FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM

Sanctuary Policies Across the U.S.

October 25, 2013

 

Executive Summary

Sanctuary Policies Across the U.S

. details resolutions, ordinances, executive actions and other initiatives that now exist in 103 cities, towns and counties across 33 states and the District of Columbia. This study is the first and only comprehensive compilation of sanctuary policies and shows how non-enforcement

 –

 and outright defiance of immigration law which is expressly prohibited by federal law

—

 is a dangerous trend sweeping the country.

“Sanctuary policies” bar state or local officials, including law enforcement officials, from

asking persons about their immigration status, reporting them to federal immigration authorities, or otherwise cooperating with or assisting federal immigration authorities. The overwhelming majority of sanctuary policies cited in this study either prohibit state or

local officials from inquiring, acting on, or reporting an individual’s immigration status,

even when there is reasonable suspicion that federal immigration laws are being violated. Still other policies represent more aggressive efforts to shield illegal aliens, such as anti-detainer policies that restrict local and state police from cooperating with federal authorities seeking to remove aliens who have been arrested and charged with other crimes. While some of the state and local sanctuary policies noted were enacted ten or more years ago, the majority have occurred since President Obama took office in 2009, and almost half of the policies have been put in place in just the past two years. State and local jurisdictions often justify their sanctuary policies by claiming that illegal aliens will be more likely to report crimes to police without fear of deportation. Yet, the cost of illegal immigration in terms of education, health care, crime committed by illegal

aliens themselves, and overall declines in a community’s quality of life are far greater

than any benefit that may accrue from illegal aliens sharing information with police.  And, in reality, all police have the discretion to grant immunity to crimes witnesses

—

 regardless of their immigration status

—

 and virtually all do. By accommodating those who violate our immigration law, sanctuary policies only serve to encourage others to follow the same path. A growing illegal alien population lowers wages and work standards at the low end of the job market, adds to overcrowded housing, creates an underground economy that undermines the tax base, and has other negative consequences. Looking the other way does not solve the problem; it only permits it to grow larger. The authors of this study question how politicians who are paid to allocate limited community resources to

legal 

 residents and police chiefs who are paid to maintain the

 

 

FAIR

—

Sanctuary Policies Across the U.S. Page 2 of 24

rule of law can ever justify advertising their towns as safe havens? They’re just

encouraging the illegal aliens already there to stay and encouraging hundreds or thousands more to come in and drain finite services. But, the most compelling argument for ending state and local sanctuary policies is that they undermine federal anti-terrorism efforts. It is a sad fact of life since September 11, 2001 that we must be more vigilant regarding the activities of foreigners in our midst. The underground society of illegal aliens, with street sales of fake identity documents, creates a nurturing environment for terrorists. With an estimated 11.7 million illegal aliens residing in the U.S. and a mere 20,000 Immigration and Customs Enforcement employees, only half of whom are dedicated to the apprehension and removal of illegal aliens, it is clear that sanctuary policies seriously hamper efforts to harness state and local police capabilities in augmenting federal enforcement of immigration laws.

Sanctuary Policies Across the U.S.

 

 

FAIR

—

Sanctuary Policies Across the U.S. Page 3 of 24

 ALASKA

Statewide

House Joint Resolution 22 (23rd Legislature, May 2003)



 Prohibits agencies and instrumentalities of the state from disclosing views, associations, or activities of any individual, group, association, organization, corporation, business, or partnership relating to immigration matters unless the information directly relates to the investigation of criminal activities and there are reasonable grounds to suspect that such information is involved in the criminal conduct

 

 Anchorage

Resolution No. AR 2003-223 (July 15, 2003)

 



 

“

 An agency or instrumentality of the Municipality may not, (1) unless necessary to protect the safety of people, use Municipal resources or institutions for the enforcement of Federal immigration matters, which are the responsibility of the Federal

government….”

 Fairbanks

Resolution No. 4036 (January 6, 2003)

 



 This Resolution forbids in the absence of probable cause of criminal activity, the

“enforcement of immigration matters,

which are entirely the responsibility of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. No city service will be denied on the

basis of citizenship.”

 

City Council Meeting

 

Minutes (January 6, 2003)

 

 

Haines Borough

Resolution No. 05-12-078 (December 13, 2005)

 



 

“Unless there is reasonable suspicion of criminal activity as

defined by Alaska Statutes, the Borough, its officers, employees and agents shall not, even where permitted by the USA Patriot Act or related Executive Orders...Enforce immigration matters, these being the jurisdiction of the U.S.

Immigration and Naturalization Service.”

 Sitka

Resolution No. 03-886 (October 2, 2003)



 

“.

..it is the policy of the City and Borough of Sitka that the City and Borough of Sitka shall not use its resources or institutions for the enforcement of federal immigration matters pursuant to the USA Patriot Act which are the responsibility of the federal government.

”

 

 

 ARIZONA

Chandler

Chandler Police Department General

 

Orders: E-17 Immigration

 

Enforcement/Foreign

 

Nationals (September 19,

 

2012)

 



 If reasonable suspicion exists that the individual is an illegal alien, the officer shall not extend detention in order to wait for ICE. If ICE notifies police that the detainee has only civil charges (not criminal), then the officer must let the detainee go. Mesa

Mesa Police Department Special Order 2009-01: Immigration and Customs Enforcement Protocol (January 1, 2009)



 

“

While the investigation and enforcement of federal laws relating to illegal entry and residence in the United States is specifically assigned to ICE, the MPD commits to cooperating with ICE and others, to the extent permitted by law on

any criminal act that threatens the safety and well-being of our community 

. In enforcing the laws, officers may legally stop, detain or arrest anyone when reasonable suspicion or probable cause ex

ists that a crime has occurred.”

 



 

“

...department personnel shall not ask person who is a victim of a crime, a witness to a crime, a juvenile..., stopped and/or cited for a civil traffi

c violation with a valid driver’

s license or evidence of identity pursuant to ARS 28-1595(B), seeking medical assistance, a victim of domestic violence incident, or a community volunteer in police service...about his or her immigration status.

”

 



 

“

 Arizona law authorizes police officers to enforce provisions of the criminal law. The authorization is limited to criminal and does not include civil. Therefore, officers shall not transport for civil violations or continue to detain if the only violation is a civil

DRO hold.”