Published: February 6, 2025 | Source: BBC News
One of our subscribers submitted a fact-check request concerning a BBC News article that reports on the Trump administration’s lawsuit against Chicago over its ‘sanctuary city’ policies. They, like you, want to make sure they are getting accurate information. You can submit fact-check requests for free, and we’ll investigate to uncover the truth.
Does the Federal Government Have Absolute Power Over Immigration Policy?
The article in question claims that the federal lawsuit “seeks to block local laws it claims ‘interfere with and discriminate against’ federal immigration policy.” This raises a major legal question: Can the federal government force a state or city to enforce immigration laws?
Under the U.S. Constitution, the federal government has primary authority over immigration. However, the Tenth Amendment prevents the federal government from compelling states to use their resources to enforce federal law. This is known as the anti-commandeering doctrine, which has been reaffirmed in multiple Supreme Court cases, including Printz v. United States (1997) and Murphy v. NCAA (2018).
Does this mean Chicago and Illinois are violating federal law? That depends on the legal interpretation of “interfering” with immigration authorities. The Justice Department argues that Illinois’ policies prevent cooperation, while state officials claim they are simply refusing to go beyond what is legally required of them.
Does the Article Misrepresent Illinois’ ‘Trust Act’?
The BBC article states that the Illinois “Trust Act” prevents “local law enforcement from holding a suspect solely because of an immigration detainer or warrant.” This statement needs additional context.
Federal immigration detainers are civil requests from ICE asking local law enforcement to hold an individual beyond their scheduled release. However, courts have repeatedly ruled that honoring these detainers without a judicial warrant could violate the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unlawful detainment.
Illinois’ law doesn’t outright prohibit police from cooperating with ICE—it simply asserts that they cannot detain someone without independent legal justification. This distinction is crucial because it affects whether Chicago’s policies are seen as obstructing federal law or merely adhering to constitutional protections.
Are ‘Sanctuary Cities’ Really ‘Sanctuaries for Criminals’?
The article includes a quote from former Border Czar Tom Homan claiming that “sanctuary cities are sanctuaries for criminals.” While this is a common political talking point, the claim lacks nuance.
Studies show that sanctuary policies do not necessarily increase crime rates. In fact, research published by the American Journal of Public Health indicates that such policies can improve trust between local police and immigrant communities, encouraging cooperation that helps law enforcement solve crimes. However, opponents argue that limiting cooperation with ICE allows dangerous individuals to avoid deportation.
The BBC article presents Homan’s statement without countering it with expert analysis or empirical data. This omission leaves readers without a full understanding of the ongoing debate.
Final Verdict
The BBC article does contain accurate information about the lawsuit and the broader legal battle over immigration policy. However, it lacks key legal context regarding the states’ rights argument and overstates the restrictions imposed by Illinois’ ‘Trust Act.’ Additionally, it amplifies political rhetoric without offering contrasting expert perspectives.
When reading news on immigration enforcement, it’s critical to consider constitutional limits on federal power, legal precedents surrounding cooperation, and the broader impact of sanctuary policies on crime and public safety.
Want to fact-check more stories? Download our DBUNK app today and cut through misinformation effortlessly.
