A Democratic congressman told a journalist, on live television, that sanctuary cities do not legally exist.
Rep. James Walkinshaw made that claim during a sit-down interview with Leland Vittert, and the pushback was immediate. Vittert, rather than letting it slide, challenged the congressman directly and repeatedly on the spot.
The exchange started with a straightforward question. Vittert asked Walkinshaw to explain how sanctuary cities help address the immigration problems facing the United States. Walkinshaw’s answer took an unexpected turn. “There’s no such thing as a sanctuary city, Leland,” he said.
Special offer for our readers:
Put Interest On Ice With These Top Credit Cards
Vittert cut him off. “Yes, there is,” he replied.
Walkinshaw pressed on, arguing that federal agencies including ICE and CBP retain the authority to detain undocumented immigrants in any city or county in the country. He suggested that the real question was whether local police should pull officers away from other duties to assist with immigration enforcement.
According to a report on the exchange, Vittert was having none of it. “You’re changing the location,” Vittert shot back, growing visibly passionate. “You’re entitled to your own opinion. You’re not entitled to your own facts.”
Vittert then laid out a specific definition. He said dozens, if not hundreds, of cities across America, along with dozens of states, do not honor ICE detainers. That, he argued, is precisely what makes a city a sanctuary city.
Walkinshaw held his ground. “That is not a sanctuary city,” he insisted.
Vittert responded with a direct explanation. These locations, he said, have formal policies that prevent local law enforcement resources from being used to help enforce federal immigration law or to assist ICE with enforcement operations. That combination of deliberate policy choices, he argued, is the definition of a sanctuary city, regardless of what label any politician prefers to use.
The congressman represents a purple state district, making the exchange notable on a political level. Walkinshaw’s position puts him at odds not just with Vittert, but with the plain meaning of a term that has been widely used in law, policy, and political debate for years.
The interview is drawing attention because of how directly and persistently Vittert refused to accept the framing. Rather than moving on or softening the moment, he continued to press Walkinshaw on the facts, citing specific examples and a clear, consistent definition throughout the conversation.
The clip is circulating widely, with many viewers pointing to the moment as a clear example of a politician attempting to redefine a well-established term in real time, only to be corrected immediately by the journalist sitting across from him.
