Leave it to Denver Mayor Mike Johnston to insist that the city’s sanctuary policies — which restrict local cooperation with federal immigration authorities — actually make the city safer.

As The Denver Gazette reported, Colorado’s capital city has signed onto an amicus brief in two federal cases, joining some 140 Democratic cities, counties and elected officials in defense of Minnesota and Rochester, New York — both sued by the Trump administration over their sanctuary policies.

In a statement, Johnston defended sanctuary cities while accusing the White House of vindictively “defunding” and “punishing” them.

“Denver’s historic drop in homicides and crime was accomplished by building trust in our communities, not by tearing it down like the Trump administration has done in Minneapolis and across the country,” Johnston claimed.

The decline in homicides is more than welcome, but a range of unrelated factors have helped bring that about. To attribute such improvements to greater trust between law enforcement and residents over immigration non-enforcement is like the rooster crowing that he makes the sun rise.

“All of our residents, immigrant or not, know that if they have a crime to report, our police are here to listen and help,” Johnston added.

The mayor is conflating two distinct issues. Whether local authorities ensure that anybody — an illegal immigrant or otherwise — who reports a crime feels safe doing so, without fearing deportation, is one thing.

A sanctuary city actively telling local law enforcement, “You cannot cooperate with ICE,” is another matter entirely. 

If ICE arrives at a jail or a prison and requests a prisoner transferred into its custody, local Denver authorities under current state and local law are forbidden from complying.

When Johnston testified before Congress last year, he was pressed over Denver’s release of an alleged gang member after refusing to transfer him into ICE custody. The decision led to a pursuit that injured a federal agent — an outcome simple cooperation would have avoided.

Therein lies the concern with sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with ICE and actively work against federal agents.

The Johnston administration can’t justify its sanctuary policies under the banners of safety and compassion. The argument that we want people to report crimes, so therefore everything we do in opposing the federal government is acceptable, doesn’t hold up.

In its lawsuits against Minnesota and Rochester, the Department of Justice argues that sanctuary jurisdictions “obstruct federal law enforcement and celebrate thwarting the constitutional obligation of the president to execute immigration laws.”

That’s what’s happened in Denver — a fact that has nothing to do with whether someone illegally in the U.S. reports a crime.

In Denver, it’s against law and policy for law enforcement to proactively assist ICE. Those sanctuary policies hinder crime-fighting, and Johnston’s rhetoric works against his own self-interest by stoking the very fears he claims to be addressing.

Trust in law enforcement isn’t built by tying officers’ hands or stifling federal authorities. Denver’s sanctuary policies confuse compassion with obstruction — drawing lines in the sand that chill the collaboration public safety depends on.