Tom Homan’s Deft Handling of Mayor Frey’s Refusal to Enforce ‘Federal Immigration Laws’

He’s staying focused on creating a template for collaborative federal-local enforcement efforts.

A s we’ve detailed (see here and here), President Trump has prudently placed his so-called border czar Tom Homan in charge of the enforcement surge in Minneapolis, supplanting Border Patrol commander Greg Bovino and consigning Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to the back office.

On Tuesday, Homan had what he describes (in an X post) as a productive meeting with the top Democrats in the equation, Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey. Homan said, “We all agree that we need to support our law enforcement officers and get criminals off the streets” but added, “We don’t agree on everything.”

Homan’s post was a deft response to Frey’s statement, “We won’t enforce federal immigration laws.” Frey has the president in a tizzy, but Homan’s parry was the way to play it.

Let’s parse Frey’s comment.

The mayor is engaged in the common political legerdemain of mouthing words that sound defiant (in hopes of pleasing his progressive base) but that actually say nothing of consequence because, technically, they just reaffirm existing law.

Technically, only the feds can enforce federal law. States can help, and in some places, there is state law that duplicates federal law, so that the enforcement of state law has the effect of helping enforce federal law; but even then, the cities and states do not enforce federal law. (Exception: In many instances, state and municipal police, led by the FBI, join federal-state task forces targeting various kinds of crime. In those arrangements, the police are formally deputized to enforce federal law.)

Moreover, as Homan has previously acknowledged, the courts draw a line between the federal government’s seeking the state’s assistance (which is encouraged) and federal commandeering of state enforcement mechanisms (which is forbidden). Add to the mix: Minneapolis municipal law codifies some sanctuary policies that the mayor could not change even if he wanted to — there would have to be legislative amendment.

Hence, when Frey says Minneapolis authorities (mainly, the police) won’t enforce federal immigration laws, he is simply saying something that is legally unimpeachable: Minneapolis police and prosecutors do not actually enforce federal law, and as long as they do not affirmatively obstruct the feds, they are permitted to refrain from abetting their enforcement operations.

Homan adroitly handled what the president saw as a provocation. First, the border czar referred to supporting law enforcement officers — not just federal agents. Experienced feds know that, other than cooperation from the public itself, local police are the force multiplier in law enforcement. There are many more cops than feds; they live in and intimately know their communities. Federal operations that have local support tend to succeed spectacularly; those that don’t fail almost invariably.

Homan’s point is that the feds need to support the Minneapolis PD as much as they need the PD’s support. That entails coordinating with the cops regarding when and where the feds want to execute immigration-enforcement operations: Make it easier for the cops to help ensure security, rather than be surprised and have to respond only after chaos has erupted (as has happened too many times, with tragic ramifications, during the past three weeks).

A big part of achieving cooperation is agreement on the objective. Here, Homan said that both the federal and state governments agree that “we need to . . . get criminals off the street” (emphasis added). Not illegal aliens; he said criminals.

Homan knows this is an objective on which Frey and the Minneapolis PD can easily concur: Even if there were no immigration-law operations, the people of Minneapolis don’t want street crime. And if federal immigration law can facilitate getting real criminals out of the community, it should make no difference to the city and state whether those criminals are aliens — everyone can agree that they’re bad guys.

With that in mind, let’s consider three practical matters.

First, if the feds want to arrest someone wanted for serious local crimes (such as violent assault or major theft), the cops can help apprehend the target on the rationale that they are enforcing state law, not federal law.

Second, what the feds could really use from the Minneapolis cops is help with crowd control. They don’t need the cops to arrest suspects wanted for immigration violations; they need the cops to ensure that the feds can make the arrests without undue fear of mob violence.

The city would probably be willing to do that if both sides are in agreement on the appropriate targets. That is, if the feds just want to snoop around randomly and hassle whomever they encounter to try to determine who might be in the country illegally, Minneapolis is not going to get anywhere near that. But if these are targeted operations aimed at apprehending real criminals — even if those criminals have not necessarily violated Minnesota law — the cops should be willing to show the flag and secure the places where the feds are operating, since that is just a matter of enforcing Minneapolis law (people can protest peacefully, but they cannot forcibly impede police operations).

Third and finally, detainers. There is confusion about them, as well as some disingenuousness on the part of Governor Walz.

In this context, an immigration detainer is a request by the federal government with respect to a prisoner who is being held by state or municipal authorities on state charges (often, a conviction of violating state law). It pertains to prisoners who have violated federal immigration law — an arrest warrant or a warrant of removal has been issued by a federal court or by executive immigration authorities. The detainer asks the state to hold the prisoner in custody when the prisoner’s state incarceration term ends so that the feds can come and take him into federal custody at the state prison.

States should support this because, otherwise, the feds have to try to arrest people — who are often violent criminals — out on the street. That endangers the public (as well as the federal agents and the released prisoner).

Alas, there are problems.

On the state side, sanctuary policies often forbid the state and/or municipal authorities to hold prisoners beyond their scheduled release date based on federal immigration warrants (whereas they would hold the prisoner for, say, a warrant charging quotidian federal crimes).

On the federal side, the problems involve undue burdens imposed on states. Because federal resources are sparse, the feds will sometimes wait days or weeks to send agents to claim the detained prisoner. Frequently, the feds also expect the state and local prison authorities to keep track of when a prisoner on whom there is a detainer is scheduled to be released; justifiably, the states complain that such tracking should be federal government’s job. Add it up and you find that immigration detainers can cost the state real money, in terms of both detention space and administrative costs.

The respective governments should be able to work out such details. Currently, the major hurdle is the sanctuary policies.

The reason I say Walz has been misleading is that he has assured that the State of Minnesota does honor federal immigration detainers. In a vacuum, that makes it sound as if Minnesota does not have sanctuary policies that undermine immigration enforcement. That’s not true.

While it’s all well and good that the state’s Department of Corrections honors immigration detainers, Walz knows that isn’t the half of it. Many prisoners in Minnesota are detained in city and county detention facilities. These are not run by the state’s Department of Corrections; they are managed by sheriffs or local governments and follow their own policies regarding detainers. In the Twin Cities area, that includes sanctuary policies. They won’t commit to honoring immigration detainers.

Again, the feds may not commandeer state resources to enforce federal law. Congress should require the state to honor all federal detainers as a condition of receiving federal funds to support law enforcement and corrections programs, but with the caveat that the feds must reimburse the states for the pertinent housing and administrative costs. Such an arrangement would satisfy the Supreme Court’s instruction (in the 2010 Obamacare case, NFIB v. Sebelius) that federal mandates may impose reasonable burdens but not extortionate ones.

With that proviso, the states should acknowledge that, by holding people who were in custody in the first place because of criminal violations of state law, they are not enforcing federal immigration law — they have nothing to do with the federal proceedings. Minnesota and its cities, mainly Minneapolis, would merely be detaining people until the feds pick them up; this would increase public safety, because the feds wouldn’t have to chase and arrest them on the streets.

If Tom Homan can make headway on most of this, the Trump immigration-enforcement agenda will be significantly advanced: He will have created a template for collaborative federal-local efforts in cities around the country. The president did the right thing in putting Homan in charge; now, he should let Homan handle it and avoid rhetoric that can only make it harder for Frey to work with the feds.