Sanctuary Cities: Breaking Laws Or Human Rights Protectors?

Sanctuary cities are municipalities that limit or deny cooperation with national governments in enforcing immigration law. While there is no universal definition of a sanctuary policy, these cities generally refuse to comply with federal immigration officials' requests to detain undocumented immigrants. Sanctuary cities are not breaking any specific federal law, as immigration enforcement is the sole duty of the federal government. However, opponents argue that sanctuary cities undermine the rule of law and pose a threat to public safety.

Local law enforcement and immigration status

Sanctuary cities are jurisdictions that have adopted policies intended to increase trust and cooperation between local law enforcement and communities with significant immigrant populations, regardless of immigration status. These policies include offering English language classes, issuing municipal identification documents, ensuring equal access to bail, and establishing U-visa policies to make it easier for victims of crime to obtain the necessary documents from law enforcement agencies.

While there is no universal definition of a sanctuary policy, they generally fall into categories that restrict the ability of state and local police to enforce federal immigration laws. For example, policies may prohibit local law enforcement from making arrests for immigration violations, detaining individuals on civil immigration warrants, or entering into agreements with ICE to enforce federal immigration law.

The rationale behind sanctuary policies is to strengthen relations between local law enforcement and immigrant communities, allowing immigrants to work with police without fear of retribution or deportation. Additionally, these policies enable local governments to determine how they allocate resources and shield local law enforcement agencies from liabilities resulting from enforcing federal immigration laws.

In the United States, immigration status is not considered a matter for police action, and federal immigration authorities have primary jurisdiction over illegal entry enforcement. State and local law enforcement agencies are restricted from inquiring about or collecting information on an individual's immigration status unless it is connected to an investigation into a violation of state or local criminal law. They are also prohibited from providing non-publicly available personal information to federal immigration authorities, except as required by law.

Despite this, local law enforcement agencies frequently coordinate with federal immigration authorities, leading to a complex web of cooperation programs and databases that facilitate the deportation of immigrants who come into contact with the criminal legal system. This coordination has resulted in racial biases and discriminatory practices, with Black and Brown people being disproportionately targeted and incarcerated.

To address these issues, it is recommended that the criminal legal system be fully separated from civil immigration enforcement. This includes ending criminal prosecutions for unauthorized entry, repealing the list of criminal offenses that trigger deportation, and terminating cooperation programs and agreements between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities.

Sanctuary cities and crime rates

Sanctuary cities are jurisdictions that have adopted policies intended to build trust and cooperation between local law enforcement and immigrant communities. While there is no universal definition of a sanctuary policy, these policies generally restrict the role of local law enforcement in enforcing federal immigration laws.

The impact of sanctuary policies on crime rates has been the subject of much debate and research. Some argue that sanctuary policies may attract criminals and lower the opportunity cost of committing crimes. However, research suggests that sanctuary policies do not cause an increase in crime rates and may even lead to a decrease in certain types of crimes.

For example, a 2020 study found that sanctuary policies did not affect the deportation of people with violent convictions and had no detectable effect on overall crime rates. The study also concluded that these policies did not threaten public safety. Additionally, a 2017 report found a correlation between lower crime rates and counties that did not honor ICE detainers, with an average of 35.5 fewer crimes committed per 10,000 people compared to counties that did honor ICE detainers.

Research has also shown that sanctuary policies can have a positive impact on trust between residents and the police, which may contribute to a decrease in property crime rates. This increased trust is particularly important for undocumented immigrants, as it encourages them to report incidents and assist in criminal investigations without fear of immigration consequences.

Furthermore, studies have found no evidence that immigration status is connected to robbery or homicide rates at the city level. In fact, in sanctuary cities, an increase in the immigrant population, both authorized and unauthorized, was correlated with a decrease in the homicide rate.

Overall, the existing research suggests that sanctuary policies do not cause an increase in crime rates and may even contribute to a decrease in certain types of crimes, particularly property crimes. While the debate around sanctuary policies and their impact on public safety continues, the weight of the evidence indicates that these policies do not pose a threat to public safety.

Federal funding for sanctuary cities

Sanctuary cities are municipalities that adopt policies aimed at enhancing public safety and trust by limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. They are based on the idea that the federal government cannot compel jurisdictions to take part in immigration enforcement.

In 2025, the US Administration announced it would take all legally available action to ensure that federal funds are withheld from sanctuary cities. This action undermines public safety, erodes trust in local government, and jeopardizes essential services that individuals and families depend on. It also violates the underlying principle of the Tenth Amendment, which protects states and localities from federal overreach.

The "No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities" Act, expected to be considered by Congress, would end any federal funds for sanctuary jurisdictions that are determined to be intended for the benefit of undocumented immigrants. The bill defines sanctuary jurisdictions as any state, city, county, or locality that has a policy prohibiting or limiting local law enforcement from taking steps to facilitate deportations. The bill would give the White House dangerously broad discretion in defining affected programs, and many of the grants and programs targeted benefit all members of a community, not just undocumented immigrants.

The Biden administration has ended a Trump-era policy of denying so-called sanctuary cities from receiving certain forms of federal funding.

Sanctuary cities and the constitution

Sanctuary cities are municipalities that limit or deny cooperation with the national government in enforcing immigration law. They undertake the responsibilities of receiving and processing an influx of illegal immigrants, and providing services and resources for them to acclimate and live in the communities in which they arrive. Sanctuary cities are not defined by a universal or precise legal definition, but rather by their policies and practices.

The US Constitution does not provide a clear answer to the question of whether federal or local government has jurisdiction over the detention and deportation of illegal immigrants. The issue of jurisdiction has been vigorously debated, with both federal and local governments offering arguments to defend their authority.

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, 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, 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. In fact, jurisdictions that honor detainers can be found liable for unlawfully holding an individual without a judicial warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Sanctuary cities do not actively prevent federal officials from carrying out their immigration enforcement duties. Even in sanctuary jurisdictions, officials still send the fingerprints of any person booked into a prison or jail to the federal government, which can then be used to identify noncitizens for potential deportation. Additionally, sanctuary jurisdictions may rent jail space to the federal government to house immigrant detainees or direct local law enforcement to honor requests from ICE under certain circumstances.

While there is no specific federal law against sanctuary city policies, there have been legislative attempts to deprive state funding from police departments and municipalities that do not cooperate with federal authorities. In 2017, President Trump signed an executive order directing the Secretary of Homeland Security and Attorney General to defund sanctuary jurisdictions that refuse to comply with federal immigration law. However, this executive order was blocked by a federal judge, who ruled that it violated the separation of powers doctrine and deprived jurisdictions of their Tenth and Fifth Amendment rights.

Sanctuary cities and human rights

Sanctuary cities are jurisdictions that have adopted policies limiting their cooperation with federal immigration enforcement officials. While there is no universal definition of a sanctuary policy, they generally fall into categories such as restricting the ability of local police to make arrests for federal immigration violations or prohibiting agreements that deputize local law enforcement to enforce immigration laws. These policies aim to build trust and cooperation between law enforcement and immigrant communities.

The debate around sanctuary cities and human rights centres on the balance between upholding immigration laws and protecting the rights of immigrants. Sanctuary cities argue that their policies strengthen relations between local law enforcement and immigrant communities by allowing immigrants to report and assist in investigating crimes without fear of deportation. This, in turn, can lead to lower crime rates and safer communities for everyone.

However, opponents of sanctuary cities argue that these policies hinder the enforcement of immigration laws and prioritize the rights of undocumented immigrants over those of citizens. They believe that sanctuary cities shield immigrants from deportation and prevent the federal government from carrying out its duties. The Trump administration, for example, threatened to withhold funding from sanctuary cities, arguing that they were impeding law enforcement and endangering public safety.

The impact of sanctuary city policies on human rights is complex. On the one hand, these policies can protect immigrants from unlawful detention and deportation, ensuring that people are not penalised solely for their immigration status. Sanctuary cities may also provide access to essential services, such as language classes and identification documents, regardless of immigration status.

On the other hand, critics argue that sanctuary city policies can inadvertently protect criminals and prevent the deportation of individuals with violent convictions. There are concerns that sanctuary cities may hinder public safety and send a message that breaking immigration laws is acceptable.

Frequently asked questions