h t t p : / / w i k i l e a k s . o r g / w i k i / C R S - R S 2 2 7 7 3
, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
Jeffrey S. Passel, Pew Hispanic Center,
The Size and Characteristics of the Unauthorized Migrant Population in the U.S.: Estimates Based on the March 2005 Current Population Survey
, March 7, 2006.
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 287(g), 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g). For additionalbackground, see CRS Report RL32270,
Enforcing Immigration Law: The Role of State and Local Law Enforcement
, by Blas Nuñez-Neto, Michael John Garcia, and Karma Ester.
Many recent local ordinances restricting unauthorized aliens’ access to housing andemployment have been subject to legal challenge.
, Lozano v. City of Hazleton, 496F.Supp.2d 477 (M.D.Pa. 2007) (striking down an ordinance restricting the housing oremployment of unauthorized aliens on preemption and Fourteenth Amendment grounds).
Immigrant Protection Rules Draw Fire
, November 12, 2006.
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Audit Division, C
ECIPIENTS IN THE
LIENS FROM THE
, January2007 (redacted public version) [
“2007 OIG Report”], at 44 (defining “sanctuary”policies).
and removal of aliens from the United States, the impact of unauthorized immigration hasarguably been felt most directly in the communities where aliens settle. The response of states and localities to the influx of illegal immigrants has varied. On one end of thespectrum, some jurisdictions have actively sought to deter the presence of illegalimmigrants within their territory. Some jurisdictions have assisted federal authorities inapprehending and detaining unauthorized aliens, including pursuant to agreements (287(g)agreements) with federal immigration authorities enabling respective state or local lawenforcement agencies to carry out various immigration enforcement functions.
Morecontroversially, some jurisdictions have sought to deter illegal immigration by imposingtheir own restrictions upon unauthorized aliens’ access to housing, employment, ormunicipal services.
Moving toward the middle of the spectrum, some states andlocalities communicate with federal immigration enforcement officers under limitedcircumstances (e.g., after arresting an unauthorized alien for a criminal offense), but forvarious reasons do not take a more active role in deterring illegal immigration.At the other end of the spectrum, some jurisdictions have been unwilling to assist thefederal government in enforcing measures that distinguish between legal and non-legalresidents of the community. Some of these jurisdictions have adopted formal or informalpolicies limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
This latter categoryof jurisdictions is sometimes referred to as “sanctuary cities.” Although this term is notdefined by federal statute or regulation, it has been used by some in reference to“jurisdictions that may have state laws, local ordinances, or departmental policies limitingthe role of local law enforcement agencies and officers in the enforcement of immigrationlaws.”
The very existence of “sanctuary cities” has been the subject of considerablecontroversy. Supporters argue that immigration enforcement is the responsibility of thefederal government, and that local efforts to deter the presence of unauthorized alienswould undermine community relations, disrupt municipal services, interfere with local