As President Donald Trump takes decisive action on immigration enforcement after years of inaction by the Biden administration, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is working to obstruct U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations. CAIR ramped up efforts to shield illegal immigrants from deportation after President Trump rescinded the Biden administration’s “sensitive locations” policy, which prohibited enforcement actions in places of worship, schools, and hospitals.
If ICE attempts to question you, you are not obligated to answer their questions.
CAIR’s campaign to derail ICE’s enforcement efforts can be seen in a spate of communications from the organization’s local chapters. A recent CAIR-Ohio newsletter provides a step-by-step guide on how noncitizens can evade ICE, stating, “Do not allow entry and…refuse to answer questions,” which directly hinders the agency’s ability to enforce immigration law.
CAIR acknowledges that ICE targets individuals who are “noncitizens who have violated the terms of their immigration status,” “have certain types of criminal convictions,” “prior orders of deportation,” or “are considered a threat to national security.”CAIR appears to encourage noncompliance among individuals who fall within these enforcement priorities, potentially shielding those who pose a national security risk from deportation and putting U.S. citizens at risk.
CAIR’s advisory warns that ICE “almost never has a judicial warrant,” implying that noncompliance is a viable strategy. The newsletter instructs individuals to “clearly post signs stating the masjid is private property to prevent claims of public access.” CAIR even claims that “ICE may use tricks, lies, or intimidation to gain entry.” Since administrative immigration warrants, unlike criminal ones, do not grant ICE authority to enter private property without consent, agents sometimes employ ruses to facilitate arrests, a practice formally adopted by ICE policy in 2005, according to the Columbia Law Review.
Ilhan Omar Follows Suit
U.S. Representative Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota), a vocal ally of CAIR, has offered similar advice to Somali illegal migrants, recommending they avoid answering ICE questions if approached. “If ICE attempts to question you, you are not obligated to answer their questions. Just state that you were advised by a lawyer not to answer questions.”
ICE’s Response
ICE officials condemned efforts to hinder its work, stating, “[I]t greatly concerns us when advocacy groups, citizens[,] and politicians share and support incorrect or misleading information about our mission that is a vital part of national security and public safety. These misconceptions may lead to violence, which places innocent bystanders, aliens and law enforcement officers in danger.”
CAIR’s Previous Efforts
It’s not the first time CAIR has interfered with ICE’s efforts to enforce the law. CAIR used similar tactics during the first Trump Administration when deportation raids in 2019 and 2020 resulted in the expulsion of thousands of illegal aliens. At the time, CAIR aggressively promoted strategies to avoid ICE encounters, including advising illegal immigrants to ignore agents at their doors.
Beyond instructing illegal immigrants on how to evade lawful deportation, CAIR activists have been involved in numerous public campaigns challenging ICE’s actions. The organization took up the cause was that of Hafiz Khan, a Virginia imam convicted in 2014 for providing material support to terrorist organizations such as Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan and al-Qaeda. While ICE led the investigation and prosecution, CAIR-affiliated individuals, including Khurrum Wahid—who served as a legal advisor to CAIR’s national office and as a director of its Florida chapter—played a role in Khan’s defense, arguing that he was unfairly targeted due to religious profiling.Nevertheless, Khan was convicted and sentenced to 25 years in prison and ultimately lost his U.S. citizenship.
As the administration reinstates strict immigration enforcement policies, groups like CAIR will undoubtedly continue their resistance. The question remains: Should an organization that so openly advises against compliance with U.S. law enforcement officials be allowed to operate with impunity?
