint statement reiterating that federal law prohibits the government from forcing states to enforce immigration laws. Furthermore, in New York, protections under the Protect Our Courts Act (POCA) limit ICE operations in or near state courthouses. However, POCA does not extend to federal courthouses, leaving gaps in protections for individuals facing potential arrest.

ICE, meanwhile, has expanded its operational capacity significantly. Under new instructions that went into effect on January 25, 2025, ICE field offices were directed to detain an average of 75 individuals daily, totaling over 1,800 arrests nationwide per day. This figure marks a stark rise compared to 2023, when ICE apprehended only 415 individuals daily, with just 24 of those arrests occurring in New York City. These heightened arrest quotas show the administration’s commitment to enforcing immigration laws more stringently, even in areas attempting to resist federal cooperation.

The administration also took steps to bring other federal bodies into immigration enforcement. On January 22, 2025, DHS Acting Secretary Huffman issued the “DOJ Immigration Officer Authorization” memorandum. This instruction authorized employees from agencies such as the U.S. Marshals, the Drug Enforcement Agency, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons to assist ICE with locating and detaining undocumented individuals. Utilizing personnel from non-immigration agencies raises concerns about whether these individuals, with limited experience in immigration law, will have the expertise necessary to fairly assess cases where deportation might not be warranted.

Perhaps the most sweeping change impacting the effectiveness of sanctuary policies lies in the broader application of expedited removal. Expedited removal is a process that allows immigration officers to deport certain noncitizens without the chance to appear before an immigration judge or seek legal representation. The January 21, 2025 Federal Register Notice expanded the eligibility criteria for expedited removal, applying it to individuals apprehended anywhere in the country who could not prove they had lived in the United States continuously for two years. This policy, coupled with the January 23, 2025 guidance urging ICE to expedite these removals even during pending court proceedings, has left noncitizens with minimal time to defend against deportation.

This expansion poses serious risks, even for individuals who may not legally be subject to deportation. U.S. citizens, noncitizens with valid residency, and asylum seekers with legitimate claims are at greater risk of wrongful deportation if they cannot present sufficient evidence of their status or articulate fears of returning to their home country. Critics have also raised concerns about processing errors by deputized officials, many of whom may not fully understand the nuances of immigration law or the criteria for seeking asylum under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

While states such as New York 🇺🇸 and Illinois 🇺🇸 continue to enforce measures like the Green Light Law and the Protect Our Courts Act to shield undocumented residents, ICE’s back-end strategies chip away at these policies’ protections. Facing the combined pressure of legal battles, federal enforcement policies, and broader removal mechanisms, sanctuary jurisdictions are finding it increasingly difficult to provide comprehensive protections for their undocumented populations.

The legal debate on whether federal policies overstep constitutional boundaries remains ongoing. Sanctuary cities rely on longstanding Supreme Court protections against federal overreach, but the Trump administration’s focus on undermining these policies through agency-driven enforcement mechanisms significantly limits their ability to operate as intended. As VisaVerge.com reported, “the administration’s expansive actions have raised fundamental questions about the balance of power between federal and state governments when it comes to immigration policy.”

In conclusion, the federal government’s extensive enforcement measures, coupled with the broadened use of expedited removal and the deputizing of non-immigration officers, have worked to reduce the effectiveness of sanctuary policies across the country. Even though sanctuary jurisdictions represent a stand against aggressive detention and deportation tactics, their ability to offer lasting protection to undocumented individuals remains under intense pressure. Federal and state clashes over immigration authority are likely to continue, but for immigrant communities, the immediate effects of these sweeping enforcement initiatives are starkly tangible. For further information on expedited removal processes, visit U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

Learn Today

Sanctuary Cities → Jurisdictions limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities to protect undocumented residents from detention or deportation.
Expedited Removal → A process allowing deportation without a hearing for certain noncitizens unable to prove two years of U.S. residency.
287(g) Agreements → Agreements enabling state or local law enforcement to assist federal authorities in immigration enforcement under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Supremacy Clause → A constitutional doctrine affirming the federal government’s authority over conflicting state or local laws.
Protect Our Courts Act (POCA) → New York legislation limiting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations inside or near state courthouses.

This Article in a Nutshell

Sanctuary city protections face unprecedented challenges as expanded ICE operations target undocumented immigrants nationwide. The Trump administration’s 2025 policies amplify expedited removals, deputize non-immigration officers, and enforce higher arrest quotas. Legal battles highlight a fierce federal-state power clash, yet for vulnerable communities, the immediate impacts—detention, deportation, and displacement—emphasize the urgent need for reform.
— By VisaVerge.com