Photo Credit: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Public Domain
Acting ICE Director Thomas Homan doubled down on his anti-sanctuary policy position when, in an interview with Fox News, he said he believed politicians adhering to sanctuary policies should be imprisoned. He asserted that the measures implemented in so-called sanctuary cities amount to harboring and smuggling illegal aliens – a claim many experts believe to be utterly fallacious. Homan even went on to suggest that politicians should be held “personally accountable” for the illegal actions of immigrants.
California
The Acting ICE Director – who is Trump’s favorite for permanent director of the immigration agency – took umbrage at policies recently implemented throughout the state of California by Governor Jerry Brown. According to those policies, police officers can only work with ICE agents in a limited capacity, and no officer is permitted to ask residents about their immigration status.
During his interview, Homan said the following: “I think it’s terrible. You’ve got the state of California that wants to put politics ahead of public safety, ahead of officer safety.” He continued, “What they’ve done is forced my officers to arrest dangerous criminals on their turf, in their homes and places of business, rather than arresting them in the safety and security of a county jail. It’s ridiculous.”
Are Politicians Breaking Laws?
He indicated that he had already asked the DOJ to review the sanctuary policies and determine whether they contravene federal statutes. He highlighted one law in particular: 8 U.S.C. 1324, which bars the smuggling and harboring of illegal immigrants. But can politicians really be arrested for enacting such policies? According to a Governing report, it’s highly unlikely.
Steven Schwinn, a Constitutional Law expert, expressed severe doubts as to the viability of Homan’s claims. “It’s not obvious to me that [8 U.S.C. 1324] would or would not apply to sanctuary cities, but applying it this way would be a gross misuse of power.”
According to Schwinn, the anti-commandeering principle, put in place by a previous US Supreme Court ruling, would most likely prevent the federal government from forcing a state or locality to do anything. As Schwinn put it: if the federal government tells states to either comply with ICE or go to jail, “[i]t’s hard to see that as anything but commandeering.”
The same argument was made by Ilya Somin – a law professor from George Mason University and a libertarian scholar at the Cato Institute – after the administration attempted to attach three stringent conditions to a federal grant for state and local police forces. According to Somin, if the federal government is allowed to withhold funds from states and localities that fail to comply with conditions, this could amount to a form of coercion, which would be a direct violation of the anti-commandeering doctrine.
A federal judge has since placed a preliminary injunction on two of the three conditions. The judge left intact a condition requiring states to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373, a statute that prohibits state and local cops from withholding the immigration status of an individual.
Homan’s Performance
As noted by the New Yorker, Homan may be performing a role given to him by his current boss. During a speech on immigration, Donald Trump described Homan in the following way: “Somebody said the other day, they saw him on television […] ‘He looks very nasty, he looks very mean,’” he said, continuing, “That’s what I’m looking for!”
But those who have worked with Homan don’t agree with the President’s assessment. The Acting ICE Director has worked in immigration for years, and he has even been described by one Obama-era colleague as “thoughtful and nuanced.” That same colleague went on to say, “None of us recognize this guy.” In fact, Homan was diligent, under Obama, in implementing policies targeting only those immigrants who had committed crimes, and in fact, he worked hard to convince stubborn officers who opposed the guidelines.
It would appear that Homan – who was ready to retire in January before he received a call from the President – is at odds with himself, portraying a version of himself that is bullish and crass.
