Sanctuary Cities: Complying With Federal Immigration Law?

Sanctuary cities are municipalities that limit or deny cooperation with national governments in enforcing immigration law. They are often declared by a city's council and mayor, who then enact measures and policies that are welcoming and favorable to migrants. While proponents of sanctuary cities argue that enforcement of federal law is not the duty of localities, opponents argue that cities should assist the national government in enforcing immigration law.

Sanctuary cities have been a source of controversy, with some arguing that they violate federal law, including 8 U.S. Code § 1324, which imposes penalties on those who conceal, harbor, or shield from detention undocumented immigrants. However, others argue that sanctuary cities are not breaking federal law, as they are opting not to use its resources to help federal agents identify and deport undocumented immigrants.

The legality of sanctuary cities remains a subject of debate, with legal experts and courts interpreting the relevant laws differently.

Sanctuary cities are not breaking federal law as they are not nullifying or violating it

Furthermore, the federal government cannot force local governments to enforce federal law. This is one of the most basic tenets of federalism and the Tenth Amendment. The Supreme Court has upheld this principle in cases such as Printz v. United States. Therefore, state and local governments cannot be compelled to enforce federal immigration law, and they can decide to allocate as few resources as they want to this endeavour, effectively becoming sanctuaries for undocumented immigrants.

The controversy over sanctuary cities stems from the claim that these cities are violating anti-harbouring laws, specifically Section 1324 of Title 8 of the U.S. Code, which imposes penalties on those who "conceal, harbour, or shield from detention" undocumented immigrants. However, this claim does not hold up as the federal courts generally require affirmative conduct, such as providing shelter and transportation, to constitute "harbouring". The actions of sanctuary cities fall outside of this definition as they are merely refusing to gather immigration information and use local resources to aid federal authorities.

In conclusion, sanctuary cities are not breaking federal law as they are not nullifying or violating it. Their actions fall within the boundaries of federalism and the Tenth Amendment, and they are not engaging in the harbouring of undocumented immigrants as defined by federal courts.

Sanctuary cities are not obstructing federal immigration enforcement efforts

The Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that the federal government "may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program." The Supreme Court has clarified that immigration enforcement is the sole duty of the federal government, and state and local police may only carry out immigration enforcement if specifically authorized to do so by the federal government.

Compliance with immigration detainers is voluntary, not mandatory. Federal law cannot force local jurisdictions to honor detainers, and courts have repeatedly upheld this interpretation. Some state courts have also ruled that state laws do not provide legal authority for law enforcement agencies to hold people on an immigration detainer. Jurisdictions that honor detainers can be found liable for unlawfully holding an individual without a judicial warrant, in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Sanctuary jurisdictions do not shield immigrants from deportation or prosecution for criminal activities. State and local police still enforce state and local criminal laws against immigrants accused of crimes in sanctuary jurisdictions. Research published in 2020 by the National Academy of Sciences found that sanctuary policies did not prevent the deportations of people with violent convictions and did not affect crime rates in jurisdictions with such policies.

Furthermore, sanctuary jurisdictions may still cooperate with federal immigration officials in various ways. For example, they may share fingerprints of individuals booked into prisons or jails with the federal government, which can then be used to identify non-citizens for potential deportation. Sanctuary jurisdictions may also rent jail space to the federal government to house immigrant detainees.

In conclusion, sanctuary cities are not obstructing federal immigration enforcement efforts. Sanctuary policies aim to strengthen relations between local law enforcement and immigrant communities, allow state and local governments to determine how to allocate their resources, and shield local law enforcement from liabilities resulting from enforcing federal immigration laws. The decision to become a sanctuary city is a matter of policy preference, not a violation of federal law.

Sanctuary cities do not increase crime

Sanctuary cities are those that limit the degree to which local police cooperate with requests from federal authorities to detain and turn over unauthorized immigrants. There is no single definition of a sanctuary city, but it is generally considered to be a city that does not cooperate with the federal government in terms of immigration policies. Sanctuary policies are meant to encourage cooperation between immigrant communities and law enforcement to improve public safety.

Some critics argue that sanctuary policies release criminal aliens into communities and make cities more attractive to illegal immigrants, thus increasing crime. However, research has found no evidence to support this claim. A study by researchers at the University of California, Riverside, and Highline College found no evidence of higher crime rates in cities with sanctuary policies. They first looked at whether there was a change in crime rates in cities before and after the implementation of a sanctuary policy and found no increase. They then compared sanctuary cities to otherwise similar cities without sanctuary policies and found that violent crime was slightly higher in sanctuary cities, but not to a statistically significant degree.

Another study by Yuki Otsu, which examined the effects of sanctuary policies on city-level crime rates using crime data from 1999 to 2010 and focusing on 42 cities with formal sanctuary policies, found no evidence that sanctuary policies caused an increase in crime overall. This finding remained even when controlling for the effectiveness of the local government and other immigration policies. In addition, there was weaker evidence that sanctuary policies may actually decrease property crime.

The claim that sanctuary cities are breaking federal law by refusing to cooperate with federal deportation efforts is also questionable. While there are federal statutes that require state and local officials to aid federal immigration authorities, the Constitution prohibits the federal government from hijacking states and cities and forcing them to carry out its will. The basic tenets of federalism and dual sovereignty mean that state and local jurisdictions can choose to become sanctuaries and reduce the risk of deportation for undocumented immigrants.

Sanctuary cities do not have to aid federal immigration enforcement

Sanctuary cities are municipalities that limit or deny cooperation with national governments in enforcing immigration law. They are not required to aid federal immigration enforcement. While there is no universal definition of a sanctuary policy, these policies generally fall into categories such as restricting the ability of state and local police to make arrests for federal immigration violations, prohibiting certain agreements with ICE, and preventing local governments from entering contracts with the federal government to hold immigrants in detention.

The Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that the federal government "may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program." The Supreme Court has clarified that immigration enforcement is the sole duty of the federal government, and state and local police may only carry out immigration enforcement if specifically authorized to do so by the federal government. 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 cities do not actively prevent federal officials from carrying out their immigration enforcement duties. They simply choose not to use their resources to aid federal agents in identifying and deporting undocumented immigrants. This includes refusing to gather immigration-related data and refusing to detain undocumented people at the federal government's request, with few exceptions. Sanctuary cities are about the allocation and prioritization of scarce public funds and bolstering trust between residents and law enforcement.

The principle that the federal government cannot commandeer states and cities by compelling them to enforce federal laws has been upheld by the Supreme Court in cases such as Printz v. United States. Therefore, state and local governments cannot be forced to enforce federal immigration law, and they can decide to allocate minimal resources to this endeavor, effectively becoming sanctuaries for undocumented immigrants.

Sanctuary cities are not compelled to enforce federal law

Sanctuary cities are jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities. While there have been efforts by the federal government to curb these cities' activities, the law is clear: cities and states are entitled to set themselves up as sanctuaries for undocumented immigrants.

The Constitution states that federal law is supreme over state and local law. However, the Tenth Amendment and the basic tenets of federalism dictate that the federal government cannot commandeer states and cities by compelling them to enforce federal laws. The Supreme Court has upheld this principle in cases such as Printz v. United States.

Sanctuary cities do not nullify or violate federal law; they simply choose not to use their resources to help federal agents identify and deport undocumented immigrants. These cities refuse to gather immigration-related data, detain undocumented people, or use local resources to aid federal authorities. As long as they are not actively blocking information sharing, sanctuary cities are not breaking the law.

While there are federal statutes that require state and local officials to aid federal immigration authorities, these statutes do not force state and local governments to enforce federal law. The federal government cannot force these governments to require or prohibit certain acts.

Attempts to charge sanctuary cities with violating anti-harboring laws also hold no water. Federal courts generally define "harboring" as providing shelter, transportation, or direction about obtaining false documentation. Sanctuary cities' refusal to assist federal officials or report undocumented immigrants does not meet this definition.

In conclusion, sanctuary cities are not compelled to enforce federal law. They are exercising their legal right to prioritize their resources and build trust between residents and law enforcement.

Frequently asked questions