Mayor Adams said Saturday he won’t be able to assist the feds with President-elect Donald Trump’s massive deportation plan because of NYC’s status as a sanctuary city.
“The law is the law,” declared Adams, when asked by The Post whether the NYPD and the rest of his administration will cooperate with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in its multi-day ground operations that sources said will begin next week in Chicago and then expand to other cities serving as safe havens for illegal migrants like NYC, San Diego and Denver.
Mayor Eric Adams speaks to media on Jan. 18, 2025.J.C. Rice
“I answered that over and over again. I’m not going to keep doing the same question over and over again about the cooperation of city agencies,” he added.
Adams refused to clarify what “law” he was referring to, but his office said he was talking about sanctuary city laws he inherited that prohibit the NYPD, Department of Corrections and Department of Probation from cooperating with ICE unless cases involve suspected terrorists or other serious public safety risks.
Migrants seen at Floyd Bennett Field on Jan. 12, 2024.Paul Martinka
NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch echoed Adam’ remarks earlier this week when she told The Post the department “is always going to follow the law.”
“And right now, the law in New York City, basically, is that the Police Department will not assist in civil immigration enforcement,” she said.
“We will obviously continue to work with our federal partners on criminal matters, but a person’s immigration status is not something that we track, and we cannot and will not, by law, participate in civil immigration,” she added.
But one 20-year NYPD veteran said it’s insane the city won’t help federal immigration authorities round up rogue migrants.
‘“I absolutely loathe not helping another law enforcement agency,” said the longtime cop. “I think it’s really unfair.”
“It’s baffling that government officials want to protect immigrants in New York City who are committing crimes against everyday New Yorkers. Why wouldn’t you want these guys to leave? It’s baffling to me.”
Adams has repeatedly called for the sanctuary rules to be loosened, so migrants “suspected” of “serious” crimes could be turned over to ICE — as they once were under sanctuary city policies implemented as early as 1989 under ex-mayors Ed Koch and Michael Bloomberg.
Migrants stand on line at the Roosevelt Hotel.Seth Gottfried
Regulations added in 2014 and 2018 during Bill de Blasio’s time as mayor made it far more difficult for the city to assist ICE.
ICE’s deportation plan “Operation Safeguard” is expected to start Tuesday last until the following Monday. It will target migrants wanted for drug trafficking and violent crimes – especially anyone with criminal cases in their home countries, sources said..
Up to 200 ICE officers will be deployed to carry out immigration raids in Chicago, the Wall Street Journal reported Friday. It was unclear Saturday how many extra ICE officers will be coming to the Big Apple and when they’ll arrive.
Trump’s incoming border czar Tom Homan has vowed that the mass deportations will begin on Day 1 on the new administration and focus on illegal immigrants who pose threats to the country.
Meanwhile, NYC resources to care for asylum seekers and other illegal border crossers have been strained to the tune of nearly $7 billion since April 2022, Adams said Saturday.
The enforcement action near the U.S. border comes just ahead of the inauguration on Monday of U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, who has accused Mexico's government of not doing enough to curb migration to the U.S. and threatened sweeping tariffs.
About 250 Mexican officials, including National Guard military police in anti-riot gear, surrounded the encampment at around midnight, according to a Reuters witness.
Migrants began setting fire to mattresses and blankets in protest, the witness said, and tried to slip out of the site carrying babies and belongings.
Germany's ambassador to the United States has warned that the incoming Trump administration will rob U.S. law enforcement and the media of their independence and hand big tech companies "co-governing power", according to a confidential document seen by Reuters.
The briefing document, dated Jan. 14 and signed by Ambassador Andreas Michaelis, describes Donald Trump's agenda for his second White House term as one of "maximum disruption" that will bring about "a redefinition of the constitutional order - maximum concentration of power with the president at the expense of Congress and the federal states."
"Basic democratic principles and checks and balances will be largely undermined, the legislature, law enforcement and media will be robbed of their independence and misused as a political arm, Big Tech will be given co-governing power," it says.
Trump's transition team had no immediate comment on the ambassador's assessment.
The German foreign ministry said U.S. voters chose Trump in a democratic election, and it would "work closely with the new U.S. administration in the interests of Germany and Europe."
The outgoing government of Chancellor Olaf Scholz has largely refrained from direct public criticism of Trump since the election, but the ambassador's confidential assessment offers a blunt view from a senior German official.
Ambassadors are not replaced automatically with the formation of a new government, unless a change is deemed necessary for diplomatic or other reasons.
The document cites the judiciary, and especially the U.S. Supreme Court, as central to Trump's attempts to further his agenda, but says that despite the court's recent decision to expand presidential powers, "even the biggest critics assume that it will prevent the worst from happening."
Michaelis sees control of the Justice Department and FBI as key to Trump reaching his political and personal goals, including mass deportations, retribution against perceived enemies and legal impunity.
He says Trump has broad legal options to force his agenda on the states, saying "even military deployment within the country for police activities would be possible in the event of declared 'insurrection' and 'invasion'."
The 1878 Posse Comitatus Act bars the federal military from participating in domestic law enforcement, with some exceptions.
Michaelis also foresees a "redefinition of the First Amendment," saying Trump and billionaire X owner Elon Musk are already taking actions against critics and non-cooperating media companies.
"One is using lawsuits, threatening criminal prosecution and licence revocation, the other is having algorithms manipulated and accounts blocked," he says in the document.
Musk's repeated endorsement of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) ahead of the Feb. 23 national election has drawn ire in Berlin, but the government has stopped short of unanimously leaving his platform.
Berlin endured a particularly difficult relationship with the United States during the first Trump administration, facing costly tariffs and criticism over its failure to meet the NATO target on defence expenditure.
A generation ago, New York Democrats and Republicans essentially agreed that police were good, laws necessary, and criminal disorder unacceptable.
Since then, however, the Empire State’s Democratic Party has been overtaken by ideologues who believe — despite all evidence — that criminal justice is systemically racist, all incarceration is misguided, and that investing endlessly in social services will rehabilitate all criminals.
In Albany, these dominant “progressives” have passed numerous laws based on the backward idea that chipping away at the robustness, flexibility, and efficiency of the criminal justice system will somehow make us safer.
Last week Gov. Hochul listed her own discovery reform proposal first in her criminal justice agenda. Hans Pennink
But as the country tilts right, New Yorkers are getting fed up with the results of “reforms” that intentionally shifted the balance of power toward criminals and away from law and order.
Citizens are demanding more secure subways and fewer violently deranged men returned to public streets. And they are starting to connect New York’s abandonment of prosecuting low-level crimes with the city’s growing sense of danger.
Now abillintroduced by state senator and mayoral hopeful Zellnor Myrie and newly elected assemblyman Micah Lasher suggests that the stranglehold that progressive ideology has had on criminal justice policy may be weakening.
In an op-ed last week, preeningly progressive Myrie and the more tempered Lasher acknowledged the damage caused by New York’s far-reaching 2019 discovery “reform.” The past five years have seen a staggering 21% increase in the rate of criminal cases getting dismissed. They even conceded that there are “fewer cases going to trial — less than one-half of 1%” as one of the “results of discovery reform.”
“Law enforcement should be treating arrests and prosecutions as limited resources, and thinking about discovery implementation as an opportunity to . . . shift many cases out of the system completely,” NY Sen. Jamaal T. Bailey.Hans Pennink
In reality, these admissions just scratch the surface of how much our discovery law tilted the scales of justice away from crime victims and toward criminals.
The 2019 law mandates that local prosecutors quickly gather a mountain of “evidence” for every case. While this sounds reasonable, the law’s absurd collection standard includes everything “related” to a case— not just what’s pertinent or substantive.
So prosecutors must find things like empty police memo books and redundant surveillance footage — and then certify they’ve been reviewed before turning it over to defense attorneys.
Unreasonable discovery laws have helped keep bad guys on the streets and not behind bars.G.N.Miller/NYPost
Defense attorneys, however, do not have to affirm they’ve reviewed such “evidence.”
The result: As I revealed two years ago, defense attorneys were failing to appropriately review prosecutors’ discovery packages in 60% of cases — an accusation unchallengedby the New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
This imbalance is why discovery has made us less safe. Overburdened prosecutors lack the bandwidth to endure this process for each case, so they toss out mostly low-level cases.
In New York City, prosecutors dismissed an astounding 26,000 more misdemeanors last year than in 2019, pre-discovery law. That’s domestic violence, driving drunk, shoplifting, and fare evasion offenses for which offenders faced zero consequences.
Not only that, because evidence collection is tied to New York’s “speedy trial clock,” if prosecutors miss the deadline, cases are almost automatically tossed out.
Even when prosecutors do file on time, clever defense attorneys can still exploit the “speedy trial clock” to force dismissals. In fact, a leaked Legal Aid Society internal document from 2021 urged: “defense lawyers should not cease [italics in original] raising” discovery-related issues to now get such cases tossed.
This has resulted in an astonishing quadrupling in these “speedy trial” dismissals statewide. In New York City, a full 33% of misdemeanors were dismissed last year because prosecutors ran out of time to collect “evidence.”
This stunning breakdown in prosecution was not accidental: progressive legislators anticipated and celebrated this goal. In the law’s implementation hearings, presiding senator Jamaal Bailey admonished: “Law enforcement should be treating arrests and prosecutions as limited resources, and thinking about discovery implementation as an opportunity to . . . shift many cases out of the system completely.”
Defendants plead guilty during the pretrial phase of the Chabad Lubavitch World Headquarters excavating trial at Brooklyn Supreme Court on Monday, January 13, 2025 in New York City.Michael Nagle
Why are we no longer punishing misdemeanors? Our ideological legislators don’t think we should!
However, Myrie and Lasher’s new bill does signal a shift — at least in rhetoric. Their proposed law would provide prosecutors with direct access to essential police records.
This is a reasonable idea, although it would make more sense as a funded project than as a law and raises myriad logistical and legal questions.
Newly elected assemblyman Micah Lasher suggests that the stranglehold that progressive ideology has had on criminal justice policy may be weakening.
It also signals awareness that a fight over “discovery” looms for New York’s upcoming budget negotiations; indeed Gov. Hochul this week listed her own discovery reform proposal first in her criminal justice agenda released alongside her annual State of the State address.
But more importantly, the bill would still leave the scales of justice tilted toward criminal defendants —because their attorneys would still not be obligated to take time to review evidence required of prosecutors.
That’s why the Legal Aid Society ringingly endorsed the Myrie/Lasher bill: it keeps law and order handicapped.
Lasher was echoed by State Senator Zellnor Myrie; both have sponsored a new ‘discovery’ bill.Getty Images
While Albany seems primed to inch the Democratic Party back from its “progressive” extremes, voters should demand two key amendments to the discovery law that would actually restore safety. First, prosecutors should only need to collect evidence relevant to the crime.
For the 0.5% of cases that go to trial, broader evidence collection can still be mandated.
Second, discovery collection should be decoupled from the state’s “speedy trial” clock to prevent cases from being tossed when justice demands otherwise.
New York thrives when both sides of the aisle agree: advantaging criminals over prosecutors is bad policy.
Hannah E. Meyers is a fellow and director of policing and public safety for the Manhattan Institute.
