Governors defend state immigration policies as GOP lawmakers press ‘sanctuary’ claims

The House Oversight Committee heard sharply divided testimony Tuesday over state “sanctuary” policies and cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, with Republican members pressing three governors and witnesses for sharper state cooperation and Democrats warning against federal overreach.

Committee Chairman James Comer opened the hearing by saying, "Sanctuary policies do not protect Americans. They protect criminal illegal aliens," and called governors Tim Walz (Minn.), J.B. Pritzker (Ill.) and Kathy Hochul (N.Y.) to explain why their states decline routine use of local resources for civil immigration enforcement.

The governors strongly rejected the label “sanctuary state” as applied to their jurisdictions and framed their positions around constitutional limits and public-safety priorities. "Minnesota is not even a sanctuary state," Gov. Walz said, describing how state law requires cooperation with federal authorities when there is a judicial warrant or a convicted felon in state custody. Gov. Pritzker said Illinois "follows the law" and highlighted investment in violence prevention and cooperation on criminal cases. Gov. Hochul said New York "does cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in criminal cases" while declining to make civil immigration enforcement the routine work of local officers.

Committee Republicans contested those claims and pressed the governors with cases raised by victims’ families during the hearing. Rep. James Comer and others cited fatal cases — including the January crash that killed Katie Abraham in Illinois, which Comer said involved a previously deported driver — and demanded clearer statements that convicted violent offenders should be detained for federal transfer.

Democratic members and witness Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward Foundation, countered that recent federal enforcement tactics have endangered U.S. citizens and undermined community trust. Perryman warned that ICE operations in schools, churches and hospitals and the administration’s suspension of policies protecting “sensitive locations” have prompted litigation and community alarm. "These agents are also going into previously protected spaces," she said, and her organization has sued several times to block overbroad federal actions.

Neither side advanced new federal legislation at the hearing. Several committee members asked the governors whether they would change state rules to detain people on ICE civil detainers; governors repeatedly answered that states and counties must follow federal and state law and that cooperation occurs in criminal cases and when there is judicial process.

The hearing also threaded questions about costs and state budgets: lawmakers and governors traded figures and claims about how much states spend managing migrant arrivals. Governors said the larger solution is congressional immigration reform to create lawful pathways and to fund federal enforcement; Republicans said stronger state cooperation and punitive steps against jurisdictions that refuse to detain civil immigration holds should be considered.

The session ran for several hours and included emotional appearances by victims’ family members. No formal votes or new policies were adopted during the hearing; members on both sides said they would seek additional briefings and documents.

The hearing illustrated deep political divisions: Republicans framed the issues as law-and-order failures that invite crime and expense; Democrats emphasized due process, state sovereignty over certain state functions, and legal challenges to federal enforcement practices. Several governors urged a bipartisan legislative solution in Congress to overhaul immigration policy and to reduce friction between levels of government.