de Lima

Isabella de Lima

Professor Dennis Dallaire

GLS 100: US Government

15 November 2017

Sanctuary Cities Research Paper

The argument of the legality of sanctuary cities has been an ongoing conflict for decades .

Since the late 70s, cities in the United States began increasing in population, and state authorities

had more important matters to take care of to be too focused on immigration laws and statutes .

This caused for cities and towns to begin passing laws that restricted local authority’s role in

immigration affairs (Sullivan 568). Sanctuary policies began being implemented in the United

States by large cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco, and it is essential to understand the

background in which they emerged to better recognize the impact these policies have on the

federal government.

Sanctuary policies are all the statutes, ordinances, resolutions and executive orders in

local and state levels regarding immigration, and the cities that implement these types of policies

are consequently referred to as sanctuary cities. The first sanctuary policy in the country was

passed by the Los Angeles Police Department in 1979 through its Special Order 40, that ought to

“include cooperation between the LAPD and the communities it serves” (Sullivan 571) . These

statutes were implemented in the early 1980s by churches, synagogues and other religious

communities, to offer asylum to Central American refugees who were fleeing their countries

because of political and economic instability. This draws back to the idea that the immigrant

population grew, for this instability lead to an inflow of refugees into the continental U.S. and

1
 de Lima

subsequently for the policies to change. Because there were so many refugees coming in, police

decided they couldn’t protect everyone if people were afraid to report crimes out of fear of

deportation. This led the police departments in various cities to reanalyze policies regarding

immigration laws. One argument many supporters of sanctuary policies propose is that the

federal government has the responsibility for welcoming central American refugees, for they are

responsible for the political and economic intervention in these countries (Marra 4). This

argument demonstrates how consequently, the U.S. government is caused these refugees to flee

from their homes and into the U.S. looking for better opportunities, and know they are fighting

against his illegal immigration issue.

Analysts classify sanctuary policies into three types: “don’t ask”, “don’t enforce” and

“don’t tell” policies. “Don’t ask” refers to limiting inquiries that are related to nationality or

immigration status; “don’t enforce” specifies the limit on immigration-related arrests and

detentions; “don’t tell” attributes to the limit of information that local and state authorities are

able to share with the federal officials. This creates an endless argument as to whether local and

regional authorities should have their own policies regarding immigration, because many critics

of the movement advocate to local authorities focusing on local issues, and leave immigration to

the federal level officials (Sullivan 574).

Sanctuary policies are a way to limit federal involvement on immigration policies and

regulations, and placing it in the state or regionals authorities . They also are a measure to

enhance the relations between immigrants and local authorities, to strip their unease of going to

the police for help out of fear of deportation (Sullivan 581) . Because immigrants are frequently

ignorant to many of the sanctuary policies, they won’t cooperate with authorities due to the

2
 de Lima

aforementioned fear, so police departments in cities who have declared themselves as sanctuary

decided to limit their involvement on the issues (Marra 4).

The New Sanctuary Movement that emerged in 2007 is a reaction to the growing conflict

around immigration, and was mainly focused on the network of faith that helped refugees in

America. It wishes to provide for legal, financial and spiritual support to families of immigrants

during the deportation process, putting aside the protection of illegal immigrants . This new

movement campaigns for challenging the negative stereotypes associated with undocumented

immigrants, as how they are being viewed as mainly terrorists (Yuckich 306, 308).

It is ironic that after the September 11 attacks, where nationalism and anti-immigration

sentiments sparked, the sanctuary movement was made popular again, after being dormant for

the past years. These attacks led the Department of Justice in 2002 to create a policy

memorandum, which stated that “local officials possess the ‘inherent authority’ to arrest and

detain illegal immigrants for both criminal and civil immigration violations”. As a result of this,

two years later over 20 major cities and towns had already adopted these policies and declared

themselves sanctuary cities. This extreme response may be due to the local officials questioning

the legality of the DOJ’s office, and disapproving of its measures (Sullivan 573) . Refugees and

undocumented immigrants have historically lived in six states that have adopted these types of

policies: California, New York, Texas, Illinois, Florida and New Jersey, but as more and more

cities and states declare themselves as sanctuary, the immigrant population has been dispersing

throughout the country (Marra 7).

In discussing the legality of sanctuary cities and whether it should be the federal

government’s responsibility, several viewpoints have to be taken into consideration . Although

3
 de Lima

supporters may argue that these policies should be maintained because people who migrate to the

United States undocumented do so because they are seeking better opportunities for them and

their families, many critics argue that the implementation of sanctuary policies is a form of free

riding and therefore should not be tolerated. ‘Free riding’ is a term used to describe a person who

takes advantage from all the benefits payed by others (with taxes), without contributing to them

(Hardin). This is the main argument in the majority of sanctuary policy’s critics, for immigrants

by not paying taxes are considered to be free riding while the citizens pay for the benefits they

are enjoying as well.

Another critique sanctuary cities face is how they are essentially violating federal law by

allowing undocumented immigrants to reside in the cities without reporting them to the federal

authorities (Marra 5). This argument has some faulty statements, as regional and state authorities

have historically been given the immigration regulation by the Articles of Confederation, so

consequently they are not violating any federal policies (Sullivan 570). It can also be argued that

having multiple immigration policies instead of a steady one that applies to all cities and counties

equally can represent some sort of chaos, immigration being an issue of federal attention rather

than particular states’. Jessica Vaughan, the director of policy at the Center for Immigration

Studies agrees that “immigration is a federal responsibility . You cannot have 3,000 different

policies, it’s chaos” (Cameron). This is an easily refutable argument, as the U.S. Constitution

grants the states the authority to create certain laws and regulations regarding certain aspects, so

this argument makes it seem that the separation of powers stated by the framers is believed to be

the responsible for this argument to be a viable critique.

4
 de Lima

One of the main threats the employment of sanctuary policies is facing, and more

specifically the aforementioned “don’t ask” characteristic, is the implementation of the NCIC

database for immigration data, which causes the dissemination of criminal and civil immigration .

This database serves to enforce the federal law in contravention of local laws created specifically

to prevent the enforcement of immigration policies. The NCIC consequently “undermines the

ability of local officers to utilize their own discretion in deciding both when to investigate a

person’s immigration status, and when to enforce immigration violations” . This puts a weight on

the “don’t ask” characteristic of these policies because officials may be tempted to report an

immigration violation when they see a person’s status is not legal. Fortunately, local officials

will not and cannot be punished if he or she disobeys the NCIC database instructions to report

the immigration-related crime, so they can still work with sanctuary policies at their own

discretion (Sullivan 569).

Furthermore, one point that has been drawing attention to sanctuary cities is President

Trump’s administration’s regulations, and what repercussion these may have on sanctuary

policies. It is a known fact that Trump’s campaign was characterized by extreme nationalism and

sentiments of anti-immigration, and he recently released an executive order to “support

immigration enforcement and punish local governments that don’t comply with federal

authorities”. Because regional and local officials enforce immigration policies, they are not

required by law to arrest or detain illegal immigrants just because the federal authorities request

them to. Some critics believe that sanctuary for “criminal illegal immigrants” upsets the balance

between the federalist diversity and constitutional rights, that is why it is believed that these

policies are going to disappear under Trump’s administration (Kane).

5
 de Lima

Although there seems to be numerous arguments against sanctuary cities, one important

point to take into consideration is how difficult and tedious it is to obtain an immigrant visa to be

able to enter the United States legally, and this is amplified by President Trump’s mainly anti-

immigrant administration policies. From a personal experience and as a F-1 visa holder, I can

relate directly to the undocumented people that are seeking better opportunities in this country . I

myself came here seeking a better education than the one I could receive back home, so it is only

just that I understand the circumstances that immigrants face . The process of applying and

further on obtaining a visa is extremely long, and that doesn’t even guarantee you will be granted

one. F-1 visas are given to international students, and it is one of the easiest to obtain if you have

already been accepted to a university. But the amount of people I had to see being denied one

while I was in line is unimaginable . Seeing the illusion fade off their faces when they are told

their visa was denied is unbearable, and it made me want to give them my status so they could

accomplish their dreams. Undocumented immigrants don’t arrive in the U.S. thinking they want

to commit acts of terrorism, or even harm the general population . They just want a better life for

them and their families; one they can’t seem to find back home . This is why the New Sanctuary

Movement aforementioned is trying to change Americans’ perspectives about immigrants; to

view them as people who love America, not as terrorists trying to produce harm and terror

(Yuckich).

It is not a surprise then that sanctuary cities are gaining more and more popularity . As of

2016, more than 200 U.S. cities had declared themselves as sanctuary (McNamee) . Although

popularity doesn’t necessarily measure the policies’ effectiveness or justness, it does represent

6
 de Lima

how people are advocating more to the desires to encourage community cooperation, prevent

racism, and maintain local control over certain policies, all of these while expressing the strong

disapproval towards the federal government’s policies and implementations. While advocating

for these principles, they address fiscal and logistical concerns, such as cost and necessary

training of law enforcement, and potential civil liabilities while questioning at the same time

constitutional authority (Sullivan 578, 579).

Sanctuary policies have become too complex and intricate to be observed from a black or

white perspective of the spectrum. Instead, all the possible arguments and reasoning have to be

taken into account in order to formulate a coherent answer to their issue of legality. People

should begin to understand the importance of having sanctuary policies, because although they

may cause a slight economic shift, or it may be considered unlawful to be in the country without

the required documents, immigrants come seeking a better life, because they are left without any

more ways out of their current situation. It may be argued that abolishing these laws and policies

is for the sake of public safety, but the number of immigrants that want to stay in the U.S. to

harm is null compared to the amount seeking better opportunities. Sanctuary cities are an import

piece of America’s culture and history, because not only is this a country of opportunities, its

first habitants were immigrants with no documents or permission to live in.

7
 de Lima

Works Cited

Cameron, Darla. “How Sanctuary Cities Work, and How Trump’s Stalled Executive Order

Might Affect Them.” The Washington Post, The Washington Post, 25 Jan. 2017,

www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/sanctuary-cities/

Grace Yukichf. (2013). Constructing the Model Immigrant: Movement Strategy and Immigrant

Deservingness in the New Sanctuary Movement. Social Problems, 60(3), 302-320.

doi:10.1525/sp.2013.60.3.302

Hardin, Russell. “The Free Rider Problem.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford

University, 21 May 2003, plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-rider

Kane, Tim. “Sanctuary and Sanctimony.” Hoover Institution, Stanford University, 7 July 2017,

www.hoover.org/research/sanctuary-and-sanctimony

Marra, Lauren. “The Effects of Immigration and Sanctuary Statutes on Natives' Labor Market

Outcomes.” Georgetown University Library, Georgetown University, 15 Apr. 2010,

repository.library.georgetown.edu/bitstream/handle/10822/553822/marraLauren.pdf; sequence

McNamee, Gregory. “Of Sanctuary, Refuge, Migrants, and Refugees.” VQR, University of

Virginia, www.vqronline.org/essays-articles/2017/04/sanctuary-refuge-migrants-and-refugees

8
 de Lima

Sullivan, L. (2009). Enforcing Nonenforcement: Countering the Threat Posed to Sanctuary Laws

by the Inclusion of Immigration Records in the National Crime Information Center

Database. California Law Review, 97(2), 567-600. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20677887