Nation’s Safest Cities Often Located in Immigration Enforcement Zones

Most of the nation’s safest cities are reportedly located in jurisdictions that maintain cooperation agreements with federal immigration authorities, according to observers analyzing recent safety rankings. The pattern, while notable, is also shaped by wealth distribution and zoning policies, with several exceptions challenging simple correlations.

According to a prominent news publication’s rankings, eight of the ten safest cities are situated in states or counties with laws directing local authorities to coordinate with federal immigration enforcement. This cooperation typically occurs through what are known as 287(g) agreements, which allow local law enforcement agencies to work directly with immigration authorities.

The top-ranked city, Johns Creek in a southern state, operates under recently enacted legislation requiring cooperation with federal immigration authorities. The sweeping law, passed in 2024 following a high-profile criminal case, mandates that local police forge agreements with federal authorities to assist in immigration enforcement. Jurisdictions that fail to seek such cooperation risk losing state funding, according to legal observers.

“If you are in our country illegally and committing crimes, you have no place in [this state],” the regional governor reportedly stated when signing the legislation.

However, the second-safest city presents a more complex picture. Located in a northern coastal state where the county prosecutor’s office has made headlines for noncompliance with federal immigration detainer requests, the municipality nonetheless benefits from broader state-level cooperation policies. Until recently, the state maintained extensive federal immigration enforcement partnerships, though the current administration has reportedly reversed some of these agreements.

Two notable exceptions to the cooperation pattern emerge among the top ten rankings. Cities in the northwestern and northeastern coastal regions, ranked eighth and third respectively, operate under state laws that generally preclude cooperation with federal immigration authorities. These municipalities maintain “welcoming city” ordinances or fall under state legislation that restricts such collaboration.

Critics note, however, that these outlier cities share characteristics with their cooperation-oriented counterparts: high median incomes, low poverty rates, and predominantly residential development patterns with limited mixed-use zoning. Urban planning experts have previously suggested that transient rental properties and mixed-use development often correlate with higher crime rates.

The remaining cities on the safety list are situated in jurisdictions with some of the nation’s most extensive immigration enforcement cooperation frameworks. A county in the southern interior, home to the tenth-ranked city, was reportedly among the first in its region to shift from a “jail model” of cooperation—where honoring federal detainer requests is standard practice—to a more active “task force model,” where select officers can detain individuals based on suspected federal immigration law violations.

“It’s what we do—we enforce the law and it’s the law of the land,” the county sheriff told local media, according to reports.

Two cities in a southeastern coastal state, ranked fifth and ninth, fall under what observers describe as among the nation’s more stringent pro-cooperation policies. Recent legislation in that state designated the agriculture commissioner as chief immigration officer, effectively standardizing enforcement requirements across counties with historically different approaches to federal cooperation.

Nearby cities ranked sixth and seventh are located in a midwestern state that has authorized its attorney general to sue local authorities refusing to enforce immigration laws. The county housing both municipalities is reportedly viewed as among the more cooperative in the state regarding federal immigration enforcement partnerships.

The fourth-ranked city is situated in a county whose sheriff, in office for over two decades, has maintained a documented record of cooperation with federal authorities. When the county appeared on a previous administration’s list of non-cooperative jurisdictions, local officials were quick to clarify their stance.

“We are not a sanctuary jurisdiction,” county leadership stated in response, according to reports.

According to federal data, thirty-nine states plus one territory have at least one agency that has forged cooperation agreements with immigration authorities. Six states maintain laws restraining such cooperation, while federal officials report they are “pursuing opportunities” in five additional states.

The correlation between immigration enforcement cooperation and municipal safety remains a subject of ongoing debate among policy analysts, with some questioning whether such partnerships play a meaningful role in public safety outcomes compared to socioeconomic factors and urban planning decisions.