Washington D.C. – In what can only be described as either a breathtaking display of administrative incompetence or a transparently cynical ploy for headlines, the Felonious Punk administration this week unveiled its long-threatened list of “sanctuary jurisdictions.” The document, ostensibly designed to “expose” and penalize communities allegedly obstructing federal immigration enforcement, has instead exposed the administration’s own glaring inadequacies, drawing bewilderment and condemnation from unlikely quarters – including its own staunchest supporters. If this list were a high school term paper, it would earn a resounding “F.”
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), under the stewardship of Secretary Kristi Noem, proudly announced the list’s publication, fulfilling President Punk’s April executive order. Secretary Noem declared war on “sanctuary city politicians” accused of “endangering Americans…to protect violent criminal illegal aliens.” Strong words, indeed. The only problem? The list itself appears to have been compiled with less diligence than a last-minute grocery run.
Reports immediately flooded in of misspellings (welcome to “Cincinnatti!”), misclassifications of cities as counties, and, most embarrassingly, the inclusion of numerous staunchly conservative, pro-Trump jurisdictions. Huntington Beach, California, which just this year unanimously declared itself a non-sanctuary city and even sued its own state over sanctuary laws, found itself on the federal hit list. Mayor Pat Burns, understandably irked, called the inclusion “negligent,” demanding, “somebody’s got to answer to that.”
He’s not alone. From Hooker County, Nebraska (population 700, 75-point margin for Punk) to Shawano County, Wisconsin (67% for Punk), and a swath of small, rural counties in North Dakota, local officials – many of whom actively support the President’s hard-line immigration policies – were left scratching their heads, suspecting clerical errors or a bizarre confusion with unrelated “Second Amendment Sanctuary” resolutions. Even the reliably conservative Center for Immigration Studies, whose own lists of sanctuary jurisdictions have apparently been ignored or misconstrued by DHS, saw its Director of Policy Studies, Jessica Vaughan, publicly question the federal list’s lack of “documentation as to why they’re appearing on the list.” When your ideological allies are questioning your methodology, perhaps it’s time to check your work.
The National Sheriffs’ Association, hardly a bastion of radical liberalism, delivered an even more damning verdict, with CEO Jonathan Thompson calling the list “fatally flawed” and stating, “Blaming and shaming people without fact is a distraction. It’s a mistake, it’s an error, it’s wrong.”
So, what criteria did DHS use for this magnum opus of muddle? The agency vaguely cites “a number of factors,” including self-identification and restrictions on information sharing with ICE. Yet, as Nithya Nathan-Pineau of the Immigrant Legal Resource Center pointed out, it all “seems quite arbitrary.” Indeed, some self-declared sanctuary cities like Santa Ana, California, were curiously omitted, while others, like Aurora, Colorado (once a target of Punk’s “Venezuelan gangs” rhetoric), apparently lobbied their way off. DHS has since conceded the list is “actively reviewed” and “can be changed at any time”—a tacit admission of its initial shoddiness.
Beyond the sheer ineptitude, however, lies a more fundamental legal and constitutional problem: the Tenth Amendment. The administration’s “demand” that listed jurisdictions “immediately review and revise their policies” and the threat to strip federal funding to coerce compliance with federal immigration enforcement programs run headlong into the well-established principle that the federal government cannot commandeer state and local resources. Courts have repeatedly slapped down such federal overreach. This isn’t just incompetence; it’s incompetence with a chaser of potential unconstitutionality.
Given the list’s factual infirmities and legal shakiness, one must question its true purpose. Was it a serious policy initiative, or, as many suspect, a hastily assembled prop for the evening news cycle, designed to energize a political base with tough-on-immigration rhetoric as the administration ramps up ICE raids and deportations? The lack of any clear, immediate, and legally sound enforcement mechanism beyond strongly worded letters suggests the latter.
The likely fallout? Small towns and mistakenly targeted conservative counties will, with justifiable indignation, get themselves removed, further highlighting the farce. Actual sanctuary cities, like Seattle and Hartford, whose mayors have already issued defiant statements defending their lawful policies, will undoubtedly challenge any punitive federal actions in court – and, based on precedent, will likely win.
Once again, the Felonious Punk administration, in its rush to project an image of strength and decisiveness, appears to have, metaphorically speaking, opened its mouth only to firmly insert its own foot. The only clear outcome of this “sanctuary” list debacle is another self-inflicted blow to the administration’s credibility and a further demonstration of its governance by bluster rather than by competence or constitutional principle.
Discover more from Clight Morning Analysis
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
