If Sanctuaries Demand ‘Judicial Warrants’, Give them Judicial Warrants

Scott Mechkowski — a longtime ICE officer who helped run the agency’s removal operations in New York City — recently discussed in these pages the inanity of the “sanctuary” policies in the Fairfax County (Va.) Sheriff’s Office (FCSO), and in particular the implacable refusal of Sheriff Stacey Kincaid to even call ICE before releasing dangerous criminal aliens. As Mechkowski noted, “Kincaid refuses detainer holds unless ICE brings a ‘judicial immigration warrant’”, and as I’ve explained in the past, in the civil ICE context that’s like demanding water from the moon. DHS and DOJ can, however, give Sheriff Kincaid and her sanctuary ilk what they’re demanding if they go the extra mile — though a whole lot of aliens will end up serving federal criminal jail time before they inevitably get deported.

'Sanctuary Jurisdictions' and 'ICE-Free Zones'

The Center defines “sanctuary” jurisdictions as “cities, counties, and states” with:

laws, ordinances, regulations, resolutions, policies, or other practices that obstruct immigration enforcement and shield criminals from ICE — either by refusing to or prohibiting agencies from complying with ICE detainers, imposing unreasonable conditions on detainer acceptance, denying ICE access to interview incarcerated aliens, or otherwise impeding communication or information exchanges between their personnel and federal immigration officers.

The immigration “detainers” referenced therein are governed by 8 C.F.R. §287.7(a), which states:

Detainers are issued pursuant to sections 236 and 287 of the [Immigration and Nationality] Act [INA]. ... A detainer serves to advise another law enforcement agency that the Department seeks custody of an alien presently in the custody of that agency, for the purpose of arresting and removing the alien. The detainer is a request that such agency advise the Department, prior to release of the alien, in order for the Department to arrange to assume custody, in situations when gaining immediate physical custody is either impracticable or impossible. [Emphasis added.]

Vera, an immigrant advocacy group, prefers instead to portray many sanctuaries as “ICE-Free Zones” (a cute play on words), and in its explainer on them, “How Cities and Counties are Working Together to Resist ICE”, contends that:

Crucially, ICE-free zone policies do not prohibit ICE or CBP from making arrests. They expressly avoid interfering with the legal rights of federal law enforcement while clarifying that federal authorities can conduct arrests on city property when supported by a judicial warrant. This framing matters for two reasons. It signals to courts that local governments are not attempting to illegally obstruct federal immigration enforcement. And, more significantly, warrant requirements reinforce lawful enforcement practices. [Emphasis in original.]