News Summary

The Trump administration has labeled Kent County and Kalamazoo County in Michigan as ‘sanctuary jurisdictions.’ This designation could jeopardize federal funding and has drawn various responses from local officials who argue that their policies do not obstruct federal immigration enforcement but aim to create safe communities. The implications of this designation and the local versus federal authority in immigration matters are a pressing concern.

Kent County and Kalamazoo County, Michigan are now listed as “sanctuary jurisdictions” by the Trump administration, according to a recent announcement from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This designation, detailed in a report released on May 29, identifies these counties as areas that allegedly obstruct federal immigration law enforcement.

The DHS describes “sanctuary jurisdictions” as places that “deliberately obstruct the enforcement of federal immigration laws.” Along with Kent and Kalamazoo Counties, several other locations in Michigan, including Ann Arbor, Lansing, Oakland County, Washtenaw County, Wayne County, and Wexford County, have also been included on this list.

Each jurisdiction mentioned has reportedly received formal notification from the DHS regarding their alleged noncompliance with federal immigration laws. This notification indicates that the federal government may reconsider or reduce funding to these counties, a significant concern for local officials who argue that such actions could jeopardize vital resources for families and services in their communities.

In light of the designation, the Kent County Board of Commissioners made a decision earlier this year not to pursue sanctuary status. During a February meeting, county officials focused on their local legal matters and emphasized that immigration policy enforcement is primarily a federal responsibility. Kent County Administrator Al Vanderberg stated that their focus is not to interfere with established federal policies.

Meanwhile, Kalamazoo County officials have firmly denied being a sanctuary jurisdiction. They have expressed that the label is both inaccurate and misleading, noting that they maintain no policies that infringe upon federal immigration enforcement. Local leaders in Kalamazoo are concerned about the repercussions of this classification, particularly regarding potential risks to federal funding that supports local services.

Local jurisdictions in Michigan are reacting to the designation, with many asserting that their policies are not meant to obstruct federal enforcement of immigration laws but to create safer communities for all residents. For example, city leaders in Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County have articulated their commitment to supportive, immigrant-friendly practices, countering the notion that they represent sanctuary policies. Officials in these areas maintain that they have in place laws that limit collaboration with federal immigration authorities to focus on public safety.

Further complicating the situation, an executive order from the Trump administration issued on April 28 tasked the U.S. Attorney General and the DHS to identify jurisdictions that obstruct federal immigration laws, further intensifying scrutiny of local policies regarding immigration. In response, Washtenaw County officials have stated their refusal to comply with any requests for records related to county programs that assist immigrant communities.

Commissioner Katie Scott of Washtenaw County highlighted that their welcoming stance toward immigrants does not contradict federal immigration policy. Local leaders, including mayors and county commissioners, assert that federal actions targeting their jurisdictions appear to be politically motivated and do not accurately reflect their dedication to supporting immigrant communities.

As the Trump administration continues to implement its immigration policy agenda, the classifications of Kent and Kalamazoo Counties as “sanctuary jurisdictions” could potentially lead to significant debates about local versus federal authority in immigration matters. The implications of this designation for federal funding and local services remain to be seen as county leaders navigate the complex political landscape surrounding immigration enforcement.