Fees, Fines And Ordinances: Cities Push Back Against Trump’s Immigration Enforcement

Federal immigration officers face the prospect of being pulled over by local cops in one Oregon city. In another, they may be banned from using tear gas against protesters. In California and Michigan, local officials want to keep ICE and the Border Patrol from using public property for enforcement and a liberal enclave in Massachusetts may ban agents from getting a job with its police department.

The resistance to President Donald Trump’s sweeping immigration enforcement campaign has emerged as a potent local issue in cities across the U.S. amid widespread outrage, fueled most recently by the killings of Renée Good and Alex Pretti by federal agents in Minneapolis.

“Sand in the gears is the best approach that we have found so far,” said Jamie Dunphy, the president of the City Council in Portland, Ore., which has imposed a “municipal impact fee” on a building leased by Immigration and Customs Enforcement for operations in the city. Portland is also considering a ban on law enforcement using tear gas or any other chemical agents against protesters.

Efforts to thwart the president’s immigration enforcement campaign are proliferating in liberal cities, including Cambridge, Mass., and Richmond, Calif., underscoring the public anger over the issue and how local officials are working to appease angry constituents demanding action.

“This is something that we can control.” said Yi-An Huang, the city manager of Cambridge, Mass., which last week banned ICE from using city property for enforcement activity. There have not been instances of ICE using city property in Cambridge, Huang says, but he’s heard accounts from nearby cities.

Many actions by cities face potential legal challenges. In California, the Trump administration filed suit to strike down a state law signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in September that prohibited federal immigration agents from covering their faces. A federal judge last week blocked the measure from taking effect, while upholding a separate requirement that agents display badge numbers and agency identification. The litigation is expected to continue.

The Trump administration says efforts by local and state governments to curb immigration enforcement are misplaced. “Anyone pointing the finger at law enforcement officers instead of the criminals is simply doing the bidding of criminal illegal aliens,” said Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson.

In a separate statement, the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE and the Border Patrol, said local laws that seek to control federal agents are illegal. “What these States are trying to do is unlawful, and they know it,” the agency said in a written statement. “Federal officials acting in the course of their duties are immune from liability under state law.”

City officials, aware of the legal landscape, are searching for ways they can stymie federal immigration enforcement – even if only around the margins. Some have turned to the courts, including when Portland challenged Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to the city in response to protests of his immigration policies.

In Beaverton, Ore., just west of Portland, the City Council voted last month to strengthen restrictions on local cooperation with immigration enforcement – a so-called “sanctuary” program – while it considers the legal ramifications of a proposal to allow local police to make traffic stops of federal agents for reckless driving.

“If we rush something and can't legally enforce it, we don't move the ball,” Mayor Lacey Beaty said in an interview. “The community really wants us to use every single tool, and I want to use it too, but rushing doesn't get us there.”

Ann Arbor, home to the University of Michigan, also recently reinforced its sanctuary program, a move the mayor said only affected factors completely within the city’s control. It passed the City Council in a unanimous vote.

“We are doing the best we can,” Ann Arbor Mayor Christopher Taylor said.