Lauren R. Aronson is a Clinical Professor of Law and the Director of the Immigration Law Clinic at the University of Illinois College of Law. She joined the faculty in 2019, after previously leading the Immigration Law Clinic at LSU Law. Aronson has a rich background in working directly with immigrant populations, particularly in her role as a Staff Attorney at the National Immigrant Justice Center in Chicago.
Aronson’s scholarly focus is on the treatment of immigrant children in U.S. immigration law, with a special emphasis on unaccompanied minors. She responds to the recent directives from the Trump administration regarding undocumented immigrants and explains how they may impact Illinois law.
How do Illinois’ sanctuary policies interact with recent federal directives aimed at intensifying deportation efforts?
Illinois’ sanctuary policies, particularly the TRUST Act, prohibit state and local law enforcement from cooperating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in detaining individuals solely based on their immigration status. Governor Pritzker has supported this, stating that non-criminal immigrants will not be handed over to ICE. However, this conflicts with the federal stance, especially under Trump, where any law enforcement officer, even local ones, could be deputized to assist in ICE arrests. The Trump administration also threatened to withhold federal funding from sanctuary cities, but this action was legally challenged and unsuccessful in the past.
In light of Governor JB Pritzker’s commitment to protect undocumented immigrants with no criminal background, how might state laws, such as the Illinois TRUST Act, be challenged or upheld under the current federal immigration enforcement strategies?
State laws like Illinois’s TRUST Act may be challenged by federal authorities, especially under administrations that seek to enforce stronger immigration policies. However, states have the constitutional right to set their own policies regarding cooperation with federal agencies. While the federal government may try to enforce its directives, I hope Illinois will continue to uphold its sanctuary stance, particularly when it comes to otherwise law-abiding immigrants.
Considering the recent immigration raids in Chicago, what legal avenues are available for the state or local governments to resist or challenge federal immigration enforcement actions that they deem overreaching?
States and local governments can challenge federal enforcement actions in court, claiming illegal or overreaching actions, particularly when federal agents do not follow proper procedures, such as failing to present warrants. However, the effectiveness of such legal challenges is uncertain under the current administration, especially if federal agencies disregard court orders or continue to act with impunity. The legal recourse may include taking ICE to court for unlawful actions, but it’s unclear how much this will slow down federal immigration enforcement.
How might the recent federal immigration enforcement actions in Illinois affect the legal status and rights of undocumented individuals, particularly in sanctuary cities like Chicago?
While sanctuary cities like Chicago provide some protections, such as allowing undocumented individuals to live without fear of immigration detention after arrest for minor infractions, federal immigration enforcement actions still affect their daily lives. Undocumented individuals may face anxiety and fear of deportation, impacting their ability to work, access healthcare, or go about their daily lives safely. Sanctuary policies do not grant legal immigration status but aim to help undocumented individuals live with dignity and without constant fear.
Is there anything else you would like to share on this topic?
I have deep concerns over the current immigration climate. While immigrants are the primary target, they warned that the federal government’s overreach could eventually extend to other groups, not just immigrants. The situation seems bleak, and the implications are far-reaching, potentially threatening the safety and rights of all vulnerable populations.