More than a month after the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s release of a list of “sanctuary jurisdictions” deemed oppositional to federal immigration aims, another agency has published a new, much smaller sanctuary list that seems here to stay, unlike its short-lived predecessor.
The U.S. Department of Justice published the new list on Tuesday, Aug. 5. It resembles a similar list released at the end of May by the Department of Homeland Security.
The original sanctuary list included Lewis County and spurred commissioners Sean Swope, Lindsey Pollock and Scott Brummer to pass the county’s recent “non-sanctuary” resolution. The local policy officially declared the county a non-sanctuary jurisdiction and called on the county to cooperate with immigration enforcement as much as possible under Washington state law. The commissioners say there was no operational change involved.
President Donald Trump originally signed an executive order in April requiring the creation of such a list, promising consequences for states and other jurisdictions that are considered to be obstructing federal immigration enforcement. While it seems that the new list is the next draft of the original published earlier this year, it came from a separate federal agency and the relationship between the two is unclear.
The new sanctuary list is significantly smaller than the previous one, listing just 13 states, four counties and 18 cities across the country. The original list from the Department of Homeland Security listed hundreds of jurisdictions, including all but four of the counties in Washington state. This time around, local governments in Washington avoided inclusion almost entirely. Only the state of Washington and Seattle were included.
The original list, which was quickly taken down after widespread backlash from many cooperative jurisdictions that were listed, provided no criteria for what earned a state or local government a spot.
The new one, however, comes with an announcement and list of criteria used to evaluate states, counties and cities and declare them sanctuary jurisdictions. The DOJ lists nine qualities that can earn a state or local government a spot on the list and likely draw unwanted attention from the federal government in the form of legal action.
Those criteria are: public declarations; laws, ordinances, executive directives; restrictions on information sharing; funding restrictions; non-cooperation with federal immigration enforcement; limits on ICE detainers; jail access restrictions; immigrant community affairs offices and federal benefits programs.
The announcement also states that the list is not exhaustive and instead will provide a starting point, leaving space to include more jurisdictions in the future or remove those that foster deeper cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
“These designations were made after a thorough review of documented laws, ordinances and executive directives by the listed jurisdictions,” reads the Department of Justice webpage. “This initial list of designated Sanctuary Jurisdictions will be reviewed regularly, to include additional jurisdictions and remove jurisdictions that have remediated their policies, practices and laws.”
Lewis County commissioners shared mixed reactions when the original list was published, with Pollock and Brummer in particular expressing confusion at the county’s inclusion on the list despite regional support for the federal government's recent immigration policies.
Pollock pointed to the list’s quick removal from the Department of Homeland Security website as evidence of its flaws and labeled it an example of a “ready, fire, aim” mentality, hinting that the announcement seemed to be published prematurely or without being thought through.
Following the list’s release and speedy removal, Swope led the charge on the county’s non-sanctuary resolution. During board meetings Swope advocated for the resolution, which he pitched as a clarification and communication to the federal government of the county’s current stance. He expressed concerns that not declaring the county’s position could jeopardize up to $34 million in federal funding.
Last week, just days before the release of the new sanctuary list, the Washington State GOP and its chairman, state Rep. Jim Walsh, R-Aberdeen, posted a news release expressing similar funding concerns and criticizing Washington state officials such as Gov. Bob Ferguson and Attorney General Nick Brown for standing by the state's sanctuary policies despite pressure from the federal government.
In the statement, Walsh said that by maintaining sanctuary policy and filing lawsuits against the federal government, Washington's representatives are putting federal funding at risk.
He went on to praise a select few counties for passing “non-sanctuary” resolutions and cooperating with federal policy. He ultimately singled out Lewis County as the subject of his praise, calling on other counties to follow suit and publishing the language of the county’s resolution as an example for others.
To finish the news release, Walsh called on Washingtonians to contact their county representatives and urge them to follow Lewis County’s lead in an attempt to pressure state officials such as Ferguson and Brown to loosen the state's sanctuary laws.
“WAGOP encourages all common-sense Washingtonians to contact their county commissioners (or councilors, in counties that use a council system) and ask them to pass a resolution declaring theirs a ‘non-sanctuary’ county,” Walsh wrote. “As more Washington counties do this, more pressure will build on the governor and other state officials to move away from their hard ideological stance — and selfish political interests — and find some way to cooperate with the federal government.”
On the other side of the debate, Cowlitz County commissioners earlier this month shared that they are not worried about their sanctuary status. In a recent article by The Daily News, Cowlitz County officials were referenced saying they had no intention of passing non-sanctuary resolutions like the one passed in Lewis County.
Cowlitz County Commissioner Rick Dahl reportedly said that any battle over federal immigration enforcement would likely happen at a higher level. While the state of Washington has been the subject of deeper scrutiny from the federal government and has regularly drawn criticism from Trump, counties have yet to witness fallout from immigration policy.
With the new list omitting local governments, it is possible Dahl is right, but it remains to be seen if county policy will play a role in future inclusion on the federal government's list or if the battle over immigration enforcement in the state of Washington will stay at the state and federal levels.
