Last Updated on March 3, 2025
A Florida police chief has ignited controversy by illegally instructing officers not to arrest illegal immigrants, openly defying state and federal law. His refusal to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) contradicts Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’ strict immigration policies, which mandate local law enforcement assistance in federal immigration enforcement.
According to an internal email obtained by The Gateway Pundit, rank-and-file officers in the Orange County Sheriff’s Office were ordered to “stand down” when encountering an illegal immigrant. The directive explicitly stated, “Any ICE/Immigration-related calls must be cleared through the chain of command,” effectively requiring officers to obtain prior approval before detaining illegal immigrants. This policy not only complicates their ability to enforce the law but also forces them to comply with an unlawful directive.
Florida has established itself as a national leader in strict immigration enforcement, banning sanctuary cities and requiring local cooperation with ICE. However, defiant local officials like Orange County Sheriff John Mina have directly challenged these policies, setting the stage for an ongoing power struggle between state and municipal governance.
Governor DeSantis has emphasized that refusing to enforce immigration laws undermines public safety. His administration has passed measures ensuring local law enforcement agencies notify ICE when illegal immigrants are detained.
Despite these clear policies, Sheriff Mina has continuously refused to comply. Former Metropolitan Bureau of Investigation detective James Copenhaver denounced this decision, stating, “Deputies must be able to act decisively in situations where immediate enforcement is necessary to protect themselves and the public. Any policy that delays or restricts cooperation with ICE and other federal agencies could create unnecessary risks and confusion.”
ICE officials have strongly criticized the sheriff’s stance, warning that failing to detain illegal immigrants poses serious public safety risks. One such tragic case that underscores these risks is Laken Riley, a Georgia college student murdered by an illegal immigrant. Critics argue that Mina’s policy endangers Floridians by allowing potentially dangerous individuals to remain in communities unchecked.
ICE has previously stated that when local law enforcement refuses to cooperate, federal agencies are forced to conduct broader enforcement operations, often leading to larger community disruptions. Such policies, ICE argues, contradict local law enforcement claims that they prioritize public safety.
Supporters of the sheriff’s decision argue that immigration enforcement is outside the scope of local law enforcement duties. They claim that aggressive immigration policing discourages immigrants from reporting crimes and cooperating with investigations. However, critics point out that illegal immigrants already avoid cooperation with law enforcement, making this argument a weak justification for obstructing ICE operations.
The Florida case is not an isolated incident. Across the country, cities and states are divided on how to handle immigration enforcement. Texas and Arizona have adopted strict policies similar to Florida’s, while California, Illinois, and New York have implemented sanctuary policies that protect undocumented immigrants from deportation.
Critics argue that these sanctuary policies have led to an increase in violent crime in major cities. Reports show that cities with lax immigration enforcement continue to experience rising violent crime rates, yet local leaders refuse to acknowledge the connection.
Legal experts warn that local law enforcement operates in a legal gray area when they refuse to cooperate with ICE. While federal law mandates cooperation, many states and cities have challenged these directives in court, citing local autonomy despite the clear correlation between weak enforcement and rising crime rates.
Public reaction to the Florida police chief’s decision has been mixed. Some community members support his stance, arguing that immigration enforcement should be left to federal authorities. Others, including law enforcement advocacy groups, strongly believe that local non-cooperation puts residents at risk.
Copenhaver has reportedly been in contact with the governor’s office, expecting decisive action against Sheriff Mina’s policy. “Given these concerns, I urge Sheriff Mina to publicly and internally clarify his stance on Florida’s immigration laws and provide clear guidance on how his office will cooperate with federal agencies on illegal immigration enforcement,” he said.
Legal analysts suggest that this case could set a precedent for future conflicts between state and local governance over immigration enforcement. Florida law explicitly bans sanctuary city policies, but without strict enforcement measures, local officials may continue to resist compliance.
As immigration remains a key issue in upcoming elections, the divide between local and federal enforcement policies is expected to widen. If resistance to ICE cooperation spreads among law enforcement agencies, state and federal governments may take more aggressive steps to ensure compliance.
Observers anticipate potential lawsuits and legal challenges that could determine whether local governments have the authority to defy federal immigration policies. Meanwhile, ICE is expected to ramp up enforcement efforts in areas where local law enforcement refuses to cooperate.
The actions of Sheriff Mina underscore a broader national debate over immigration enforcement, illustrating the complex struggle between federal mandates, state policies, and local governance. With the stakes higher than ever, this battle will likely shape the future of immigration enforcement in the United States.
