DC's 'Sanctuary' Policies Targeted: New Bill Mandates Federal Immigration Cooperation

A new piece of legislation, the "District of Columbia Federal Immigration Compliance Act," is on the table, and it's looking to make some significant changes to how the District of Columbia handles immigration enforcement. In a nutshell, this bill would stop DC from having any laws, policies, or even informal practices that prevent its officials from sharing information about a person's citizenship or immigration status with federal, state, or other local government bodies. It also requires DC to comply with requests from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to hold individuals for immigration purposes, known as "detainers," or to notify DHS about their release, as outlined in sections 236 and 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The Nitty-Gritty: What DC Would Be Required To Do

Under this proposed Act, if DHS, using its authority under federal immigration law (specifically Section 236 concerning detention for removal proceedings, or Section 287 regarding powers of immigration officers), asks DC to hold onto someone or let them know when that person is being released, DC officials would have to comply. This essentially means DC couldn't act as a 'sanctuary jurisdiction' by limiting its cooperation with federal immigration agents. The bill is pretty clear: no local rules can get in the way of sharing immigration status information or honoring these federal requests. For example, if a local DC agency has information about someone's immigration status, they couldn't have a policy that says, 'We don't share that with ICE.' Similarly, if ICE sends a detainer request for an individual in DC custody who is otherwise eligible for release, DC would be mandated to honor that request, potentially holding the person longer than their local charges would dictate.

An Important Exception: Victims and Witnesses

There's a key exception built into Section 2. The bill states that DC wouldn't be violating this new rule if its officials choose not to share information about someone who is a victim or a witness reporting a crime. The same goes for detainer requests – DC officials wouldn't be forced to comply with a DHS detainer for someone who is a victim or witness of a crime. This is a critical point, likely aimed at ensuring people feel safe coming forward to report crimes without fear of immediate immigration consequences. However, the big question is whether this carve-out is enough to maintain trust between immigrant communities and local law enforcement, given the broader mandate for cooperation.

Shifting Gears: Local Autonomy and Real-World Ripples

This legislation directly impacts DC's ability to set its own policies on how it interacts with federal immigration enforcement. By prohibiting sanctuary-style policies, the bill centralizes certain aspects of immigration enforcement, aligning DC's practices more closely with federal priorities. For residents of DC, particularly those in immigrant communities, this could mean increased interactions with federal immigration authorities facilitated by local agencies. While the bill aims for stricter federal immigration compliance, it also raises questions about the allocation of local resources and the potential for individuals to be detained based on civil immigration detainers even if they face no local criminal charges or have resolved minor offenses. The everyday reality could be a more visible federal immigration presence and a change in how local DC government navigates its relationship with its diverse population.