Fact check: Do sanctuary states and cities that prevent ICE from arresting criminals.

1. Summary of the results

The analyses reveal a complex reality regarding sanctuary policies and ICE arrests that contradicts the simple premise of the original question. Sanctuary states and cities do not completely prevent ICE from arresting criminals, despite implementing policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

Multiple sources demonstrate that ICE continues to successfully arrest individuals in sanctuary jurisdictions. The Department of Homeland Security reports that ICE has "successfully detained dangerous criminal illegal aliens in Sanctuary jurisdictions across the country" ^[1]. Furthermore, ICE leadership has stated that agents will arrest anyone found in the country illegally, with priority given to "the worst of the worst" - those with serious criminal histories ^[2].

Sanctuary policies create obstacles but do not create impenetrable barriers. While these policies "can make it harder for ICE to arrest people," they "do not completely prevent arrests," though operations may become "more time-consuming and resource-intensive" ^[3]. Importantly, ICE has developed methods to bypass sanctuary policies, particularly through the use of federal judicial warrants that "override local sanctuary policies" ^[4].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks crucial context about what sanctuary policies actually do versus what they're designed to prevent. California's sanctuary law, for example, "does not actually prevent ICE from arresting and deporting undocumented immigrants, but rather limits how local law enforcement can interact with federal immigration officers" ^[5]. Critically, these laws "do not shield dangerous criminals from being turned over to federal authorities" ^[5].

Political motivations and beneficiaries are absent from the original framing. The Department of Homeland Security has used sanctuary jurisdiction lists to "push back against local municipalities that the administration believes are obstructing its goals to increase immigration-related arrests and deportations" ^[6]. However, this approach faced significant pushback, with DHS eventually removing such lists "after facing criticism from mayors and law enforcement" ^[6].

Federal agencies benefit from portraying sanctuary policies as complete obstructions to law enforcement, as this narrative supports expanded federal authority and resources. Local jurisdictions benefit from sanctuary policies by maintaining community trust and focusing local resources on local priorities rather than federal immigration enforcement.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question contains a false premise by suggesting that sanctuary jurisdictions completely "prevent ICE from arresting criminals." This framing ignores substantial evidence that ICE continues to operate effectively in sanctuary jurisdictions ^{[1] [3] [4]}.

The question employs loaded language by focusing specifically on "criminals" without acknowledging that sanctuary policies are designed to limit cooperation in all immigration cases, not just those involving criminals. The evidence shows that ICE arrests both criminals and non-criminals in these jurisdictions, with the agency stating it will arrest "anyone found in the country illegally" ^[2].

Government sources present conflicting narratives - while DHS claims sanctuary jurisdictions "deliberately obstruct the enforcement of federal immigration laws and endanger American citizens" ^[7], other evidence demonstrates that dangerous criminals are not shielded from federal authorities and that ICE has found effective workarounds to sanctuary policies ^{[5] [4]}.

The framing benefits those who seek to eliminate sanctuary policies entirely by overstating their impact on public safety, while ignoring evidence that these policies can coexist with effective federal immigration enforcement.