Rochester Reaffirms Sanctuary City Status Amid DHS Designation Controversy

Rochester officials are standing firm on the city’s sanctuary policies following the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) recent listing of both Rochester and Monroe County as "sanctuary jurisdictions." While city leaders reaffirm Rochester’s long-established sanctuary status, they dispute Monroe County’s inclusion, pointing to the county’s ongoing cooperation with federal immigration enforcement that critics say harms migrant communities.

Rochester Mayor Malik Evans, Rochester City Councilmember Mary Lupien, Monroe County Legislator Rachel Barnhart

The designation, published this week on the DHS website under Executive Order 14287, accuses Rochester and Monroe County of obstructing federal immigration efforts. However, local officials argue that this portrayal is inaccurate and politically driven.

Rochester has identified as a sanctuary city since 1986 and renewed this commitment in 2017. The city’s policies limit collaboration with federal immigration authorities and prohibit local police from asking about immigration status during routine encounters.

Mayor Malik Evans highlighted Rochester’s dedication to being an inclusive community for all residents, regardless of immigration status. In contrast, Monroe County Executive Adam Bello’s administration emphasizes a strategy of “orderly and humane” cooperation with state and federal agencies, particularly amid the recent influx of asylum seekers.

The DHS designation also draws attention to a 2023 executive order from Bello requiring the county to coordinate with New York City before accepting relocated asylum seekers—a move some critics say conflicts with sanctuary principles.

City Councilmember and mayoral candidate Mary Lupien defended Rochester’s sanctuary policies as vital to fostering trust, protecting families, and ensuring public safety.

“This designation is a shameful and dangerous tactic from the Trump administration’s DHS—an attempt to intimidate cities like Rochester that choose to protect and uplift all residents,” Lupien said. “Let me be clear: Rochester’s sanctuary policies are legal and essential to community trust and safety.”

Lupien pledged that Rochester would continue resisting federal overreach and safeguarding immigrant families from deportation.

On the other hand, Monroe County’s inclusion on the list has drawn sharp criticism from local officials who say the county has not enacted sanctuary protections.

“Monroe County is not a sanctuary county,” said County Legislator Rachel Barnhart. “Our Sheriff’s Office actively participates in immigration enforcement. In one troubling incident, a Monroe County deputy handed a local high school student over to Border Patrol. That is not sanctuary—it’s the opposite.”

Barnhart and other leaders expressed frustration that the county not only lacks sanctuary policies but also cooperates with DHS to detain and deport immigrants. They noted the absence of public condemnation from County Executive Bello and Sheriff Todd Baxter as evidence of complicity.

“County leadership has never spoken out against these human rights abuses,” Barnhart said. “Monroe County should be doing everything possible to protect families, ensure due process, and reject fear-based politics.”

While Bello’s administration frames its immigration approach around coordination and maintaining public order—including the 2023 order requiring collaboration with New York City on asylum seeker relocation—critics maintain the county prioritizes federal compliance over immigrant rights and safety.

As DHS continues to spotlight jurisdictions it deems uncooperative, this controversy highlights a growing rift between city and county leadership in Monroe County, mirroring the broader national debate over immigration enforcement, local autonomy, and human dignity.

For the full list of designated sanctuary jurisdictions, visit the DHS website: Sanctuary Jurisdictions Defying Federal Immigration Law, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.