North Dakota Sheriffs Rebut Federal "Sanctuary" Designation, Citing Misinformation and Lack of Transparency
FARGO, N.D. – A clash has erupted between the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and several North Dakota counties over their designation as "sanctuary jurisdictions" for illegal immigrants. The DHS, under Secretary Kristi Noem, recently published a list that includes seven predominantly rural North Dakota counties: Billings, Golden Valley, Grant, Morton, Ramsey, Sioux, and Slope. This designation has drawn sharp rebukes from the North Dakota Sheriffs and Deputies Association, who argue the label is based on misinformation and lacks transparency. The controversy centers on the DHS’s assertion that these counties are obstructing federal immigration enforcement, thereby endangering American communities.
The DHS’s stance, as articulated by Secretary Noem, alleges that "sanctuary city politicians are endangering Americans and our law enforcement in order to protect violent criminal illegal aliens." Noem emphasized the administration’s commitment to prioritizing the safety of American citizens and warned sanctuary jurisdictions to comply with federal law. This strong rhetoric frames the issue as a matter of public safety and national security, pitting local authorities against federal mandates. However, the North Dakota sheriffs offer a starkly different perspective, claiming the DHS’s characterization is inaccurate and unfairly portrays their commitment to upholding the law.
The North Dakota Sheriffs and Deputies Association issued a forceful response, asserting that the designated counties "strongly believe that this is misinformation and a mischaracterization of how they uphold the rule of law in North Dakota." They underscored their history of effective collaboration with federal partners, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), contradicting the DHS’s claim of obstruction. A key point of contention is the lack of clarity surrounding the DHS’s methodology for compiling the list. The sheriffs highlight the absence of communication from the DHS regarding the criteria used or how counties can rectify their alleged non-compliance.
The sheriffs further object to the DHS’s accusatory language, specifically the claim that these counties are "deliberately and shamefully obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws endangering American communities." They argue this statement is fundamentally untrue and misrepresents their daily efforts to protect the public and hold criminals accountable, regardless of immigration status. This underscores the disconnect between the federal government’s perception of these counties’ actions and the sheriffs’ on-the-ground experience. The association is actively seeking more information to understand the DHS’s rationale and address the lack of transparency that led to these counties’ inclusion on the list.
The political landscape of the listed counties adds another layer to the controversy. Six of the seven counties voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election, with an average margin of nearly 70 points. Only Sioux County supported Kamala Harris. This raises questions about the political motivations behind the DHS’s designations, particularly given the strong pro-Trump sentiment in most of the named counties. The inclusion of these largely conservative counties suggests factors beyond simple non-compliance with immigration law may be at play.
The DHS list also identifies Minnesota as a self-identified state sanctuary jurisdiction and names 20 Minnesota counties, including Otter Tail County, as sanctuary counties. Furthermore, the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul are listed as sanctuary cities. This broader context indicates a wider pattern of disagreement between the DHS and local jurisdictions regarding immigration enforcement policies. The inclusion of an entire state and several urban areas alongside rural North Dakota counties suggests a more systemic issue rather than isolated incidents of non-compliance. The ongoing tension between federal immigration mandates and local law enforcement practices will likely continue to fuel debate and legal challenges in the future. The North Dakota sheriffs’ challenge to the DHS’s designations represents a crucial test case for the balance of power between federal and local authorities on immigration enforcement.
