Big City Mayors Advocate for Policies Supporting Undocumented Immigrants in Congressional Hearing

On March 5, four prominent city mayors appeared before Congress, advocating for their sanctuary policies that shield unauthorized immigrants from federal immigration enforcement.

Boston’s Mayor Michelle Wu, Chicago’s Mayor Brandon Johnson, Denver’s Mayor Mike Johnston, and New York City’s Mayor Eric Adams were each questioned by members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee regarding their local and state regulations.

They asserted a unified stance: Their municipalities are safe, and their regulations adhere to federal law.

While the Democratic mayors avoided the term “sanctuary city,” they countered Republican assertions that their policies prioritize criminal undocumented migrants over their law-abiding constituents and the Constitution.

As Republican committee members probed the cities’ levels of engagement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), several Democrats acknowledged the challenge of maintaining public safety while fostering a hospitable atmosphere for undocumented immigrants.

This hearing occurred amidst the Trump administration’s nationwide effort to enforce immigration laws, particularly against individuals with criminal records. Many cities and states governed by Democrats have openly declared their intent not to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement actions within their jurisdictions.

Here are five key takeaways from the session.

Republicans Assert Sanctuary Cities Breach the Law

Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) queried each mayor whether they adhered to the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which establishes that federal laws are “the supreme law of the land.”

Adams remarked that the question exceeded his comprehension, while Johnson asserted that Chicago complies with all local, state, and federal regulations.

Wu stated she was not familiar with the Supremacy Clause but committed to upholding all local, state, and federal regulations. This prompted Gosar to inquire which laws she would adhere to if her local regulations contradicted federal laws.

“To my understanding, the Constitution does not mandate cities, police officers, or anyone to comply with… federal laws that conflict with local or state laws,” the Boston mayor declared.

Gosar countered this assertion.

“The Constitution explicitly states that the federal government holds jurisdiction and supremacy over all immigration laws,” he claimed.

Other Republican members echoed this sentiment, asserting that sanctuary city practices are fundamentally in violation of federal statutes.

Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) highlighted that U.S. immigration regulations prohibit local or state governments from obstructing or limiting officials’ communications with federal immigration authorities.

Biggs referenced statutes that forbid protecting undocumented immigrants from discovery and necessitate providing reasonable access to information about an individual’s immigration status to immigration officials.

“You are all violating all three of these statutes. You’re exposing yourselves to criminal liability,” he asserted, unveiling posters stating: “Sanctuary Cities Are Illegal.”

Rep. Gary Palmer (R-Ala.) concurred, accusing the mayors of breaching their oaths of office.

“You’ve committed a crime,” Palmer said. “Chairman, I fail to understand why we aren’t discussing obstruction of justice.”

The mayors, however, maintained that their local and state policies are in compliance with federal law.

Adams Claims He’s Powerless

Adams expressed that his city’s sanctuary status was beyond his influence.

“In the past three years, federal law prevented me from stopping buses from entering New York City,” he stated. “State law mandates that we provide housing, meals, and education to all individuals within our city. Local law forbids collaboration with ICE for civil enforcement.”

Adams distinguished himself among Democrats as a candid critic of the Biden administration’s handling of the southern border.

Still, he concurred with his fellow mayors that “comprehensive immigration reform is long overdue” and expressed his commitment to collaborate with federal officials “to address violent gangs and those who endanger the residents of our city.”

Mayors Ambiguous on ICE Cooperation

Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), the committee chair, queried Wu and Johnson regarding whether they would transfer detained unauthorized immigrants to federal immigration authorities.

Comer pointed out that Boston law prohibits using city resources and personnel for executing civil immigration detainers, “implying that Boston police and other departments cannot cooperate with ICE on civil warrants.”

Wu replied, “Whenever someone commits a crime, whenever there’s a criminal warrant, we hold them accountable.”

When pressed on whether this includes turning those suspects over to ICE, she did not provide a direct response.

“We adhere to the laws and ensure that everyone…” she began before being interrupted.

“I take that as a no,” Comer remarked, shifting his focus to Johnson.

Referencing a case involving an undocumented immigrant accused of kidnapping and sexual assault, Comer asked the Chicago mayor if he would surrender that suspect—who is currently free—to ICE.

Johnson maintained, “Our local law enforcement strives daily to remove criminals from the streets of Chicago.”

When questioned again about whether he would hand the suspect over to ICE, he did not give a clear answer.

Denver Mayor Addressed Over ICE Officer’s Assault

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) confronted Johnston about Denver’s decision to release unauthorized immigrant Abraham Gonzalez, 23, on February 28 rather than wait for ICE to apprehend him.

Gonzalez, identified as a possible member of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang, allegedly assaulted ICE agents during his arrest in the county jail’s parking lot, according to the agency’s Denver Field Office. Jordan noted that officers had to utilize a stun gun on Gonzalez.

The congressman criticized Denver police for providing ICE with just one hour’s notification of Gonzalez’s release, pointing out that he was held for 345 days before being let go.

Johnston defended the official policy, stating that they coordinate with ICE regarding release scheduling to ensure officers can pick them up from the location.

Jordan stated that instead of releasing unauthorized immigrants in public areas such as parking lots, it would be more prudent for local authorities to hand them over to ICE while still in custody. However, sanctuary policies inhibit local authorities from doing so.

In response, Jordan condemned sanctuary city policies as “foolish” and perilous for law enforcement and the broader community.

Adams Affirms ‘No Quid Pro Quo’

Rep. Julio Garcia (D-Calif.) asked Adams if the Trump administration had “coerced” him into negotiating a deal to evade prosecution on federal charges related to bribery, conspiracy, and campaign finance violations.

“There’s no deal, no quid pro quo, and I did nothing wrong,” Adams asserted. “Any matters regarding this case defer to Judge [Dale] Ho, who is currently handling it. I will refer to his actions.”

This was not the first time Adams addressed claims of a deal, and it certainly would not be the last. He was later asked the same question by Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), the committee’s lead Democrat, reiterating that no such deal ever occurred.

The Justice Department officially charged Adams last September, alleging he accepted bribes and illegal campaign contributions and benefits from foreign nationals, businessmen, and others.

President Donald Trump has indicated that the New York mayor may have been politically targeted by the Biden administration for his outspoken views on the effects of illegal immigration on his city.

Last month, federal prosecutors requested Judge Ho dismiss the charges against Adams, leading to speculation about a potential quid-pro-quo between the mayor and the Trump administration.

The judge subsequently canceled the trial but has not yet ruled on the requested dismissal.

In February, Trump claimed he had no role in the efforts to dismiss the case against Adams and suggested that upon returning to the White House, he might consider pardoning Adams should he be convicted.

Jackson Richman and Zachary Stieber contributed to this report.