Federal Lies About Sanctuary Cities Exposed by Maryland Arrest Fallout

The arrest of Nelson Vladimir Amaya-Benitez, a 26-year-old Salvadoran linked to MS-13, in Gaithersburg, Maryland, on May 12, 2025, has sparked outrage. Federal officials argue that local refusal to honor ICE detainers let a dangerous criminal run rampant. But this narrative oversimplifies a complex issue. Sanctuary policies, far from enabling crime, safeguard communities by prioritizing trust and safety over federal deportation agendas.

Amaya-Benitez’s criminal record, spanning armed robbery to motor vehicle theft, is undeniable. Between 2017 and 2024, Montgomery County declined five ICE detainers, releasing him to reoffend. Critics seize on this to condemn sanctuary jurisdictions. Yet, the core purpose of these policies is to protect, not shield lawbreakers. They ensure local police focus on public safety, not immigration enforcement, fostering cooperation with communities.

Why do places like Montgomery County limit ICE cooperation? Fear of deportation deters immigrants from reporting crimes, accessing healthcare, or engaging with schools. This harms everyone. Sanctuary policies counter that fear, creating safer, more cohesive communities. Painting them as reckless ignores their proven value.

Evidence refutes claims that sanctuary policies fuel crime. From 1980 to 2022, as the U.S. foreign-born population rose from 6.2 percent to 13.9 percent, total crime rates fell 60 percent, and violent crime dropped 34.5 percent. Nineteen peer-reviewed studies find no link between immigration and higher crime rates. Some even suggest immigrants lower crime in their communities.

Sanctuary jurisdictions, like Chicago and New York, show stable or declining crime rates. Aggressive deportation programs, such as Secure Communities, failed to reduce crime and instead cut Hispanic crime reporting by 30 percent, leaving communities more vulnerable. Why pursue policies that undermine safety?

Amaya-Benitez’s crimes, tied to MS-13’s 8,000 to 10,000 U.S. members, are serious but not the norm. Broad enforcement targeting entire communities alienates potential allies who could help police dismantle gangs. Sanctuary policies, by contrast, encourage cooperation, making it easier to target real threats.

Federal attacks on sanctuary policies, led by officials like Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin, overstep constitutional boundaries. The Tenth Amendment shields local governments from being conscripted into federal immigration enforcement. President Trump’s April 2025 executive order, threatening to cut funds to sanctuary jurisdictions, violates this principle. Federal courts, including a Northern California ruling in April 2025, have upheld local autonomy by blocking such measures.

Supporters of harsh enforcement, like Senators Katie Britt and Thom Tillis, argue that sanctuary policies defy federal authority. But their stance ignores the costs: diverting police from crime-fighting, risking racial profiling, and eroding due process. Sanctuary policies protect communities by ensuring local resources serve local needs, not federal quotas.

Aggressive federal tactics strain an already broken system. ICE’s $10 billion budget grapples with a 3-million-case backlog and scarce detention space. Blaming sanctuary jurisdictions distracts from fixing these flaws. Why tear communities apart instead of addressing systemic failures?

Sanctuary policies aren’t flawless, but they’re rooted in evidence and compassion. They encourage crime reporting, protect vulnerable families, and honor local governance. Amaya-Benitez’s actions warrant justice, but demonizing entire communities is a dangerous misstep. Why not fund targeted anti-gang initiatives or tackle root causes like poverty fueling MS-13’s growth?

The true risk comes from policies that sow fear and division. By championing sanctuary jurisdictions, we uphold safety, fairness, and constitutional values. We must reject narratives that pit communities against each other. Together, we can forge a future where justice and trust prevail.