New Era of Immigration Enforcement May Reduce Squabbles between Counties

Many Americans would sadly agree that family disputes over politics and immigration are on the rise. In some households, dinner tables have become minefields of potential discord turning holiday gatherings into risky tours of duty. It should be no surprise then that feuds have spread to larger-scale disagreements between entire neighboring counties. With a raggedy patchwork of immigration laws, ordinances, and resolutions existing throughout many of the nation’s 3,069 counties, the result is that jurisdictions adjacent to one another often have vastly different policies. Tensions are mounting, particularly between those that have recently doubled-down on their sanctuary policies to thwart the new administration’s enforcement plans, and those that have toughened their policies to help reduce illegal immigration.
Case in point is the current quarrel between Ingham County and Livingston County in Michigan. Located in the southern central part of the state, each county has almost identical land mass and midsize populations (284,000 and 193,000 respectively) while sharing a border.
But that’s about all they have in common.
In September of 2024, the Livingston County Board of Commissioners unanimously approved a “resolution to “Monitor and Document Contacts between Illegal Immigrants and the Livingston County Sheriff’s Office.” The commissioners’ decision was based on common sense judgment that illegal immigration was worsening and that something needed to be done, their justification expressed below:
“Whereas citizens continue to express concerns about illegal immigration and its associated increase in crime, and whereas, ignoring these concerns, Border Czar Kamala Harris has permitted millions of illegal immigrants to cross our borders, and whereas, though largely denied and underreported by major media organizations, these illegal immigrants have contributed to an increase in crime, and whereas, this increased criminal activity is not just isolated to southern border states.”
Public officials in Livingston County hope their new resolution will provide them more data so they can responsibly assess, budget for, and ideally mitigate the impact of illegal immigration on their county.
Neighboring Ingham County doesn’t think much of that, so much so that their county commissioners got huffy and put forth a resolution opposing Livingston’s resolution which, off-handedly they referred to as “demonizing those that were already marginalized and vulnerable.”(And never mind it’s another county and none of their business). Ultimately though, the Ingham County commissioners decided the better way to poke Livingston County in the eye was to reinforce its existing illegal alien sanctuary policies which it did by passing “A Resolution Reaffirming that Ingham County is a Welcoming Community to Immigrants.” (Conflating “immigrants” with “illegal aliens” as is standard practice in all sanctuary edicts.)
Then, just to punctuate their disdain for their neighbor’s policies, Ingham County delivered a copy of their newly strengthened sanctuary resolution to Livingston’s County commissioners, who then responded by unanimously rejecting the letter at their recent meeting.
This need not be.
Thomas Jefferson’s belief that, “A difference in politics should never be permitted to enter into social intercourse, or to disturb its friendships, its charities or justice” may be widely optimistic in today’s political polarization. Yet the fractious issue of immigration at least can be resolved. But it requires an intensified federal effort to coordinate and enforce a robustly uniform application of existing laws that set clear, consistent standards for locales, and sanctions levied against jurisdictions whose policies aid and abet illegal immigration.
After all, anyone who has played Monopoly knows fights emerge when one person insists the rules are ambiguous regarding whether the pot of money in the middle of the board belongs to the bank or whoever lands on Free Parking.
Clarity counts, as do baseline rules all agree upon.
Ingham County may not like it, but recognition of established immigration laws and rules – notably absent during the Biden administration – has a way, over time, of creating more orderly and civil societies.
At least, it would be one less contentious issue at Thanksgiving.
Support from readers like you is crucial in funding FAIR’s operations. Please consider making a difference with a tax-deductible contribution and join our efforts in educating the public on sensible immigration reform.