Democratic Mayors from some of America’s largest sanctuary cities faced a grilling from Republicans on Capitol Hill as they struggled to defend controversial policies that shield illegal immigrants from federal authorities.
At a Glance
- Mayors from Boston, Chicago, Denver, and New York defended sanctuary city policies before the House Oversight Committee
- Republican lawmakers argued these policies violate federal law and the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause
- New York Mayor Eric Adams claimed his city’s sanctuary status was beyond his control
- Denver’s Mayor was questioned about releasing an illegal immigrant who later assaulted ICE officers
- The heated six-hour hearing highlighted deep partisan divides on immigration enforcement
Democrats Defend Controversial Policies
In a contentious congressional hearing that lasted six hours, four Democratic Mayors attempted to justify their cities’ sanctuary policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Boston Mayor Michelle Wu, Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, Denver Mayor Mike Johnston, and New York Mayor Eric Adams all testified before the Republican-led House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, where they faced intense questioning about policies that critics say protect criminal illegal immigrants.
Republican committee members, led by Chairman James Comer, didn’t mince words when characterizing these sanctuary policies. Comer stated that such policies “only create sanctuary for criminals,” reflecting the Republican position that limiting cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) endangers American citizens. The Mayors, however, insisted their policies comply with local and state laws while maintaining trust within immigrant communities.
🚨🇺🇸BOSTON MAYOR TO DEFEND SANCTUARY CITY POLICIES BEFORE CONGRESS
Michelle Wu will face off against Republicans in Congress on March 5, defending her city's sanctuary policies as the federal government moves to crush them.
Rep. James Comer accused Boston, NYC, and Chicago of… pic.twitter.com/p2Pi4kidBF
— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) February 6, 2025
Constitutional Questions and Legal Defenses
The hearing quickly turned to constitutional arguments, with Republican lawmakers asserting that sanctuary policies violate the Supremacy Clause, which establishes federal law as the supreme law of the land. Boston’s Mayor offered a questionable constitutional interpretation to defend her city’s stance on immigration enforcement.
“The Constitution, as I understand it, doesn’t require cities or police officers or anyone to follow federal laws in conflict with local laws or state laws,” Michelle Wu said.
New York Mayor Eric Adams attempted to shift blame away from himself, claiming that his city’s sanctuary status resulted from a combination of federal, state, and city laws that tied his hands. Adams, who has previously criticized the Biden administration’s border policies, presented himself as caught between competing legal requirements.
“Over the last three years, federal law did not allow me to stop buses from entering New York City. State law required me to provide all in our city with housing and meals and to educate children. City law makes it unlawful to collaborate with ICE for civil enforcement,” Adams said.
Public Safety Concerns
A central issue in the hearing was whether sanctuary policies protect dangerous criminals. Denver Mayor Mike Johnston faced pointed questions about his city’s release of an illegal immigrant who later assaulted ICE officers. The incident highlighted Republican concerns that limiting cooperation with federal authorities allows dangerous individuals to remain in communities.
While Democrats emphasized community trust and falling crime rates, Republicans pointed to specific cases of violent crimes committed by illegal immigrants who had been shielded by sanctuary policies. ICE officials have consistently maintained that non-cooperation by sanctuary cities strains federal resources and forces agents into more dangerous situations when attempting to apprehend illegal immigrants in communities rather than secure jail facilities.
