This Kansas town doesn't hate immigrants enough. So the Trump administration plots vengeance.
The Trump administration has put my town — the place my family and I call home — on its hit list for a thought crime.
What horrible thing have the people of Lawrence and wider Douglas County done to deserve this fate? Apparently, we don't sufficiently detest immigrants.
Put questions of legal status aside. As we all know, it doesn't matter to the hate-bloated buffoons in Washington, D.C., what papers a person has or doesn't have. They will ship you off to a foreign gulag if you're the wrong color or in the wrong place. Because Lawrence had the unmitigated audacity to care about people who look different, it has been threatened with the full wrath of the federal government.
It might be shocking, if so little was shocking these days.
The Department of Homeland Security posted a list of 500-plus 'sanctuary jurisdictions' on its website May 29, highlighting cities and counties that supposedly run afoul of its anti-immigrant agenda. Three days later, officials took down the page after an outcry from local law enforcement. Thanks to the Internet Archive, you can still browse the list and read the government's inflammatory rhetoric: 'DHS demands that these jurisdictions immediately review and revise their policies to align with Federal immigration laws and renew their obligation to protect American citizens, not dangerous illegal aliens.'
There's a lot to unpack there — immigrants commit fewer crimes than those born in the United States, for one thing — but let's press on. The point is that my town and county landed on the list. Let's try to figure out why.
Back in 2020, the city passed an ordinance protecting undocumented folks. Two years later, the Kansas Legislature pushed through a bill banning sanctuary cities, and Lawrence subsequently revised its ordinance. You can read the current city code here.
What's important to note is that the current language gives wide berth to state and federal law, making clear that the city won't obstruct or hinder federal immigration enforcement. By the same token, that doesn't mean the city has to pursue a brazenly anti-immigration path. Lawrence can and should represent the will of voters, while following applicable law. And those voters, through their elected representatives, chose to make their city a welcoming one.
So how did Lawrence end up on the list? Apparently because it didn't spew enough hatred for the White House's liking.
A senior DHS official told NPR that 'designation of a sanctuary jurisdiction is based on the evaluation of numerous factors, including self-identification as a sanctuary jurisdiction, noncompliance with federal law enforcement in enforcing immigration laws, restrictions on information sharing, and legal protections for illegal aliens.'
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem pontificated on Fox News: 'Some of the cities have pushed back. They think because they don't have one law or another on the books that they don't qualify, but they do qualify. They are giving sanctuary to criminals.'
Note those phrases from the official and Noem: 'Self-identification as a sanctuary jurisdiction.' 'One law or another.'
In other words, it doesn't matter what ordinances a city or county has on the books. It doesn't matter what the actual laws may be. It apparently depends on what a city calls itself and how the Trump administration feels about it.
No city or county sets out to break the law. They have attorneys on staff or retainer to make sure they don't break myriad legal restrictions. Lawrence followed the law in enacting its original ordinance, and when the law changed, officials followed along. But few want to step out and say such things publicly, given that federal officials have tremendous resources behind them. They could crush any city or county if they wished, through legal bills alone.
Thankfully, as mentioned above, sheriffs across the nation pushed back.
'This list was created without any input, criteria of compliance, or a mechanism for how to object to the designation,' said National Sheriffs' Association president Sheriff Kieran Donahue. 'Sheriffs nationwide have no way to know what they must do or not do to avoid this arbitrary label. This decision by DHS could create a vacuum of trust that may take years to overcome.'
Douglas County Sheriff Jay Armbrister was similarly outspoken in comments to the Lawrence Journal-World: 'We feel like the goalposts have been moved on us, and this is now merely a subjective process where one person gets to decide our status on this list based on their opinion.'
Thanks to the U.S. Constitution and its First Amendment, we are not required to love, like or even respect our government. We are not required to voice support of its goals. We are not required to say anything that we don't want to say about immigration, immigrants or ICE.
Republicans understood that full well when Presidents Joe Biden and Barack Obama were in office. Both faced torrents of criticism on this very subject.
Those presidents took the abuse. It was, and is, part of the job.
Now President Donald Trump and his anti-immigration minions have to deal with the fact that a different segment of the public vehemently disagrees with their immigration policies. That's OK. That's protected expression. Within the bounds of law, we are also free to define our towns, cities and counties however we want. Accusing local governments of thought crimes desecrates and defames our Constitution.
Clay Wirestone is Kansas Reflector opinion editor. Through its opinion section, Kansas Reflector works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by public policies or excluded from public debate. Find information, including how to submit your own commentary, here.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


San Francisco Chronicle
3 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
European leaders to join Ukraine's Zelenskyy for White House meeting with Trump
KYIV (AP) — European and NATO leaders announced Sunday that they'll be joining President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Washington for crucial talks with President Donald Trump, rallying around the Ukrainian leader after his exclusion from Trump's summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The remarkable move — with one European leader after another announcing that they'll be at Zelenskyy's side when he travels to the White House on Monday — was an apparent effort to ensure that the meeting goes better than the last one in February, when Trump berated the Ukrainian president in a heated Oval Office encounter. 'The Europeans are very afraid of the Oval Office scene being repeated and so they want to support Mr. Zelenskyy to the hilt,' said retired French Gen. Dominique Trinquand, a former head of France's military mission at the United Nations. 'It's a power struggle and a position of strength that might work with Trump," he said in a phone interview. The European leaders' presence at Zelenskyy's side, demonstrating Europe's support for Ukraine, could potentially help ease concerns in Kyiv and in other European capitals that Ukraine risks being railroaded into a peace deal that Trump says he wants to broker with Russia. It wasn't immediately clear whether all or just some of them would be taking part in the actual meeting with Trump. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced on X that she will take part in the talks, "at the request of President Zelenskyy.' The secretary-general of the NATO military alliance, Mark Rutte, will also take part in the meeting, his press service said. The office of President Emmanuel Macron announced that the French leader will travel on Monday to Washington 'at the side of President Zelenskyy' although it didn't immediately specify that he'll be in the meeting. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz will also be part of the European group, but the statement from his office likewise didn't specify that he will be in the talks with Trump. The grouped trip underscored European leaders' determination to ensure that Europe has a voice in Trump's attempted peace-making, after the U.S. president's summit on Friday with Putin — to which Zelenskyy wasn't invited.


CNBC
4 minutes ago
- CNBC
Ukraine and allies left scrambling as Trump shifts toward Putin after Alaska summit
LONDON — Ukraine and its allies were scrambling Sunday to respond to President Donald Trump's apparent shift toward Vladimir Putin's hardline position after their summit in Alaska. European leaders announced that they would join Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Washington on Monday as they seek to navigate America's new approach to ending the war. Trump signaled Saturday that he was reversing his insistence on a ceasefire and instead pursuing a permanent peace deal — aligning the United States with the Kremlin rather than Kyiv and its European backers. As Ukraine and Europe work out how best to move forward, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, European Commission President Ursula von de Leyen, Finnish President Alexander Stubb and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz announced that they would be joining Zelenskyy, perhaps hoping to ensure there is no repeat of his last Oval Office meeting. "The trip will serve as an exchange of information" with Trump, Merz' office said. "The talks will address, among other things, security guarantees, territorial issues, and continued support for Ukraine in its defense against Russian aggression." The news came ahead of a virtual meeting of the so-called "coalition of the willing," which includes more than 30 countries working together to support Ukraine. While Trump's reversal on pursuing a ceasefire before fuller peace talks fueled alarm on the continent, he did appear to have taken a step toward another position more aligned with the wishes of Ukraine and Europe. Trump directly engaged with Zelenskyy and European leaders by phone early Saturday morning about the U.S. taking part in a potential NATO-like security guarantee for Ukraine as part of a deal with Russia, two senior administration officials and three sources familiar with the discussions told NBC News. "European and American security guarantees were discussed," one source familiar with the discussions said. "U.S. troops on the ground was not discussed or entertained by [Trump]." The security guarantees would be made in the scenario that Russia were to invade Ukraine, again, after a would-be peace deal, the sources said. The sources said that those protections, as discussed by the White House, would not include NATO membership — despite European leaders saying in a joint statement Saturday that Ukraine should be given the right to seek NATO membership. But it was clear that the summit had left Ukraine feeling uneasy. Zelenskyy warned that the Russian leader was complicating efforts to end the war by refusing to halt the brutal fighting before holding further talks. "Russia rebuffs numerous calls for a ceasefire and has not yet determined when it will stop the killing. This complicates the situation," Zelenskyy said in a post on X late Saturday. For civilians on the ground, still under Russian attack even as the diplomatic maneuvering played out, it was not just the substance but the optics of the Alaska talks that caused frustration. "I was hoping that the U.S. wouldn't roll out the red carpet to the enemy," Kyiv resident Natalya Lypei said Saturday. "How can you welcome a tyrant like this?"


New York Times
4 minutes ago
- New York Times
Ukraine Weighs Trump's Offer of Security Guarantees With Caution
Amid the setbacks for Ukraine from President Trump's meeting in Alaska with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, officials in Kyiv found one glimmer of hope. They seized on a U.S. proposal to include security guarantees for Ukraine, designed to deter future Russian aggression, in a potential peace deal. Mr. Trump conveyed the proposal to President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine in a call early Saturday after the meeting. It would enlist Kyiv's Western partners to guarantee Ukraine's defense against new Russian attacks, according to European leaders who participated in the call. 'The good news is that America is ready to participate in such security guarantees. It is not leaving it to the Europeans alone,' Chancellor Friedrich Merz of Germany said after the call. That marks a shift from Mr. Trump's earlier stance of avoiding any U.S. involvement in Ukraine's postwar security. Mr. Merz and other European leaders were set to meet virtually on Sunday afternoon to discuss the aftermath of the Alaska summit, including potential security guarantees. In a show of support for Ukraine, the chancellor and other European officials announced that they would join Mr. Zelensky when he meets with Mr. Trump on Monday in Washington. While the specifics of the U.S. proposal remain unclear, Mr. Trump said Mr. Putin agreed that Ukraine should have strong security guarantees after a settlement, though not under NATO, two senior European officials who were briefed on the call have said. American troops might participate, Mr. Trump told the Europeans. Should Mr. Trump's proposal come to fruition, it would mark a win for Ukraine, which has long sought postwar security guarantees to prevent a future Russian invasion, but has so far received little beyond vague commitments. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.