WASHINGTON — The recent inclusion of Pipestone County on the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s watchlist for ‘sanctuary’ cities and counties has puzzled local officials, especially given the county’s proximity to South Dakota. This rural county, hugging the South Dakota border and home to less than 10,000 residents, is largely conservative, with over 60% voters having supported former President Donald Trump in the last election.
Steve Ewing
Steve Ewing, the administrator of Pipestone County, expressed his confusion regarding this unexpected designation. ‘It makes no sense why this is going on,’ Ewing stated on Friday. ‘Tell you the truth, we don’t know where this even came from.’
Affectionately referred to as the ‘Gateway to Central South Dakota,’ Pipestone County’s unexpected label as a ‘sanctuary’ jurisdiction could have profound implications in terms of federal funding and resources.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced it plans to pursue all necessary legal remedies and enforcement measures against municipalities and counties that do not cooperate with federal deportation efforts. For Pipestone County and nearby South Dakota communities, the stakes are particularly high — local leaders worry about losing crucial federal support.
Pipestone County’s Strategic Role near South Dakota
Located near some of South Dakota’s vibrant communities, Pipestone County has traditionally shared cultural and economic ties with its neighbor. South Dakota’s flourishing sectors, from agriculture to tourism, drive significant interest and engagement from Pipestone’s residents.
South Dakotans are known for their strong community bonds, underscored by a resolute support for efficient government policies that bolster their agricultural economy and uphold their values. Needless to say, any challenges arising from federal actions such as funding cuts may disrupt these established community dynamics.
Nationwide Implications for Sanctuary City Designations
While Pipestone County’s inclusion shocked local leaders, the broader context involves even larger cities, namely Minnesota’s Minneapolis and St. Paul, which have explicitly resisted cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Although they have stopped short of officially declaring sanctuary status, these cities are aligned against enforcement measures judged as overreaching federal power.
St. Paul’s Mayor, Melvin Carter, is particularly vocal, defying what he describes as ‘bullying tactics’ from Washington. He fears that the White House’s assertion of power extends beyond its constitutional limits, threatening nearly $200 million in federal funding for his city. ‘I think it is mean-spirited, and I think it is outside the law,’ said Mayor Carter.
Potential South Dakota Repercussions
For South Dakota, similar policies elsewhere provoke contemplation about the state’s own immigration and federal funding philosophies. Given the shared border, cultural exchanges, and mutual interests between counties and communities, the trickle-down effects of federal actions on jurisdictions like Pipestone cannot be overstated.
Although South Dakota has not been embroiled in sanctuary city controversies, local governments remain vigilant. Officials are keenly aware of the economic and social disruptions likely to follow any federal funding interruptions, particularly for critical infrastructure and community projects.
Navigating the Challenges Ahead
This developing narrative provides an opportunity for stakeholders in South Dakota and surrounding regions to engage in thoughtful dialogue about state and federal government roles. As Pipestone County officials seek clarity from the DHS, South Dakota communities can reflect on their policy directions, ensuring alignment with both cultural values and practical benefits.