Sanctuary Cities: Lawful Or Lawless?

Sanctuary cities are municipalities that limit or deny cooperation with the national government in enforcing immigration law. They are often controversial, with opponents arguing that cities should assist the national government in enforcing immigration law, and supporters countering that enforcement of federal law is not the duty of localities. While sanctuary cities are accused of violating the law, this is not the case. Sanctuary cities are in compliance with federal law, as the Supreme Court has clarified that immigration enforcement is the sole duty of the federal government.

Sanctuary cities are not breaking the law

Sanctuary cities are municipalities that limit or deny cooperation with the national government in enforcing immigration law. While this has been a controversial topic, with opponents arguing that sanctuary cities increase crime, there are several reasons why sanctuary cities are not breaking the law.

Firstly, sanctuary cities do not nullify or violate federal law. Instead, they opt 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 actively block information sharing with federal immigration authorities. As long as they are not actively obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration law, sanctuary cities are not breaking the law.

Secondly, the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that the federal government cannot compel states and cities to actively enforce federal laws at their own expense. The Supreme Court has upheld this principle, clarifying that immigration enforcement is solely the duty of the federal government. Thus, state and local governments cannot be forced to enforce federal immigration law and can decide how to allocate their resources.

Additionally, sanctuary cities do not shield immigrants from deportation or prosecution for criminal activities. Research has shown that sanctuary policies do not prevent the deportations of individuals with violent convictions and have no measurable effect on crime rates. Sanctuary jurisdictions may still cooperate with federal immigration officials by sharing fingerprints of individuals booked into prisons or jails and renting jail space to house immigrant detainees.

Furthermore, while Section 1373 of Title 8 of the U.S. Code prohibits state and local governments from restricting communication about immigration or citizenship status with the Department of Homeland Security, courts have found that this statute unlawfully interferes with state and local authority. Sanctuary cities are still permitted to limit communication regarding criminal case information, custody status, or release dates of individuals in custody.

In conclusion, sanctuary cities are not breaking the law. They are exercising their legal right to prioritize their resources and build trust with immigrant communities, while still allowing federal immigration officials to carry out their duties.

Federal immigration enforcement is the sole duty of the federal government

Sanctuary cities are municipalities that limit or deny cooperation with the national government in enforcing immigration law. In the United States, this movement began in the early 1980s, with faith-based groups in the US Southwest driving its early adoption. Sanctuary cities undertake the responsibilities of receiving and processing an influx of migrants, and providing services and resources for them to acclimate and live in the country and communities in which they arrive.

The legality of sanctuary cities is a matter of debate. Opponents argue that cities should assist the national government in enforcing immigration law, while supporters argue that enforcement of federal law is not the duty of localities. 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, and some state courts have ruled that their state laws do not provide legal authority for law enforcement agencies to hold people on an immigration detainer.

While there are federal statutes that require state and local officials to aid federal immigration authorities, the federal government cannot force state and local governments to enforce federal law. This principle, upheld by the Supreme Court, is based on the Tenth Amendment, which 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."

Sanctuary cities do not actively prevent federal officials from carrying out their immigration enforcement duties. Research published in 2020 by the National Academy of Sciences found that sanctuary policies did not prevent the deportations of people with violent convictions. Jurisdictions that adopt sanctuary policies may still cooperate with federal immigration officials in a variety of ways, including sending the fingerprints of any person booked into a prison or jail to the federal government, and renting jail space to the federal government to house immigrant detainees.

Sanctuary cities do not shield immigrants from deportation

In sanctuary cities, local law enforcement officers will not detain a person solely based on their immigration status. They will also not comply with ICE requests to detain a person beyond their release date if they were jailed for breaking local law. However, if a person is suspected of committing a serious crime, local law enforcement will still cooperate with ICE.

Sanctuary cities do not violate federal law. While the US Constitution states that federal law takes precedence over state and local law, there is no specific federal law against sanctuary city policies. Additionally, the Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal government from forcing state and local governments to enforce federal laws.

Sanctuary cities are motivated by human rights and community growth ideals. They aim to reduce migrants' fears of deportation, separation of migrant families, and encourage reporting of crimes, use of health and social services, and enrolment of children in public schools. Studies have shown that sanctuary cities have lower crime rates, higher median household incomes, and lower poverty rates compared to non-sanctuary cities.

Sanctuary cities have lower crime rates

Sanctuary cities do not break the law. While the US Constitution states that federal law takes precedence over state and local law, the Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal government from commandeering states and cities by compelling them to enforce federal laws.

Sanctuary cities are municipalities that limit or deny cooperation with the national government in enforcing immigration law. They are places of refuge for undocumented immigrants, and their policies are designed to be welcoming and favourable to migrants.

In addition, a study by the American Immigration Council determined that both documented and undocumented immigrants are less likely to engage in criminal behaviour than native-born Americans. The study also found a decrease in violent crime and serious property crime in cities with growing migrant populations.

Another study in the journal Urban Affairs Review found that sanctuary policies have no statistically meaningful effect on crime. However, a third study in the journal Justice Quarterly found that the adoption of sanctuary policies reduced the robbery rate.

Overall, the evidence suggests that sanctuary cities do not experience higher crime rates and may even have lower crime rates than non-sanctuary cities.

Sanctuary cities are safer for immigrants

Sanctuary cities are municipalities that limit or deny cooperation with national governments in enforcing immigration law. They are usually declared by a city's council and mayor, who then enact measures and policies that are welcoming to migrants. Sanctuary cities are not violating federal law by refusing to use their resources to help federal agents identify and deport undocumented immigrants. Instead, they are exercising their right to allocate and prioritize their scarce public funds and build trust between residents and law enforcement.

Sanctuary cities have several benefits for immigrants. Firstly, they provide a safe space for immigrants to live and work without fear of deportation. Secondly, they promote the separation of local and federal law, empowering communities to grow and thrive with the help of immigrants. Sanctuary cities also have positive economic impacts, with higher median household incomes, lower poverty rates, and lower reliance on public assistance.

Furthermore, sanctuary cities build trust between local law enforcement and immigrant communities. By refusing to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, sanctuary cities protect immigrants from unfair treatment and persecution. This trust encourages immigrants to report crimes and concerns without fear of reprisal, promoting community-building and enhancing public safety.

In conclusion, sanctuary cities provide a safer and more welcoming environment for immigrants. They reduce the risk of deportation for undocumented immigrants, promote human rights and community growth, and have positive economic and social impacts.

Frequently asked questions