Sanctuary cities in the United States are often a topic of heated debate. Although the concept of ‘sanctuaries’ is not exclusive to USA, it’s the one that gets talked about the most and has the older history. Depending on one’s political perspective, these cities are either seen as lawless regions where federal laws are blatantly ignored or as essential havens for marginalized communities seeking safety and a better life. Neither extreme view captures the nuanced reality of what sanctuary cities are and how they operate. To truly understand the concept, it’s necessary to delve into the policies, implications and challenges local law enforcement face in these jurisdictions.
History of Sanctuary Cities
Sanctuary cities in the United States have their roots in the Sanctuary Movement of the late 1980s and early 1990s, which was initially driven by religious congregations offering assistance to undocumented Salvadorian and Guatemalan families fleeing violence in their home countries. During this period, the U.S. government denied over 90% of asylum requests from these immigrants, despite the severe political instability and civil wars in El Salvador and Guatemala that claimed the lives of over 75,000 Salvadorans and 200,000 Guatemalans. Sanctuary activists, believing the federal government was violating international and domestic refugee law, acted in defiance of U.S. immigration authorities to protect these vulnerable populations.
The movement’s philosophy was deeply rooted in religious beliefs and historical resistance to perceived state injustices. It officially began in the early 1980s, when faith-based groups in the U.S. Southwest declared their churches as sanctuaries. In March 1982, eight churches publicly announced their sanctuary status, with John Fife, a key movement leader, writing to Attorney General William Smith to declare that his church would openly violate the Immigration and Nationality Act by providing sanctuary to Central American refugees.
A significant milestone in the sanctuary city movement occurred in 1985 when San Francisco passed the “City of Refuge” resolution, a largely symbolic gesture that prohibited the use of city funds and resources to assist federal immigration enforcement. This resolution set the precedent for the defining characteristic of sanctuary cities in the U.S.: the refusal to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.
Defining a Sanctuary City
The term ‘Sanctuary Cities’ doesn’t have any legal definition but has developed over time to reflect how cities, counties & states deal with Illegal Immigration. Sanctuary cities, broadly speaking, are jurisdictions that limit their cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. This can range from cities, counties, and states with laws or policies that dictate the extent to which local law enforcement agencies assist federal immigration authorities, particularly the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The specific practices and policies of sanctuary cities can vary widely from one place to another.
For example, in Chicago, the “Welcoming City Ordinance” prohibits city employees from inquiring about a resident’s immigration status or denying city services based on that status. In Washington D.C., police officers are barred from asking residents about their immigration status altogether. Similarly, in New York local law prohibits cooperation with ICE other than when accompanied by a judicial order and simply releases inmates back to the streets when they are done with the local charges. These policies aim to foster trust between immigrant communities and local law enforcement, ensuring that individuals feel safe reporting crimes or cooperating with investigations without fear of deportation.
There are many counties across the United States that claim sanctuary county policies, and several states that consider their entire geographical location as a sanctuary. As of March 2021, the following states claim sanctuary status:
- California
- Colorado
- Connecticut
- Illinois
- Massachusetts
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- Oregon
- Vermont
- Washington
In addition, some of these sanctuary states also designate counties to have policies in place that discourage or prohibit cooperation between local law and federal agents when dealing with undocumented immigrants. For a comprehensive list of states, counties & cities with sanctuary status visit Center for Immigration Studies.
The Role of Local Law Enforcement
The practical implications of sanctuary policies often come down to how a local police officer handles an unauthorized immigrant already in custody for another reason. For instance, if someone is pulled over for speeding and the officer discovers an unpaid ticket leading to an arrest, the individual’s fingerprints are sent to both the FBI and ICE as part of the booking process. This step is mandatory, regardless of whether the city is a sanctuary city.
If ICE identifies the individual as an unauthorized immigrant, they may send a detainer request to the local police, asking them to hold the individual for an additional 48 hours beyond their scheduled release. This gives ICE time to take custody and initiate deportation proceedings. However, honoring this request is not mandatory. The Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the federal government from compelling state and local governments to enforce federal laws, and several federal courts have ruled that detainer requests fall into this category.
This puts local law enforcement officials in a difficult position. If they honor the detainer request and the individual is deported, it can create a climate of fear in the immigrant community, where even victims or witnesses of crimes may be too afraid to interact with the police. This undermines public safety, as it becomes more challenging for law enforcement to gather information and prevent crime. For more information on how different local law enforcements react to ICE detainer requests, see this map.
Are Sanctuary Cities Safer?
Research on the impact of sanctuary status on crime shows mixed results. Although, Sanctuary city policies significantly decrease the deportation of undocumented immigrants without criminal records but do not affect those with violent criminal histories. Furthermore, some studies suggest that sanctuary policies either have no effect on crime or that sanctuary cities experience higher crime rates and weaker economies compared to non-sanctuary cities. While another research claims that sanctuary cities on an average, have 35.5 fewer crimes committed per 10,000 people compared to non-sanctuary counties. Critics believe that cities should not inhibit federal agencies from doing their jobs and argue that sanctuary cities harbor criminals, creating a dangerous environment for US citizens. In contrast, supporters contend that enforcing federal law is not a local responsibility and that local law enforcement resources can be better allocated.
The Dilemma of Cooperation
The relationship between federal, state, and local governments can be seen as a ladder, with the federal government at the top, state governments in the middle, and local governments at the bottom. This dynamic was highlighted by the actions of former President Donald Trump, who in January 2017 signed an executive order aiming to withhold federal funds from sanctuary cities. The order’s vague wording led to legal challenges, and its implementation remains uncertain. Later, The Biden administration reversed that policy. However, this underscored the pressure that local law enforcement faced when navigating the complex terrain of immigration enforcement.
If local law enforcement chooses not to honor a detainer request, there are no guarantees that the individual won’t be deported later. ICE can still conduct operations independently of local law enforcement, and some states have taken steps to override local sanctuary policies. In Texas, for example, Governor Greg Abbott signed a law in 2017 banning sanctuary cities and issued orders to cut state funding to those that do not comply with federal immigration enforcement. This move created a precedent where local jurisdictions might face financial penalties for their sanctuary policies.
For local law enforcement, deciding whether to honor a detainer request is often about choosing between public safety and financial security. On one hand, ignoring a detainer request may protect community trust and encourage cooperation between immigrants and the police. On the other hand, it can lead to financial penalties or loss of state and federal funding, which can cripple a police department’s ability to serve its community effectively.
Conclusion
The debate over sanctuary cities is far from settled, and it reflects broader tensions in American society over immigration policy, federalism, and public safety. As southern governors continue to migrate north, the landscape of sanctuary cities and the laws governing them will likely continue to evolve. However, it is crucial to remember that sanctuary cities do not provide blanket protection from deportation or prosecution for crimes. Instead, they represent a localized approach to balancing the enforcement of immigration laws with the need to maintain public safety and community trust.
In conclusion, sanctuary cities in the U.S. embody the complexities of federal, state, and local governance, particularly in the realm of immigration enforcement. These cities navigate a delicate balance between adhering to federal laws and protecting their communities’ trust and safety, making the issue both contentious and multifaceted. As the political and legal landscape continues to shift, sanctuary cities will remain at the forefront of the national conversation on immigration and law enforcement.
