Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security named the state of Connecticut, as well as six of the state’s towns and cities, to its list of “sanctuary jurisdictions,” which the administration accuses of being complicit in the sheltering of undocumented immigrants.
Governor Ned Lamont and Attorney General William Tong have since released statements disputing the designation, as have officials from several of the designated municipalities.
“There is nothing in our laws or statutes that says Connecticut is a ‘sanctuary’ state. We are not, that is a meaningless term,” said Tong. “We sued the last time Trump attempted to defund our law enforcement, and we are prepared to defend Connecticut funding and public safety.”
The six Connecticut municipalities listed by DHS are the cities of Hartford, New Haven and New London, as well as the towns of Hamden, East Haven, and Windham. Trump called for the creation of such a list in an executive order he signed on April 28. DHS said that every jurisdiction will be notified of their inclusion on the list and that the agency “demands” each jurisdiction “immediately review and revise their policies” to align with federal immigration law.
“Sanctuary cities protect dangerous criminal aliens from facing consequences and put law enforcement in peril,” reads the DHS website. “The list below was created to identify sanctuary jurisdictions, which are determined by factors like compliance with federal law enforcement, information restrictions, and legal protections for illegal aliens.”
The foresight of municipal officials regarding their inclusion on the list has been mixed thus far. In a press conference today, New Haven Mayor Justin Ellicker said that that designation comes as “no surprise,” and that “we were expecting to be on this list.” Officials from Windham and East Haven, however, have told Inside Investigator that they were provided with no advance warning of their inclusion on the list, and said that they still have yet to receive official DHS notice or instruction.
“Let us be clear; the Town of East Haven was never informed of this designation by any federal agency, nor do we agree with it,” said Ed Sabatino, East Haven’s Assistant Director of Administration and Management. “The current administration remains committed to complying with all applicable federal and state laws.”
Sabatino called the designation “misleading,” and said the town has been “inaccurately named.” Robert Zarnetske, Windham’s Town Manager, said the town is still “evaluating any potential implications,” and that town officials have yet to discuss either internally or with state officials what the designation means. However, Zarnetske also said that if “additional guidance be provided by state or federal authorities, the Town will consider it carefully.”
“Windham remains committed to serving all its residents fairly and lawfully,” said Zarnetske. “We have a staunch commitment to honoring the legal rights and protections afforded to every person under the Constitution and laws of the United States.”
While DHS has not publicly announced any specific state or municipal policies that it takes issue with, the designations follow a general pattern of friction between the state of Connecticut and the Trump administration regarding immigration that began in his first term.
Earlier this week, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced it would be cracking down on states that use Medicaid to provide healthcare to undocumented immigrants, which may impact the state’s HUSKY for immigrants program. Another potential source of the administration’s ire is the Trust Act, which limits the conditions under which state law enforcement can cooperate with ICE officials. The Trust Act’s protections for undocumented immigrants were further strengthened by a bill passed by the Senate on Tuesday.
“Connecticut’s Trust Act, which was originally bipartisan, is consistent with federal constitutional standards and reflects sound public safety priorities,” said Lamont. “I am focused on making sure people feel safe in our schools, churches, and elsewhere. Nothing about this makes Connecticut a ‘sanctuary’ in any legal or practical sense – it makes our state one that upholds the Constitution, respects the rule of law, and prioritizes the safety and well-being of our communities.”
The Trust Act has been an especially contentious bill for Republican lawmakers since it was originally passed in 2019. State Republicans have since released statements of their own, criticizing the bill and defending DHS’s designations. House Republican Leader Vincent Candelora (North Branford) called the Trust Act “reckless”, while Senate Republican Leader Stephen Harding (Brookfield) and Sen. Rob Sampson (Wolcott) said it would be more apt to consider Connecticut “a super sanctuary state.”
“It’s no surprise the Department of Homeland Security labeled Connecticut and several of its communities as ‘sanctuary jurisdictions,’” said Candelora. “If these federal designations are the wake-up call Democrats need—so be it.”
Responses of Elicker and Arunan Aralampalam, Mayor Hartford, seem to show these designations being used as a rallying cry rather than a wake-up call. Both mayors shared pride in the diversity of their cities in their responses, and both shared their belief that diverting police resources to deal with immigration would make their cities less safe, not more.
“While my administration remains laser-focused on real solutions that protect our community, it is clear that current federal policies do not share this commitment to safety and threaten to undermine the gains we have made,” said Aralampalam. “In Hartford, safety, unity, and opportunity are not just ideals — they are realities we are achieving together.
Elicker said that he is “proud of” New Haven’s inclusion on the list, defining immigrants as “hard working community members who are trying to secure a better life for themselves and their future.” Elicker called Trump “shameful”, called New Haven’s “welcoming city policy” practical and right, and accused the DHS of lying in its assertion that the listed jurisdictions are protecting “dangerous criminals.
“New Haven is not protecting dangerous, violent criminals,” said Elicker. “That is not what we do, that is not what we have done, and that is not what we will do. If there’s a dangerous, violent criminal in New Haven, we will hold that person accountable, whether they’re an immigrant or not, because we want to keep our community safe.”
Elicker said that conditioning federal funding on immigration policy would be “extortion.” He referred to a suit New Haven won last week against the Trump administration regarding prior attempts to dictate the city’s immigration policies, and made it clear that he would not back down from a fight.
“In New Haven, we will defend our immigrant communities, our neighbors, our friends, our families,” said Ellicker. “We beat the Trump administration once, and we will beat them again.”
The city of New London and town of Hamden did not respond to Inside Investigator’s requests for comments.
Was this article helpful?
Topics on this page
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
There’s a lot of weasel-wording by these politicians who don’t seem to care what the majority of citizens would like to see. Why should some cities or states be able to virtue signal on other’s wallets and safety. We all pay for this nonsense, yet we haven’t had any say in creating the problems. We want “due process” on the entry side. Federal funding should be removed and let the localities pick up the tab.