Cleveland could face same scrutiny as other "sanctuary cities"
Add Axios as your preferred source to
see more of our stories on Google.
Illustration: Allie Carl/Axios
The recent spotlight on "sanctuary cities" could put Cleveland's immigration policies in the crosshairs of the Trump administration and state Republicans.
Why it matters: Earlier this week, President Trump signed an executive order calling for federal agencies to document cities and states with laws and ordinances that don't comply with Trump's federal immigration laws.
- "Sanctuary cities" that don't comply "may" lose federal funding, the White House said.
Zoom in: At the same time, Ohio lawmakers are considering House Bill 26, a Republican-sponsored bill that would require cities to cooperate with federal immigration laws or face state funding restrictions.
The intrigue: Cleveland is not considered a "sanctuary city" by the Center for Immigration Studies, which tracks local governments that "obstruct immigration enforcement and shield criminals from ICE."
- However, Mayor Justin Bibb has been vocal in his opposition to federal immigration policies.
- "My administration will not engage in the deportation of individuals who have not committed violent crimes ... No law requires that we do so," Bibb said after Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids swept across Northeast Ohio in January.
Flashback: City Council passed a resolution in 1987 declaring Cleveland a sanctuary city.
- Yes, but: A resolution is not legally enforceable in the same way as a law or ordinance.
What's next: Trump's order directs Attorney General Pam Bondi and the Department of Homeland Security to identify non-compliant cities and states within a month.
- They are to publish a list of jurisdictions and notify them, providing an opportunity to correct it.
- Meanwhile, HB 26 had its first hearing, which featured sponsor testimony, in front of the Public Safety Committee earlier this week. A vote has yet to be held.
What they're saying: "Our role as the state and federal government is still to enforce reasonable laws, make sure that people's rights are protected," bill co-sponsor Rep. Tex Fischer (R-Boardman) said in February, per the Columbus Dispatch.
- "There is not a constitutionally protected right to illegally enter and reside in this country."
The other side: What about those 'oops' moments where the sheriff goes, picks someone up, the person is detained, maybe detained for a long period of time, loses their job and loses their benefits, things of that nature?" Rep. Darnell Brewer (D-Cleveland) asked in questioning the bill, per the Statehouse News Bureau.
- "Where is the due process to make sure we are not using it one — as a moneymaker, and two — just as a retaliation piece as well?"