Experts weigh in on regional efforts to limit federal immigration enforcement

By Brett Davis
The Center Square

King County and Seattle have recently taken steps to hamper any possible federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement activities in their jurisdictions, specifically to limit enforcement on local property and to prevent the expansion of detention facilities.

King County and Seattle were placed on a 2025 list of 500 “sanctuary jurisdictions” by the federal government for obstructing immigration enforcement.

Earlier this month, King County Executive Director Girmay Zahilay signed an executive order prohibiting federal immigration authorities from accessing non-public, county-owned or controlled spaces. The executive order also allocates $2 million to bolster protections for immigrant and refugee communities.

Late last month, Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson announced a series of initial steps to prepare the city for a potential surge in federal immigration enforcement, including directing the police department to verify the identification of federal agents and document reports of immigration enforcement activity, prohibiting federal immigration officials from using city-owned or controlled property for enforcement activities and allocating $4 million to local immigrant support organizations.

The Seattle City Council is currently considering a measure that would prohibit new detention centers within its city limits, a direct response to potential Department of Homeland Security efforts to increase ICE facilities in the region.

These actions come on the heels of the high-profile fatal shootings of civilians Renée Good and Alex Pretti by federal agents last month during immigration enforcement efforts in Minneapolis.

A July 2025 federal law – the One Big Beautiful Bill Act – that authorized more than $170 billion in new funding for immigration enforcement also prompted preparation for possible heightened ICE activity in Washington state.

The Center Square reached out to a pair of experts – immigration attorney Hector Quiroga and Jessica Vaughan with the Center for Immigration Studies – for their thoughts on regional preparations for a potential surge in federal immigration enforcement efforts.

“The actions taken by both the Seattle City Council and King County reflect a sanctuary policy approach,” explained Quiroga, CEO of the Spokane Valley-based Quiroga Law Office, which has multiple branch locations in Washington, including offices in Kennewick, Wenatchee, Vancouver and Tacoma. “They are designed to protect immigrant communities by limiting local collaboration with federal immigration agencies, except when there is a valid judicial order. Legally, these jurisdictions have certain backing under the Immigration and Nationality Act, which establishes that cooperation with ICE is voluntary, except in specific cases. Additionally, these measures are consistent with legal precedents that recognize local authority to decide how to use their own resources and handle personal data.”

Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Washington, D.C.-based CIS, was less sanguine about the actions taken by King County and Seattle.

“These new policies are puzzling and reckless,” she said. “There is no rational justification for obstructing immigration enforcement against illegal aliens who have committed other crimes, and there is no rational justification for preventing law enforcement agencies from sharing information that is related to a legitimate and important enforcement purpose.”

Federal law authorizes ICE to remove individuals, including those who have committed violent crimes, so sanctuary jurisdictions cannot legally prevent that from happening. Sanctuary policies can significantly hinder the removal process by limiting cooperation between local law enforcement and federal authorities.

“From a legal and rights-protection perspective, yes, these policies are appropriate,” Quiroga said. “Limiting cooperation in civil cases and allocating resources to organizations that support immigrants helps strengthen community trust. What I do not agree with is the perception that these measures automatically put public safety at risk; the law allows exceptions for individuals accused or convicted of serious crimes, and these jurisdictions are aware of and apply those exceptions.”

Vaughan questioned that notion.

“It is safer for everyone for ICE to arrest deportable criminal aliens in the secure environment of the jails, but these rules prohibit ICE from entering the jails,” she said. “They will prohibit local police from informing ICE when a wanted deportable criminal alien is being released from a jail. Why would the local political leaders want to shield criminal aliens from enforcement and give them the opportunity to continue preying on people in the community?”

The perception that local jurisdictions are letting violent illegal immigrants escape justice is not accurate, according to Quiroga.

“Washington jurisdictions are not refusing to comply with detainer orders issued by federal judges or in cases of serious crimes,” he said. “Local policies focus on voluntary cooperation in civil, not criminal, cases. Therefore, not automatically turning over every detainee does not necessarily create a public safety risk, as long as protocols for individuals with serious or violent criminal records are followed.

“In practice, these measures prioritize protecting the general immigrant community from arbitrary detentions, those who do not pose a risk and could only be detained because of their immigration status, while maintaining exceptions for cases that do present a risk.”

Vaughan criticized Wilson’s directing the SPD to verify the identity of federal agents and document their activities when operating within the city.

“It is amusing, but absurd, that the politicians want to force local police to verify the identity of ICE officers, but apparently not criminal aliens,” she said. “This is beyond virtue-signaling; it is deliberate obstruction of an important activity that protects the public and preserves the integrity of our legal immigration system. There will be consequences for these jurisdictions, but sadly, not for the politicians who are toying with people’s safety.”