Talk:Sanctuary city

message: The following was removed:
A sanctuary city is a United States city that follows certain practices that protect illegal immigrants. These practices can be explicit, or de jure, or they can be implicit, or de facto. The city is a sanctuary for illegal immigrants who wish to avoid deportation; in short, such a city does not enforce immigration law.
This is appropriate text.  It addresses in formal language the practices that involve government officials' "looking the other way" (de facto) about illegal immigration, and formal declarations of non-cooperation with federal law (de jure). Dogru144 17:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't removed, it was made non-US-specific, per the  template that editor also added.--SarekOfVulcan 17:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the above text was removed.  Just compare the history.  Additionally, this is a US-specific term.  Unless someone can otherwise document, the United States is the only nation-state that has a significant number of municipalities that make specific ordinances in resistance to national immigration policy. Dogru144 17:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This however was intentional as saying de jure and de facto is inappropriate. It's not a real sanctuary city if it is not written down. Virtually every U.S. city is a de facto sanctuary city under that definition. Perspicacite 17:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pertinence of terms, [[de facto]] and [[de jure]]

message: An editor had removed a reference that linked to an article regarding the recent execution-style murder of three young women in Newark: Illegal Immigration an Issue in Newark Murders -- 08/13/2007.  Of course, citizens commit murders.  The concern is that the prime suspect had a long felony rap sheet, and he was an illegal alien.  Community members and elected officials, e.g., Councilman Ron Rice, have expressed concern that if there were coordination between local law enforcement and federal authorities, this crime could have been prevented.  Much of the activity of police is crime prevention, not merely pursuit of possible perpetrators of crimes. Dogru144 17:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, If he had a long felony rap sheet, it's irrelevant whether he was an illegal immigrant or not. Just because they can't ask on arrest doesn't mean they can't ask on conviction, yes?--SarekOfVulcan 17:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *If I made that edit, then The removal was unintentional. Perspicacite 17:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mine wasn't. It wasn't relevant at that point in the article. There might be another spot it will fit, but I doubt it.--SarekOfVulcan 17:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see you're point.  Of course if you increase population there are going to be more crimes.  If we through all of the people out of the United States, there would be no crimes.  Just because there's a random illegal immigrant out there who does a crime doesn't mean we should discriminate against them.  Blacks, for one, commit more crimes than illegals, but I here no crimes for a genocide against them.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.251.36.143 (talk) 08:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your source is a wacko conspiracy web site.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of substantive edits regarding murders of police and young adults

message: The following text was removed (-which also contained references to the murdered police and sheriffs, including among others: Ronald Johnson, Saul Gallego, David March):
Illegal aliens have been implicated in the killings of police and sheriffs during routine traffic stops. "Cop murder spotlights crisis of killer aliens: No government agency tracks crimes by illegals, not even attacks on police" http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52198 
Again, it is true that citizens also murder police.  The point is: these murders could have been avoided if the individuals in question were not in the United States, sheltered by sanctuary policies in so many cities. Dogru144 17:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *If I made that edit, then The removal was unintentional. Perspicacite 17:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mine wasn't. It wasn't relevant at that point in the article. There might be another spot it will fit, but I doubt it.--SarekOfVulcan 17:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see you're point.  Of course if you increase population there are going to be more crimes.  If we through all of the people out of the United States, there would be no crimes.  Just because there's a random illegal immigrant out there who does a crime doesn't mean we should discriminate against them.  Blacks, for one, commit more crimes than illegals, but I here no crimes for a genocide against them.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.251.36.143 (talk) 08:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your source is a wacko conspiracy web site.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of mention of murders of police

message: Is this term even used outside the United States? If not than I don't see how it could have a more international worldview. -LtNOWIS 20:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I came here to ask the same question. As no one has answered you in more than two months, and I can find no reference to the term being used anywhere but in the United States, I'm going to remove the tag. faithless (speak) 07:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I also find the UK section to either be deserving of its own article or added on to one that exists. The refugee crisis that Western Europe (and Australia) is experiencing is quite different to the sanctuary city issues that pop up over the United States. I believe there is enough complexity in the US situation. SeyeongMin (talk) 05:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global template needed? 

message: I heard that this term is a Neologism recently coined for this election.  Does anyone know the origin of the term?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.39.219 (talk) 04:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neologism? 

message: In the section titled United States, there are at least 5 sentences which start with a phrase such as "Critics have argued", with a number of others starting with the names of specific critics or something like "They contend", where "they" means "critics". Yet, every attempt to insert a single sentence starting with "Proponents of such policies argue" gets reverted with a claim of POV pushing in the edit summary. Why is this? Is there some wikipedia rule about not starting a sentence with the letter "P". --Ramsey2006 11:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The overall content being changed is highly POV. Neutrality, not a 180 turn, is the goal. Perspicacite 15:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does your interpretation of WP:NPOV apply to sentences that start with a "P", but not to sentences that start with a "C"? --Ramsey2006 16:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a very clever, but not a particularly persuasive question. Perspicacite 02:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you just explain why you will not allow a single sentence describing the positions of proponents of the policies in question, while several paragraphs of statements about the positions of critics (such as WorldNetDaily) are necessary. How does this help the article maintain neutrality? --Ramsey2006 12:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Ideally, all of these sentence starters should be reworked.  State the facts without using weasel words.  Fifth Rider (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence starters 

message: The following was the result of an anonymous editor editing a comment higher up on this talk page. It is unclear whether it was  intended to be a talk page comment or an edit to the article (which the edit summary would seem to suggest), but I have reverted the talk page edit and am instead placing the edited comment as a (presumably) proposed alternative opening sentence here. --Ramsey2006 23:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A sanctuary city is a United States city that follows certain practices that protect its immigrant residents, regardless of their immigration status. These practices can be explicit, or de jure, or they can be implicit, or de facto. The city is a sanctuary for immigrants who seek to live without being discriminated against or targeted on account of their real or perceived immigration status (which all-to-often also involves issues of race and class). In short, such a city provides equal treatment and protection to all its residents, regardless of immigraiton status. Additionally, as a policy it seeks to affirmatively commit itself to protecting the human rights of all immigrants. 63.78.124.2 22:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  restore comment by anon editor 

message: I just removed the following text from the lead because of formatting issues, and because it made uncited assertions about the definition. Can it be rephrased so that it fits in the article?
----
The city is a sanctuary for illegal immigrants who wish to avoid deportation. A sanctuary city is not a place for illegal immigrants who wish to avoid deportation but is rather a city that simply dictates the role of the local governing body and its employees. The term sanctuary is somewhat of a misnomer as the policies do not interfere with the federal government’s ability to enforce immigration laws and protect immigrants from deportation.
--SarekOfVulcan 18:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New lead 

message: The issue here is not semantics or minor details.  The issue here is that the article itself must be about the nature and history of a political buzzword and not either a discussion of the policy it describes or a rant from either side.  The article needs a new history section to explain the origin of the term.  The article uses the buzzword as if it was a generally accepted academic term.  The article clearly favors one side of the discussion over another, and cites unreliable and likely biased sources as it does so.  I think we all need to calm down and find sources that describe the term and not the policy or arguments on either side.  Encyclopedias are meant to inform, not convince.  See WP:REDFLAG  Fifth Rider (talk) 15:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed some of the wording but not saying that is all that needs to be done.  It would be good to have an official federal government wording of this to help the article.  The notion of sanctuary cities is definately a rallying point of the U.S. anti-illegal immigration movement but is still a notable enough topic for an article.  MrMurph101 (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

text: No, just because you believe an article to be about a "buzzword" doesn't mean it is. The article's intent is to describe the subject, which is the cities in question, and on a controversial subject that means exactly that we describe "the policy or arguments on either side." I don't know when "academic terms" came into play but here is one source showing the term being used by both opponents and proponents of sanctuary city policy.  A section describing the origin of the term would be welcome though. --70.143.56.251 (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: Criminal Law: U.S. states that harboring criminals is a criminal offense. Those harboring illegal aliens, which are criminals under US law (Don't like that hard cold fact, change the laws)are also criminals. Read a law book or two about
* Criminal Solicitation
* Conspiracy
* Complicity in committing crimes by illegal aliens
* Accessory before,during, after the fact
* Treason
* Harboring fugitives, multiple counts
* Willful dereliction of Law Enforcement duties
This kind of criminal behavior perpetrated by illegal aliens and political allies is what is pissing decent, hard working people off. I've seen this on FOX News, and on the New World Order News Network, other networks. A guy in San Francisco was murdered, along with his family by a gangbanger who was also a illegal alien. What is left of his family may sue the city on those charges, related charges. Can someone keep a eye on this? IF they do sue and win, a lot of bigwigs will be going to Club FED and/or get financially ruined. This could also affect this article as well.65.173.104.138 (talk) 09:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, Phoenix, Arizona is not one of these cities, since Joe Arpaio started throwing illegals in jail.65.173.104.138 (talk) 09:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: WTF

message: Is this still correct?  There was legislation that was voted on last year (March 2008) regarding funding for "sanctuary cities"... doesn't this mean that they must be legally defined somehow?  Cfirst (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 02:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: No legal meaning?

message: Listing specific cherry-picked anecdotes of horrific crimes is probably inappropriate anywhere in this article-- it is a case of the exception fitting the rule. There are certainly individual stories of the positive effects of Sanctuary cities.
The little mention of an MS-13 member certainly doesn't belong in a section about "Political Action". Each other paragraph talks about the actions of a politician or political group.
:It is possible that the example is out of place in the article but it did draw a lot of media attention and was the focal point of discussion on the "Sanctuary" policy.  I feel it merits inclusion. - Schrandit (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The inclusion of this single story supports one point of view (that Sanctuary cities make violent crime more likely). Would you also support stories that illustrate the arguments in favor of Sanctuary cities? There are plenty of stories about women trapped in abusive relationships, or US citizen children who are victimized, or violent crimes that are unreported in cities because they don't have Sanctuary policies. I would feel better about the inclusion of these anecdotes were they balanced as far as point of view.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.4.160.10 (talk) 15:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Out of Context

message: This is the first comment in the talk page.  The Don't ask policy and the Sanctuary city policy appear to be one in the same.  The Sanctuary city article is is better sourced and has more information.  The way I figure things it would be for the best to take and extra content from the Don't ask article, move it over to the Sanctuary city article and leave a redirect just in case. - Schrandit (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merger with [[Sanctuary city]]

message: Might we want to remove Phoenix from the map? Butros (talk) 10:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Map Update

message: How does this even work?  The police always ask for identification when detaining someone or asking questions.  An illegal will not have proper identification.  Therefore the illegal status is indirectly discovered (when that wasn't the original intent). -70.233.148.177 (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Identification

message: Is it also tolerated to work in a sanctuary city? Or is only tolerated to stay there? 134.155.248.57 (talk) 12:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about working in a sanctuary city? 

message: This article is incredibly one sided to the point that it reads like propaganda from one side of the immigration debate.
A couple of obvious points. Obviously, if cities are choosing to become "Sanctuary Cities" as this article alleges, there is support from their residents and politicians. Yet this article doesn't mention a single reason why many Americans living these cities would want their city to enact these policies. There is no mention of the negative impact of immigration enforcement by local police has on communities (including US citizens). There is no mention of the concern of racial profiling (which is predominant in any serious discussion on this topic). There is no mention of the significant opposition from law enforcement groups to immigration enforcement by local police officials.
The list of crimes at the bottom is ridiculous propaganda. As the saying goes, data is not the plural of anecdote and there is research to show that the destruction of trust between mixed immigrant communities and local law enforcement increases crime (not to mention the increased vulnerability in cases of domestic violence and domestic slavery).
This article is blatantly one-sided to the point of being anti-immigrant propaganda. When I have time, I suppose I could add the other side of the argument to at least make it a little less biased. But I am not sure if this article should even exist.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Physteacher (talk • contribs) 18:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's biased on both sides of the issue and does come off as slightly unencyclopedic. Lulaq (talk) 04:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Added back (and adamantly so) 

message: See this: . Refers to an academic study. Also, it is a literature review, not a primary study.Miradre (talk) 18:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's a primary source. It's the actual abstract, see? And it doesn't appear to have been published or peer-reviewed which makes it basically an editorial.  You would need high-quality reliable sources which discuss this "study" before we could even consider it. As for the second bit, that appears to be unreferenced editorializing. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the study instead of the abstract. It is a literature review. It has been published in Seton Hall Legislative Journal. The "second bit" is also from the study.Miradre (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still a primary source. You're linking to the actual study. Also, SHLJ is not a reliable source (it is published by students and not peer-reviewed).  It is likely that the author of this "study" is also a student.  Nothing about this source approaches reliability or notability. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, literature reviews are not primary sources. Read WP:PRIMARY. But I would find a better source since it may be student published.Miradre (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

text: CIS is never considered a reliable source.  It's a highly partisan organization of questionable scholarship. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not more unreliable than material from  Greenpeace or the Democratic Party.Miradre (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a forum for engaging in political debates.  I'm simply explaining policy.  CIS is not considered a reliable source by wikipedia standards.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing in that policy prohibiting a report by an organization. Be it Greenpeace or CIS.Miradre (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to re-open the case at Reliable Sources Noticeboard if you feel consensus has changed.  I doubt that other editors will decide they've suddenly become reliable in the last few months, but give it a shot if you feel like it. In the meantime, consensus was that CIS is not a reliable source for factual material about anything other than themselves. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reports_by_organizations_with_a_POV. There is no general prohibition against self-publised material by an organization. I will add a proper attribution.Miradre (talk) 09:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Now you're just shouting "I didn't hear that!". Self-publishing isn't the central issue, but since you brought it up, self-published sources may only be used as sources of information about themselves (emphasis wikipedia's).  And even then there are strict guidelines, one of which is that it doesn't involve claims about any third-parties (people, organizations or any other entities). See WP:SELFPUB for more information on this. But that's only part of the problem with CIS's reliability, which is why consensus has already established that they are not a reliable source.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SELFPUB does not state that such sources are limited only to themselves. Again, I asked for clarification in general for such sources. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reports_by_organizations_with_a_POV. There is no general prohibition against self-publised material by an organization.Miradre (talk) 17:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Read it again. Notice the bold text? It's bold for a reason; it's important. I'm not going to go in circles with you on this, policy has been explained to you.--Loonymonkey (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no bold text restricting such sources to themselves. Again, I asked on the noticeboard. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reports_by_organizations_with_a_POV. Miradre (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of sourced material 

message: http://www.cityofsanctuary.org/
http://www.cityofsanctuary.org/sheffield
etc
--Über-Blick (talk) 14:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing City of Sanctuary 

message: Recent pingpong edits have added and deleted content regarding the Mobilizing against Sanctuary Cities Act as part of a section titled Public support. This most recent edit removed the section, saying "Public support: Removing ridiculous statement. A 2011 poll did not and could not support a 2015 proposal." The removed material cites this 13 May 2011 news article headed "Barletta’s sanctuary cities bill popular", referring to this bill titled, "H.R. 2057 (112th): Mobilizing Against Sanctuary Cities Act of 2011." That 2011 bill was not enacted. According to this 9 July 2015 press release, a 2015 version of that bill was introduced on that 2015 date. See also e.g., , . Hoping to avoid an edit war over this, I'm not going to revert this latest removal. Please discuss here whether information about this bill should be included in that article and, if so, in what form. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Your point is well taken.  I didn't catch there was a 2011 Act as well as a 2011 poll.  My bad.  It looked to me like somebody was trying to say that a 2011 poll demonstrated public support for the recent politicking surrounding the issue, and of course that would be flagrant SYNTH.  I wouldn't object to re-adding, provided the wording is clear and synthesis is avoided. Eclipsoid (talk) 02:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:   Mobilizing against Sanctuary Cities Act 

message: This edit, which removed some content with the explanation, "Trying to sway voters by putting Hillary in a negative light" caught my eye. As the content was in a section headed Electoral politics the removed content seems to me not inappropriate, so I've restored it.
I've also moved the Electoral politics and Political action sections, recasting them as subesections under "United States". 
If there is disagreement with either part of of what I've done here, please discuss and reach a consensus here. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electoral politics and Political action sections 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Sanctuary city. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100731163430/http://www.kob.com:80/article/stories/s995094.shtml?cat=516 to http://www.kob.com/article/stories/s995094.shtml?cat=516
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I just removed Portland, ME from the list, as its source link was broken, and this recent article states that Portland is not a sanctuary city.  I attempted to find the TulsaWorld article that was originally linked, but Archive.org doesn't have it and despite significant searching - including searching through articles limited to the date indicated by the URL - found nothing that would support the assertion. --The Human Spellchecker (talk) 20:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Portland, ME 

message: IN THE "EFFECTS" SECTION OF THIS PAGE, PLEASE REPLACE:
According to one study, sanctuary policy itself has no statistically meaningful effect on crime.
WITH:
According to one study, sanctuary policy itself has no statistically meaningful effect on crime.
An internal government study, however, obtained via FOIA request from the Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) confirms that a statistically significant problem exists with declined ICE detainers.  Of 8,811 declined ICE detainers in the 8 month period of the study, 62 percent were associated with "individuals who were previously charged or convicted of a crime or presented some other safety concern."  Of those, 36 percent were associated with individuals who had a prior felony charge or conviction on their records.   
url=http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/Declined%20detainers%20report_0.pdf Phix1550 (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what the supposed findings are supposed to be or how it relates to the impact of sanctuary cities on crime rates. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  concur with the above editor, moreover, a document obtained via a FOIA request is a primary source, and has not been published, making the  interpretation and/or conclusions WP:OR - Arjayay (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2016 

message: I just want to add the following (I'm still compiling resources but these can go in there now):
: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 16:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2016 

message: Los Angeles and Madison WI were the first to create ordinances for Sanctuary Cities. http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1753&context=plr
Chicago passed Executive Order 85-1 in 1984http://www.chicityclerk.com/file/5429/download?token=mVXLiua5 Apanzerj (talk) 04:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legislation 

message: Dennis Maher (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: This article is no longer Semi-Protected, so you can now edit the article yourself, but please ensure that any additions are properly sourced, to reliable sources and you maintain a neutral point of view - Arjayay (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2016 

message: A sanctuary city is a city in the United States or Canada that has adopted a policy of protecting illegal alien by not prosecuting them solely for violating federal immigration laws in the country in which they are now living illegally Will (talk) 19:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 16:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2016 

message: This section needs to be expanded. Why is it that only one source is used in this section? When did the far-left Washington Post become the supreme authority on whether sanctuary cities are good or not? There actually are statistics out there that show violent crime is up in certain sanctuary cities (ie Los Angeles, San Francisco). In fact, the Washington Post article shows this too, but tries to dismiss it as statistically insignificant. I have proposed including opposing viewpoints, but certain editors have rejected them because it seems that any source that doesn't agree with their viewpoint should be called "not reliable". Just because a source is not neutral, doesn't make it unreliable, the Washington Examiner is a reliable source, see Wikipedia:Neutrality_of_sources. I even tried to link a report from ICE that shows a large amount of illegals who commit crimes and are released by sanctuary cities go on to commit more crimes, but this was rejected too.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That crime went up in some sanctuary cities is as relevant as the fact that it went down in others. Sanctuary cities taken together showed no increase in the crime rate. As the authors of the study write, "That is, a sanctuary policy itself has no statistically meaningful effect on crime." Which is what this Wikipedia page also says. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

text: The Washington Examiner is an unreliable source and shouldn't be cited for anything on Wikipedia. The Wall Street Journal has a conservative slant but is reliable, the New York Times has a liberal slant but is reliable, the Washington Examiner is just garbage. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  How can you write off a source as garbage? IMO, the Washington Post is garbage, but I'll allow its use. Why don't you take a look at this: News' And How The Washington Post Rewrote Its Story On Russian Hacking Of The Power Grid`--Rusf10 (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  One inaccurate story does not make WaPo garbage. If you want to argue that WaPo is unreliable, take your complaint to the RS noticeboard, where you'll promptly get shot down.  Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Great suggestion, I actually went to the RS noticeboard and the consensus seems to be that the Washington Examiner IS a reliable source. Although the people the people there gave some well-reasoned arguments on why I should not use that particular article and have convinced me so. That said, the effects of sanctuary cities are not so simplistic that they can be described in only one sentence with reference to only one article. Just because a particular source doesn't fit into your worldview doesn't mean you can just apply a label to it. Next time, try to articulate a thoughtful argument.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you have a study or other RS as to the effects of sanctuary cities on crime, please add it to the article. There is absolutely nothing wrong with or misleading about: "According to one study, sanctuary policy itself has no statistically meaningful effect on crime." We don't add balance for the sake of balance: if there are studies that show SP increase crime, they're added, and if there are studies that show that SP decrease crime, they're added. And I stand by my remark that the Washington Examiner is garbage. That it can't do the most rudimentary tasks of a journalistic organization: accurately describe the contents of a government report illustrates this further.  Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Your extreme bias is noted. Again, one sentence cannot possibly explain the effects of any policy.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effects section 

message: The lede sentence currently reads:
:In the United States or Canada, a sanctuary city is a city that has adopted a policy of protecting undocumented immigrants by not prosecuting them for violating federal immigration laws in the country in which they are now living illegally.
As I've learned more about sanctuary cities, I've realized that this is not true.  Municipalities in the US have no authority to enforce Federal immigration laws.  What sanctuary cities are actually doing is actively not cooperating with federal immigration enforcement.  Specific policies of non-cooperation are established.  Should we reword the lede accordingly?  --Nowa (talk) 14:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an excellent point. "refusing to cooperate with" ? "denying cooperation to" ? How would you suggest phrasing it? D.Creish (talk) 08:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since this article is still titled Sanctuary city and not Sanctuary city in the United States, differences in other countries laws should be taken into consideration. An excellent point however and one that must be reflected in the article ASAP. Calexit (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Lede sentence

message: Does it make sense to break out the list of sanctuary city status of US cities?--Nowa (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should follow what a similar section in 'Voter ID Laws in the United States' does: Put the content in a table, remove each state from the table of contents. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good.--Nowa (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Break out list? 

message: Not sure whether San Antonio TX is a sanctuary city; this reference suggests it is not one yet but if it changes let's update it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  San Antonio 

message: I propose deleting such content, the stuff that deals with the UK. It is off topic for this article and the word usage in Britain is both very fringe, is used in a different way, and apples to something different. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 04:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The Canada and UK content should definitely not be deleted from WP, but it could be moved into new articles with a "See also" here.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed on moving them into articles of their own. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but prepare to see then being AFD'd. I do not see content sufficient for, or justifying, stands-alone articles. I think it would be better to find existing articles to transfer this content to. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I also support moving out the non-U.S. stuff, either to standalone or existing articles about immigration or the countries themselves. If it is decided to move the material to a standalone, this article might need to be renamed (moved) to "Sanctuary city (U.S.)", and the new one could be "Sanctuary city (non-U.S.)", if that were to be agreeable. DonFB (talk) 03:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The major reason I added the non-US content is that at the time, there was a presumption in the article that sanctuary cities were strictly a US/Canadian phenomena.  That seemed a bit US centric.--Nowa (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of non-US based content

message: I removed the sourced sentence in the California section about the Jamiel Shaw murder, because it is essentially a random fact that does not appear to have provoked debate specifically about the issue of "sanctuary city." It was a high-profile case, but including it here is a form of unapproved synthesis that asks the reader to make a connection between a crime by an illegal immigrant and the separate issue of sanctuary city status. It is similar to, but not the same as the Kate Steinle case, which explicitly caused much debate about "sanctuary" cities. DonFB (talk) 00:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is a place in this article for the content related to the L. A.'s view on detainment of undocumented persons accused of a crime and the issues that raises.  The reference doesn't use the word "sanctuary city", but that is the core issue of sanctuary cities.  Here's a link to the article for others to review.--Nowa (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it's reasonable for the article to include sourced information about L.A.'s "view on detainment of undocumented persons," as you phrased it. But mere mention of a particular crime is not the right way to do it. DonFB (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shaw case 

message: Let's collaborate, shall we? 
Some of the wording needs improvement for clarity and flow.
For example: 
"through municipal policies or funds." I understand "through municipal policies." But "through...funds" is not really clear or normal usage. Let's try something like: 
"through municipal policies and funding decisions."
Next:
"The designation is imprecise in legal definition." 
Not wrong, but can be improved by stating more straightforwardly: 
"The designation does not have a precise legal definition." 
Avoids the quirky expression: "in legal definition."
The phrase "illegal alien inhabitance" reads as jargon.
Let's use more familiar language like: 
"Policies which support or encourage the presence of illegal aliens..." 
Or: "Policies which support residence by illegal aliens..."
Or: "Policies which support illegal immigrants..." 
No hint of jargon. We can use "resident" or "residence." I am not a lawyer, and Wikipedia is not a legal brief. We are writing for everyday people, not lawyers. All people understand "resident/residence"; it is not a restricted word, but "inhabitance" sounds odd and is odd.
I look forward to discussion that will improve the opening paragraph, which I regard as not yet fully satisfactory and in need of further editing. DonFB (talk) 07:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed that the lede needs a re-write. I recommend finding a few overview news articles of sanctuary cities and using similar language as they use. Here are a few:
* http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2016/11/economist-explains-13
* https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/sanctuary-cities/
* http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/25/politics/sanctuary-cities-explained/ Snooganssnoogans (talk) 08:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead paragraph 

message: But there are three listed below.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.223.190.249 (talk) 08:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Travis County, Texas is still shaded green on the map, but last I checked the courts have upheld the anti-sanctuary city law that was signed by the Governor.Bjoh249 (talk) 04:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Texas does not have any sanctuary cities." 

message: The new text about Canada in the intro section is making a distinction between that country and the U.S. regarding the effect of sanctuary city practices in each country. However, in reading the article text and reading the new cited sources, I don't really see a difference. The text quotes a source which says that in Canada sanctuary city status "has no bearing on whether a refugee can be detained or deported" [direct quote from source]. I believe the meaning of that quotation is that the national Canadian government has the right to deport people, even if they live in a sanctuary city. The same is true in the U.S.: the Federal government, if it has physical custody of someone, has the right to detain and deport that person, even if he or she were found to be living in a sanctuary city. (Conflict is arising when a U.S. city declines to detain someone upon federal request, beyond the duration allowed by local law which applies in the particular case.)
The remainder of the sentence which contains that direct quote reads: "as it largely does not apply to the operations of local police or the federal Canada Border Services Agency" [quoting the WP article text, not a direct quote from a source]. I believe the word "it" in that text refers to "the designation" (ie, "sanctuary city"). But sanctuary city status does apply to the operations of local police in both Canada and the U.S., according to what the sources say about both countries. Police in such cities in both countries are discouraged or even prohibited from questioning people in most cases about their immigration status. 
On the other hand, the new WP text correctly says that sanctuary city status does not apply to operations of the Canadian federal immigration agency. Arguably, the same is true in the U.S. The federal agencies in both countries retain all their powers, regardless of a city's declared (or undeclared) status, even if the cities do not fully cooperate with the agencies. The new text about Canada also says the designation "is largely symbolic" [quote from WP text, not direct source quote]. I don't think that is really accurate, because, as just stated, sanctuary city status in Canada can have, or does have, an impact on how local police do their job, just as in the case of the U.S. So, there is more than a "symbolic" effect; there is a tangible effect.
In sum, I think the new paragraph about Canada is making a distinction from the U.S. that does not, in fact, exist, notwithstanding that the federal systems in the two countries are of course not identical. If a meaningful distinction of some kind does exist, let's make the text very clear what that distinction is. If not, the new text needs some other modification, or perhaps the intro can simply be reverted to its condition prior to the addition. (But the new citations are good and might be inserted at some other appropriate locations). DonFB (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada 

message: Not sure if it's just me, but the map used on this article is not correctly displaying all of the green and yellow shaded areas at all resolutions. Funcrunch (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Pinging  who created the map. I noticed because my city, San Francisco, should be green on there, but at the default resolution the entire state of California is not shaded at all. Funcrunch (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for pointing this out. If you go to the direct link of the file, you can see the actual shading of the SVG, along with shading in yellow of states that declare all of their county jails as sanctuaries from illegal immigrants. I don't know of your knowledge and skill level with SVGs and images, but all SVGs on Wikipedia/Commons before being displayed are rendered into PNGs using librsvg, though the program is known to have bugs, and when using certain syntax it doesn't render correctly. After reading this, I already know the problem: in the CSS at the top of the SVG when coloring some counties, like those in California and Colorado, I used CSS attribute selectors, which are newer than traditional selectors and evidently are not supported by librsvg, causing the display error. I don't have time right this second to fix the entire file, but the last revision shows what is described in the caption on the page, so I'll revert it. Thanks. WClarke (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map not displaying properly? 

message: Do we have an actual source for this definition: "a sanctuary city is a city that limits its cooperation with the national government in order to help people who are in the country illegally avoid deportation". A sanctuary city could simply be one which prioritizes other law enforcement goals (like, uh, fighting real crime) than catching and deporting undocumented migrants, families and all. Or put another way, a sanctuary city is simply a city which doesn't think that it needs to do the job of the Federal government. 
This needs to be sourced or rewritten.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, particularly as to the motivation.--Nowa (talk) 12:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Was sourced, since revised. DonFB (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: Information could be added on the remainder of the states that were not listed under the section talking about individual state laws towards these cities. James Cobb (talk) 19:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing States?

message: A study from the Center for American Progress (a liberal think tank) is not a neutral source.Bjoh249 (talk) 05:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's attributed to CAP, and the study is covered by reliable news outlets. No problem. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Judging from your talk page, you are no credible person yourself, Snooganssnoogans. A report from an openly leftist rag is not a credible source. 2600:1700:EDC0:3E80:18D3:A518:512F:B46B (talk) 06:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crime 

message: Could we have a list added? Sea Captain Cormac 01:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: List?

message: What I'm saying is we could use these terms interchangeably, half the time using illegal immigrants and half the time using undocumented immigrants. Would that work as a compromise? That said, I tried changing it a bit, but it's still a bit unbalanced (6 illegals, 13 undocumented).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Illegal immigrants' versus 'undocumented immigrants' -- compromise 

message: I am proposing to split the content about individual sanctuary cities and states into separate articles, such as List of sanctuary jurisdictions in the United States, or List of sanctuary jurisdiction laws by state (maybe both) because this article has become a bit long and difficult to navigate. Bneu2013 (talk) 03:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split proposal 

message: The second source for Oregon's sanctuary state law is a dead link, so I tried to add the archive.org link, but it gave me a lua error. If someone can figure out how to fix it, that would be great, thanks! TheAmeliaMay (talk) 13:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  I couldn't add the archive link for a dead source 

message: Washington Post, May 2, 2023: "Migrants find no space in crowded hotels leased by D.C., council members say"
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:GCsYkx74qQkJ:https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/05/02/migrants-dc-hotels-buses-closed/&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
New York Times, May 7, 2023: "Suburbs Are Furious at Adams’s Plan to Send Migrants to Their Hotels"
https://web.archive.org/web/20230513075336/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/07/nyregion/rockland-migrants-shelter-nyc.html
Washington Post, May 10, 2023: "New York City sticking with migrant hotel plan despite pushback from suburbs"
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:xDrdzPgqzVUJ:https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/2023/05/10/immigration-asylum-new-york/9d0951da-ef6c-11ed-b67d-a219ec5dfd30_story.html&cd=12&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
New York Times, May 10, 2023: "Open-Armed Chicago Feels the Strains of a Migrant Influx"
https://web.archive.org/web/20230513023208/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/10/us/chicago-migrants-title-42.html
Washington Post, May 11, 2023: "Amid expected surge of border crossings, a costly predicament for D.C."
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:a93QFUD5aIkJ:https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/05/11/dc-migrant-buses-immigration-tite-42-costs/&cd=21&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
NBC New York, May 13, 2023:	"Wedding Parties Lose Hotel Rooms to Migrants Bused to Suburbs; County Fights NYC Plan"
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/investigations/migrant-crisis/wedding-parties-lose-hotel-rooms-to-migrants-bused-to-suburbs-county-fights-nyc-plan/4330771/
Washington Post, May 14, 2023: "NYC converts hotels to shelters as pressure mounts to accommodate asylum seekers"
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:AxBGXBu-nZwJ:https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/05/14/new-york-city-migrants-asylum-hotels/33bd4338-f20c-11ed-b67d-a219ec5dfd30_story.html&cd=11&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
NBC New York, May 15, 2023: "‘NYC Is Out of Space': Frustration Mounts Over School Housing for Migrants "
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/investigations/migrant-crisis/nyc-is-out-of-space-frustration-mounts-over-migrants-being-housed-in-nyc-schools/4335049/
Politico, May 15, 2023: "Schools are the latest epicenter of the migrant crisis"
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/new-york-playbook/2023/05/15/schools-are-the-latest-epicenter-of-the-migrant-crisis-00096880
CNN, May 17, 2023: "Migrants are staying on school grounds, in hotels or at police stations in several states – and some residents are furious "
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/17/us/new-york-orange-county-migrant-restraining-order/index.html
ABC New York, May 17, 2023: "Migrants moved from school gym in Brooklyn amid protests and backlash"
https://abc7ny.com/nyc-migrants-gyms-brooklyn-schools/13258610/
New York Times, May 18, 2023: "As Crisis Grows, All of New York’s Migrant Plans Are Met With Outrage"
https://web.archive.org/web/20230519011611/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/18/nyregion/migrant-housing-shelters-nyc.html
Seattle Times, May 22, 2023, "NYC congressional leaders call on city universities to turn their dorms into migrant housing this summer"
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nyc-congressional-leaders-call-on-city-universities-to-turn-their-dorms-into-migrant-housing-this-summer/
SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a pile of synthesis, adding multiple sources saying related things to imply a novel conclusion, unstated in any one source. I don't think it's appropriate to use all of this stuff to force a hypocrisy narrative, especially since your stance would also be supporting sociopathic political stunts. Binksternet (talk) 23:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Each and every one of these news articles is about how self described "sanctuary cities" are complete and total hypocrites. Actions speak louder than words. This is highly notable, and very reliably sourced. It should be included. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 09:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: More sources

message: As written, it seems a little bit artificial in terms of layout and flow and could be introducing a mild POV issue.
My preferred solution would be to add a subsection at the front of the History section with a new name such as “Traditional influences” or something to that effect. Obviously, the ideological roots of the movement need to be covered, but in an encyclopedic rather than journalistic manner. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I’d just remove it as it’s pretty clearly a case of false equivocation. Volunteer Marek  09:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

text: If you want to put in a better version of what was there (I did remove it), then go for it. Volunteer Marek  09:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  “Tradition” section: remove, rewrite, rearrange? 

message: "A 2020 study found that California Senate Bill 54 (2017), a sanctuary city legislation, had no significant impact on violent and property crime rates in California.[75]
A 2021 US study found that Latinos were more likely to report crime victimization to law enforcement after sanctuary policies were adopted in their areas of residence.[76]"
These two statements are contradictory.  You cannot have an increase in victimization reported to police without a parallel increase in crime rates.  This is the definition of reported victimization.  Please at least clarify the conflict between these studies to avoid confusion among readers. 68.84.223.176 (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crime