Sanctuary Cities: Lawbreakers Or Compassionate Reformers?

Sanctuary cities are municipalities that limit or deny cooperation with national governments in enforcing immigration law. While there is no official legal definition of the term, it generally refers to towns, cities, or counties that decline to cooperate with federal detention requests related to undocumented immigrants. Sanctuary cities are often associated with don't ask, don't tell policies, where local authorities do not inquire about an individual's immigration status.

The legality of sanctuary cities has been a subject of debate, with some arguing that they violate federal law by obstructing immigration enforcement. However, proponents of sanctuary cities assert that these policies are protected by the Tenth Amendment, which prevents the federal government from coercing state or local governments to enforce federal regulatory programs.

The debate around sanctuary cities centres on the balance between immigration enforcement and individual rights, with proponents arguing that sanctuary cities reduce fears of deportation, encourage reporting of crimes, and promote trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement. Opponents, on the other hand, argue that sanctuary cities hinder immigration enforcement, increase crime, and pose a threat to public safety.

Sanctuary cities are not violating federal law

Sanctuary cities are not nullifying or violating federal law, but rather opting not to use their resources to help federal agents identify and deport undocumented immigrants. These actions include a refusal to gather immigration-related data when police interact with local residents, as well as a refusal to detain undocumented people at the federal government's request, with few exceptions.

Sanctuary cities are not blocking information sharing with federal immigration authorities, but rather choosing not to prioritise the collection of immigration data. This means there is no information to be shared. Furthermore, while the federal government can require or prohibit certain acts, they cannot force state and local governments to do the same. This is one of the most basic tenets of federalism and the Tenth Amendment.

Sanctuary cities are not violating anti-harbouring laws. According to federal courts, "harbouring" requires affirmative conduct such as providing shelter, transportation, and direction about how to obtain false documentation. Simply failing to assist federal officials or passively declining to report an undocumented immigrant does not count as harbouring.

Sanctuary cities are safer

A study for the American Sociological Review found that immigrants "invigorate local economies and redevelop urban cores." The authors of the study wrote: "Scholars most often argue that rather than destabilize neighborhoods, immigrants invigorate local areas and fortify crime control processes."

A Cato Institute working paper published in October 2020 examined undocumented immigration and crime in Texas. The researchers found that counties with larger populations of undocumented immigrants had lower rates of violent crime.

Another study, published in the Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, looked at 40 years of data in big cities and found increasing rates of immigration to be "consistently linked to decreases in violent (e.g., murder) and property (e.g., burglary) crime throughout the time period."

A third study, by Michael T. Light and Ty Miller, looked at data from 1990 to 2014 for all 50 states plus Washington, D.C. The study found that increases in immigration meant a decrease in violent crime.

Many studies have found that sanctuary policies enhance the correlation between immigration population density and lower crime rates. Policies aimed at increasing the deportation of immigrants—even those focused on deporting people who have been involved in the criminal justice system—have no measurable impact on community safety.

Sanctuary cities encourage better relationships between undocumented immigrants and law enforcement. Undocumented immigrant cooperation with police is statistically proven to make sanctuary cities safer.

In San Francisco, one of the oldest sanctuary cities, murder rates were at their lowest in 2014 since the "City of Refuge" ordinance was enacted in 1989. San Francisco's murder rate is lower than comparable non-sanctuary cities, with 5.75 murders per 100,000 residents in 2013 compared to 11.39 in Dallas and 15.17 in Indianapolis.

Sanctuary policies are legal and protected by the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which provides for the separation of federal and state powers. The Amendment prevents the federal government from coercing state or local governments to use their resources to enforce federal immigration law.

While there is no official legal definition of "sanctuary city", the term generally refers to towns, cities, or counties that decline to cooperate completely with federal detention requests related to undocumented immigrants, often with a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Sanctuary cities undertake the responsibilities of receiving and processing an influx of migrants and providing services and resources to help them acclimate and live in their new communities.

Sanctuary cities protect undocumented immigrants against federal immigration laws

Sanctuary cities are municipalities that limit or refuse to cooperate with federal authorities in enforcing immigration law. They are often driven by the belief that immigration is a human rights issue and that it is the duty of US citizens and officials to help protect all people. Sanctuary cities are not explicitly breaking the law, but they do face opposition from those who argue that cities should assist the national government in enforcing immigration laws.

Sanctuary cities have policies that discourage local law enforcement from reporting the immigration status of individuals unless it involves the investigation of a serious crime. They also typically do not honor requests by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to detain undocumented immigrants for minor crimes or investigations. Many sanctuary cities refuse to deputize their local officers as federal agents, which is a technicality if local officers carry out the duties of ICE agents.

Sanctuary cities are based on the idea that the federal government cannot compel jurisdictions to take part in immigration enforcement. The Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution states that the federal government "may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers [...] to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program." Compliance with immigration detainers is voluntary, and some state courts have ruled that state laws do not provide legal authority for law enforcement agencies to hold people on an immigration detainer.

Sanctuary jurisdictions do not shield immigrants from deportation and may still share information or otherwise cooperate with federal immigration authorities. Even in sanctuary cities, officials send the fingerprints of any person booked into a prison or jail to the federal government, which can then be used to identify non-citizens for potential deportation. Sanctuary cities also do not prevent the "deportations of people with violent convictions."

Sanctuary cities have lower-than-average crime rates, higher household incomes, and lower poverty rates compared to cities without these policies. They also have higher labor force participation and employment-to-population ratios, as well as lower unemployment rates.

Sanctuary cities harbor criminals

Sanctuary cities are municipalities that limit or deny cooperation with national governments in enforcing immigration law. They are often controversial, with opponents arguing that they harbour criminals and increase crime rates. However, studies have shown that sanctuary cities either have no impact on crime or that they lower the crime rate.

The argument that sanctuary cities harbour criminals is based on the idea that they obstruct federal immigration law and prevent the deportation of illegal immigrants with violent criminal records. For example, in 2015, an illegal immigrant in San Francisco, a sanctuary city, fatally shot 32-year-old Kathryn Steinle. This incident sparked a national debate about sanctuary city policies.

However, supporters of sanctuary cities argue that these policies do not obstruct federal immigration law but instead reflect a decision about how to allocate scarce public resources. They argue that local law enforcement can focus on better purposes than enforcing federal immigration law. Additionally, sanctuary cities can help build trust between local law enforcement and immigrant communities, enhancing public safety overall.

Furthermore, the claim that sanctuary cities harbour criminals by concealing or shielding illegal immigrants from federal authorities has been refuted by legal experts. While there are anti-harbouring laws in place, federal courts have defined "harbouring" as requiring affirmative conduct such as providing shelter or transportation. Simply failing to assist federal officials or report an undocumented immigrant does not constitute harbouring.

In conclusion, while sanctuary cities may be controversial, the argument that they harbour criminals is not supported by evidence. Sanctuary cities do not actively obstruct federal immigration law, and their policies are designed to allocate resources effectively and build trust between law enforcement and immigrant communities.

Sanctuary cities defy federal laws

The term "sanctuary city" generally refers to municipalities that limit or deny cooperation with federal authorities in enforcing immigration law. While there is no official legal definition, sanctuary cities typically adopt "don't ask, don't tell" policies, refusing to gather immigration-related data or detain undocumented individuals at the request of federal authorities.

Proponents of sanctuary cities argue that these policies are legal and protected by the Tenth Amendment, which prevents the federal government from coercing state or local governments to enforce federal regulatory programs, like immigration. They contend that sanctuary cities cannot be compelled to collect immigration status information and, therefore, do not violate federal law by refusing to share such information.

However, opponents argue that sanctuary cities defy federal laws, such as 8 U.S.C. § 1373, which states that government entities cannot restrict the sharing of information regarding the immigration status of individuals with federal authorities. They claim that by not asking about, recording, and submitting immigration statuses, sanctuary cities violate federal law and the rules for receiving federal grant money.

The debate over sanctuary cities has led to legal battles between state and federal governments. The Trump administration, for example, attempted to withhold funds from sanctuary cities, arguing that the federal government should be able to do so due to their non-compliance with federal laws. However, a San Francisco judge blocked this order, stating that only Congress could place such conditions on spending.

Ultimately, the legality of sanctuary cities is a complex issue, and the debate continues over whether these cities are defying or upholding the law.

Frequently asked questions