Lawmaker defends sanctuary policies at Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing

A lawmaker told the Senate Committee on Appropriations at a hearing that sanctuary policies are intended to limit federal overreach and preserve local discretion over law-enforcement priorities.

The lawmaker said the session—described as the committee's second hearing this Congress and the first this calendar year—was not about the federal budget but about what the speaker called an off-base national debate over sanctuary policies. “Sanctuary policies simply affirm that immigration enforcement is the job of the federal government,” the lawmaker said, arguing the federal government cannot unilaterally co-opt state and local authorities or their resources.

Why it matters: The exchange frames a recurring constitutional and policy dispute over federalism and immigration enforcement. The speaker cited Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion in Printz v. United States as legal backing for the proposition that the federal government cannot compel states to administer federal regulatory programs, and said empirical research shows sanctuary jurisdictions perform as well or better on some economic and public-safety measures.

The lawmaker cited a range of claimed empirical benefits, saying research shows sanctuary jurisdictions have “lower crime rates, higher median household income, less poverty assistance, higher labor-force participation and lower unemployment.” The lawmaker added, “Let’s stop perpetuating the lies,” and urged that ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection be held accountable to the law and the Constitution.

For the record and evidentiary claims, the speaker announced they would submit articles and reports from researchers at the University of Texas at Austin, the Center for American Progress, the University of Arizona, the University of North Carolina, and the American Immigration Council. The speaker framed those materials as support for the contention that sanctuary policies make communities safer and more prosperous.

The hearing transcript includes the lawmaker’s argumentation and references to court precedent and research, but the transcript excerpt provided does not show any formal votes, motions, or agency responses on the record. The chairman was noted as present at the close of the excerpt but no substantive response from the chair appears in the included segments.

Next steps: The lawmaker said the materials would be submitted for the record; the committee’s further scheduling or formal actions on the topic were not specified in the transcript excerpt provided.