Tom Homan’s Strong Remarks on Sanctuary Policies Highlight Key Issues in Immigration Debate
Tom Homan’s testimony before the House Judiciary Subcommittee highlighted significant tensions surrounding federal immigration enforcement. On April 9, 2025, Homan, the former Acting Director of ICE, addressed the committee during a session focused on the impact of sanctuary policies on public safety and federal law enforcement initiatives. His comments pointed to a growing rift between federal officials and Democratic representatives who oppose stringent immigration measures.
A central figure in Homan’s critique was Democratic Representative Alma Adams from North Carolina, who has consistently decried federal immigration actions in her district. Homan’s response to her criticism was pointed: “We’re going to keep doing it. She can dislike it all she wants.” This summed up Homan’s steadfast approach to enforcement, emphasizing a commitment to the law in the face of opposition.
The subcommittee hearing, titled “Sanctuary Jurisdictions: Magnet for Migrants, Cover for Criminals,” set the stage for a deep dive into how local sanctuary policies affect the apprehension and deportation of individuals who pose a risk to public safety, including those with violent criminal backgrounds. Homan’s position resonated with law enforcement officials present, including Sheriff Dale Wagner from Adams County, Washington. He shared harrowing accounts of criminals released due to sanctuary rules, notably referencing a murder case that could have been avoided had ICE been allowed to take custody before the individual was released. Wagner’s comment rang with tragic weight: “Had ICE been allowed to take custody, the victim would still be alive today.”
This testimony illustrated how sanctuary policies can lead to real-world consequences that extend beyond theoretical discussions. Homan underscored the practical implications of these policies, arguing that they actively hinder efforts to remove dangerous individuals from communities. He challenged Rep. Adams directly, stating, “We’re taking public safety threats out of her community every day—that makes HER community safer.”
The debate within the hearing revealed stark divisions. On one side, Democrats, including Rep. Pramila Jayapal, defended sanctuary policies as vital for maintaining public trust among immigrant communities. According to Jayapal, such policies allow undocumented individuals to report crimes without fear of deportation. However, opponents of these measures presented a compelling counterargument: the safety of communities is jeopardized when dangerous individuals evade federal enforcement due to local non-cooperation.
RJ Hauman, president of the National Immigration Center for Enforcement, reinforced this perspective by citing data from Texas jurisdictions that ban sanctuary policies. He reported observed declines in repeat offenses and efficient removals of criminal aliens, highlighting that the elimination of such non-cooperation did not lead to increased fear within immigrant communities. This evidence adds weight to claims challenging the efficacy of sanctuary policies.
The divide became even more pronounced as lawmakers sparred over the legality and constitutionality of ICE detainers. Critics argue that local law enforcement compliance raises issues related to the Tenth Amendment. Meanwhile, Homan remained focused on the moral ramifications, declaring, “This isn’t about politics—it’s about saving lives.” He pointed to the risks posed by releasing individuals with criminal convictions simply because local officials might feel they know better than federal authorities.
Polls suggest that public opinion may be shifting toward a more supportive stance on immigration enforcement tied to violent crime. A Rasmussen survey from 2024 indicated that a significant majority—64% of respondents—believed local law enforcement should work with ICE concerning individuals charged with violent offenses, regardless of their immigration status.
As the hearing drew to a close, Subcommittee Chair Tom McClintock articulated the stakes of the debate plainly: “When elected officials block the lawful removal of violent criminals, the consequences aren’t speculative. People are hurt. Families are broken.” This sentiment aligns closely with Homan’s assertion that politics should not overshadow the mission of maintaining public safety.
In his concluding remarks, Homan expressed frustration with the lack of cooperation from certain lawmakers. “We’d like [Rep. Adams] to be a partner and come and work with us on it—but she doesn’t want it. We’re not going to stop doing our jobs just because politicians are whining.” Homan’s firm tone underscored his commitment to his role, regardless of political pushback.
The overarching narrative emerging from the hearing speaks to a fundamental clash over how immigration enforcement aligns with public safety and constitutional rights. As the 2025 election cycle approaches, the discourse surrounding sanctuary policies and federal immigration efforts will undoubtedly intensify. Homan’s emphatic declaration—“We’re enforcing the law. Period.”—sums up a clear message: the commitment to public safety cannot be compromised.
"*" indicates required fields
