Sanctuary city
Sanctuary city (; ) refers to municipal jurisdictions, typically in North America, that limit their cooperation with the national government's effort to enforce immigration law. Leaders of sanctuary cities say they want to reduce fear of deportation and possible family break-up among people who are in the country illegally, so that such people will be more willing to report crimes, use health and social services, and enroll their children in school. In the United States, municipal policies include prohibiting police or city employees from questioning people about their immigration status and refusing requests by national immigration authorities to  detain people beyond their release date, if they were jailed for breaking local law. Such policies can be set expressly in law ("de jure") or observed in practice ("de facto"), but the designation "sanctuary city" does not have a precise legal definition. The Federation for American Immigration Reform estimated in 2018 that 564 U.S. jurisdictions, including states and municipalities, had adopted sanctuary policies. Studies on the relationship between sanctuary status and crime have found that sanctuary policies either have no effect on crime or that sanctuary cities have lower crime rates and stronger economies than comparable non-sanctuary cities. Sanctuary  city policies substantially reduce deportations of undocumented immigrants who do not have criminal records, but have no impact on those who have violent criminal records. Opponents of sanctuary cities argue that cities should assist the national government in enforcing immigration law, and that sanctuary cities increase crime. Supporters of sanctuary cities argue that enforcement of federal law is not the duty of localities, and that law enforcement resources can be prioritized towards better purposes. European cities have been inspired by the same political currents of the sanctuary movement as American cities, but the term "sanctuary city" now has different meanings  in Europe and North America. In the United Kingdom and in continental Europe, sanctuary city refers to cities that are committed to welcoming refugees and asylum seekers. There are at least 80 towns, cities, and local areas with this policy in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. with an emphasis on building bridges of connection and understanding through raising awareness, befriending schemes and forming cultural connections. However, this is in relation to documented refugees and asylum seekers, not illegal immigrants. Glasgow and Swansea have become noted sanctuary cities.<ref name="swansea.cityofsanctuary.org/"></ref> Tradition. The concept of a sanctuary city goes back thousands  of years. It has been associated with Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Baháʼí, Sikhism, and Hinduism. In Western Civilization, sanctuary cities can be traced back to the Old Testament. The Book of Numbers commands the selection of six cities of refuge in which the perpetrators of accidental manslaughter could claim the right of asylum. Outside of these cities, blood vengeance against such perpetrators was allowed by law. In AD 392, Christian Roman emperor Theodosius I set up sanctuaries under church control. In AD 600 in medieval England, churches were given a general right of sanctuary, and some cities were set up  as sanctuaries by Royal charter. The general right of sanctuary for churches in England was abolished in 1621. United States. History. The movement that established sanctuary cities in the United States began in the early 1980s. The movement traces its roots to religious philosophy, as well as the histories of resistance movements to perceived state injustices. The sanctuary city movement took place in the 1980s to challenge the US government's refusal to grant asylum to certain Central American refugees. These asylum seekers were arriving from countries in Central America like El Salvador and Guatemala that were politically unstable. More  than 75,000 Salvadoreans and 200,000 Guatemalans were killed in civil wars in these countries. Faith-based groups in the US Southwest initially drove the movement of the 1980s, with eight churches publicly declaring to be sanctuaries in March 1982. John Fife, a minister and movement leader, famously wrote in a letter to Attorney General William Smith: "the South-side United Presbyterian Church will publicly violate the Immigration and Nationality Act by allowing sanctuary in its church for those from Central America." A milestone in the U.S. sanctuary city movement occurred in 1985 in San Francisco, which passed the largely symbolic  “City of Refuge” resolution. The resolution was followed the same year by an ordinance which prohibited the use of city funds and resources to assist federal immigration enforcement–the defining characteristic of a sanctuary city in the U.S. As of 2018, more than 560 cities, states and counties considered themselves sanctuaries. Terminology. Several different terms and phrases are used to describe immigrants who enter the U.S. illegally. The term "alien" is considered insensitive by many (how many?) and a LexisNexis search showed that its use in reports on immigration has declined substantially, making up just 5% of terms used in  2013. Usage of the word "illegal" and phrases using the word (e.g., "illegal alien", "illegal immigrant", "illegal worker" and "illegal migrant") has declined, accounting for 82% of language used in 1996, 75% in 2002, 60% in 2007, and 57% in 2013. Several other phrases are competing for wide acceptance: "undocumented immigrant" (usage in news reports increased from 6% in 1996 to 14% in 2013); "unauthorized immigrant" (3% usage in 2013 and rarely seen before that time), and "undocumented person" or "undocumented people" (1% in 2007, increasing to 3% in 2013). "The U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021", which President Joe Biden  is sending to Congress, would eliminate the word "alien" from federal immigration laws and replace it with "noncitizen". Media outlets' policies as to use of terms differ, and no consensus has yet emerged in the press. In 2013, the Associated Press changed its "AP Stylebook" to provide that "Except in direct quotes essential to the story, use "illegal" only to refer to an action, not a person: "illegal immigration", but not "illegal immigrant". Acceptable variations include "living in" or "entering a country illegally" or "without legal permission"." Within several weeks, major U.S. newspapers such as "Chicago Tribune", the "Los Angeles  Times", and "USA Today" adopted similar guidance. The "New York Times" style guide similarly states that the term "illegal immigrant" may be considered "loaded or offensive" and advises journalists to "explain the specific circumstances of the person in question or to focus on actions: "who crossed the border illegally"; "who overstayed a visa"; "who is not authorized to work in this country"." The style book discourages the use of "illegal" as a noun and the "sinister-sounding" "alien". Both "unauthorized" and "undocumented" are acceptable, but the stylebook notes that the former "has a flavor of euphemism and should be used  with caution outside quotation" and the latter has a "bureaucratic tone." The "Washington Post" stylebook "says 'illegal immigrant' is accurate and acceptable, but notes that some find it offensive"; the "Post" "does not refer to people as 'illegal aliens' or 'illegals,' per its guidelines. Electoral politics. This issue entered presidential politics in the race for the Republican Party Presidential Nomination in 2008. Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo ran on an anti-illegal immigration platform and specifically attacked sanctuary cities. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney accused Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani of running it as a sanctuary city. Mayor Giuliani 's campaign responded saying that Governor Romney ran a sanctuary Governor's mansion, and that New York City is not a "haven" for undocumented immigrants. Following the shooting death of Kathryn Steinle in San Francisco (a sanctuary city) by an undocumented immigrant, Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (D-NY) told "CNN" that "The city made a mistake, not to deport someone that the federal government strongly felt should be deported. I have absolutely no support for a city that ignores the strong evidence that should be acted on." The following day, her campaign stated: "Hillary Clinton believes that sanctuary  cities can help further public safety, and she has defended those policies going back years." Trump administration agenda. On March 6, 2018, the U.S. Justice Department sued the state of California, the Governor Jerry Brown, and the state's attorney general, Xavier Becerra, over three state laws passed in recent months, saying the laws made it impossible for federal immigration officials to do their jobs and deport criminals who were born outside the United States. The Justice Department called the laws unconstitutional and asked a judge to block them. The lawsuit says the state laws “reflect a deliberate effort by  California to obstruct the United States’ enforcement of federal immigration law.” The Trump administration previously released a list of immigration principles to Congress. The list included funding a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, a crackdown on the influx of Central American minors, and curbs on federal grants to sanctuary cities. A pledge to strip "all federal funding to sanctuary cities" was a key Trump campaign theme. President Trump issued an executive order which declared that jurisdictions that "refuse to comply" with 8 U.S.C. 1373—a provision of federal law on information sharing between local and federal authorities—would be ineligible  to receive federal grants. States and cities have shown varying responses to the executive order. Thirty-three states introduced or enacted legislation requiring local law enforcement to cooperate with ICE officers and requests to hold non-citizen inmates for deportation. Other states and cities have responded by not cooperating with federal immigration efforts or by showcasing welcoming policies towards immigrants. California openly refused the administration's attempts to "clamp down on sanctuary cities". A federal judge in San Francisco agreed with two California municipalities that a presidential attempt to cut them off from federal funding for not complying with deportation  requests was unconstitutional, ultimately issuing a nationwide permanent injunction against the facially unconstitutional provisions of the order. On March 27, 2018, the all-Republican Board of Supervisors in Orange County, California voted to join the Justice Department's lawsuit against the state. In Chicago a federal judge ruled that the Trump administration may not withhold public safety grants to sanctuary cities. These decisions have been seen as a setback to the administration's efforts to force local jurisdictions to help federal authorities with the policing of illegal immigrants. On July 5, 2018, a federal judge upheld two of California's  Sanctuary laws, but struck down a key provision in the third. Local officials who oppose the president's policies say that complying with federal immigration officers will ruin the trust established between law enforcement and immigrant communities. Supporters of the president's policies say that protection of immigrants from enforcement makes communities less safe and undermines the rule of law. On July 12, 2019, federal appeals court in Seattle in a 2-to-1 opinion overturned a nationwide injunction issued last year by a federal judge in Los Angeles. The appeals court said awarding extra points in the application process to  cities that cooperate was consistent with the goals of the grant program created by Congress. Federal Law. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 addressed the relationship between the federal government and local governments. Minor crimes, such as shoplifting, became grounds for possible deportation. Additionally, the legislation outlawed cities' bans against municipal workers reporting a person's immigration status to federal authorities. However, nothing in the law forces states or local governments to help the federal government with immigration enforcement. Section 287(g) makes it possible for state and local law enforcement personnel to enter into agreements with  the federal government to be trained in immigration enforcement and, subsequent to such training, to enforce immigration law. However, it provides no general power for immigration enforcement by state and local authorities. This provision was implemented by local and state authorities in five states, California, Arizona, Alabama, Florida and North Carolina by the end of 2006. On June 16, 2007, the United States House of Representatives passed an amendment to a United States Department of Homeland Security spending bill that would withhold federal emergency services funds from sanctuary cities. Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) was the sponsor of this amendment . 50 Democrats joined Republicans to support the amendment. The amendment would have to pass the United States Senate to become effective. In 2007, Republican representatives introduced legislation targeting sanctuary cities. Reps. Brian Bilbray, R-Calif., Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Fla., Thelma Drake, R-Va., Jeff Miller, R-Fla., and Tom Tancredo introduced the bill. The legislation would make undocumented immigrant status a felony, instead of a civil offense. Also, the bill targets sanctuary cities by withholding up to 50 percent of Department of Homeland Security funds from the cities. On September 5, 2007, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff  told a House committee that he certainly wouldn't tolerate interference by sanctuary cities that would block his "Basic Pilot Program" that requires employers to validate the legal status of their workers. "We're exploring our legal options. I intend to take as vigorous legal action as the law allows to prevent that from happening, prevent that kind of interference." On January 25, 2017, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 13768 directing the Secretary of Homeland Security and Attorney General to defund sanctuary jurisdictions that refuse to comply with federal immigration law. He also ordered the Department of Homeland Security  to begin issuing weekly public reports that include "a comprehensive list of criminal actions committed by aliens and any jurisdiction that ignored or otherwise failed to honor any detainers with respect to such aliens." Ilya Somin, Professor of Law at George Mason University, has argued that Trump's withholding of federal funding would be unconstitutional: "Trump and future presidents could use [the executive order] to seriously undermine constitutional federalism by forcing dissenting cities and states to obey presidential dictates, even without authorization from Congress. The circumvention of Congress makes the order a threat to separation of powers, as well." On  April 25, 2017, U.S. District Judge William Orrick issued a nationwide preliminary injunction halting this executive order. The injunction was made permanent on November 20, 2017, when Judge Orrick ruled that section 9(a) of the order was "unconstitutional on its face". The judgment concluded that the order violates "the separation of powers doctrine and deprives [the plaintiffs] of their Tenth and Fifth Amendment rights." In December 2018 the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a federal law that criminalized encouraging people to enter or live in the U.S. illegally. The court said the law was too broad in  restricting the basic right of free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Opponents of the law argued that it was a danger to lawyers advising immigrants and to public officials who support sanctuary policies. Jurisdiction Whether federal or local government has jurisdiction to detain and deport undocumented immigrants is a tricky and unsettled issue, because the U.S. Constitution does not provide a clear answer. Both federal and local government offer arguments to defend their authority. The issue of jurisdiction has been vigorously debated dating back to the Alien Act of 1798. Opponents of local level policing tend  to use the Naturalization Clause and the Migration clause in the Constitution as textual confirmation of federal power. Because the Supremacy Clause is generally interpreted to mean that federal law takes priority over state law, the U.S. Supreme Court in the majority of cases has ruled in favor of the federal government. Certain states have been affected by illegal immigration more than others and have attempted to pass legislation that limits access by undocumented immigrants to public benefits. A notable case was Arizona's SB 1070 law, which was passed in 2010 and struck down in 2012 by the Supreme  Court as unconstitutional. States like Arizona, Texas and Nevada justify the aggressive actions they have taken to be the result of insufficient efforts by the federal government to address issues, like the use of schools and hospitals by undocumented immigrants, and changes to the cultural landscape—impacts that are most visible on a local level. Ambiguity and confusion over jurisdiction is one of the reasons why local and state policies for and against sanctuary cities vary widely depending on the location in the country. Effects. Crime. Studies show that sanctuary cities either have no impact on crime or that they  lower the crime rate. According to an article done by "Gale Opposing Viewpoints," a 2015 study by the American Immigration Council "determined that both documented and undocumented immigrants are less likely to engage in criminal behavior than native-born Americans," and that there was a decrease in "violent crime and serious property crime in cities with growing migrant populations." A 2017 study in the journal "Urban Affairs Review" found that sanctuary policy itself has no statistically meaningful effect on crime. The findings of the study were misinterpreted by Attorney General Jeff Sessions in a July 2017 speech when he claimed  that the study showed that sanctuary cities were more prone to crime than cities without sanctuary policies. A third study in the journal "Justice Quarterly" found evidence that the adoption of sanctuary policies reduced the robbery rate, but had no impact on the homicide rate except in cities with larger Mexican undocumented immigrant populations, which had lower rates of homicide. According to a study by Tom K. Wong, associate professor of political science at the University of California, San Diego, published by the Center for American Progress, a progressive think tank: "Crime is statistically significantly lower in sanctuary counties compared  to non-sanctuary counties. Moreover, economies are stronger in sanctuary counties – from higher median household income, less poverty, and less reliance on public assistance, to higher labor force participation, higher employment-to-population ratios, and lower unemployment." The study also concluded that sanctuary cities build trust between local law enforcement and the community, which enhances public safety overall. The study evaluated sanctuary and non-sanctuary cities while controlling for differences in population, the foreign-born percentage of the population, and the percentage of the population that is Latino." 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. A 2021 study found that Latinos were more likely to report crime victimization to law enforcement after sanctuary policies were adopted in their areas of residence. Economy. Advocates of local enforcement of immigration laws argue that more regulatory local immigration policies would cause immigrants to flee those cities and possibly the United States altogether, while opponents argue that regulatory policies on immigrants wouldn't affect their presence because immigrants looking for work will relocate towards economic opportunity despite challenges living there. Undocumented migrants tend to be  attracted to states with more economic opportunity and individual freedom. Because there is no reliable data that asks for immigration status, there is no way to tell empirically if regulatory policies do have an effect on immigrant presence. A study comparing restrictive counties with nonrestrictive counties found that local jurisdictions that enacted regulatory immigration policies experienced a 1–2% negative effect in employment. Health and well-being. A preliminary study's results imply that the number of sanctuary cities in the U.S. positively affects well-being in the undocumented immigrant population. Concerning health, a study in North Carolina found that after  implementation of section 287(g), prenatal Hispanic/Latina mothers were more likely than non-Hispanic/Latina mothers to have late or inadequate prenatal care. The study's interviews indicated that Hispanics/Latinos in the section 287(g) counties had distrust in health services among other services and had fear about going to the doctor. Laws and policies by state and city. Alabama. Alabama has banned sanctuary cities. The state law (Alabama HB 56) was enacted in 2011, calling for proactive immigration enforcement; however, many provisions are either blocked by the federal courts or subject to ongoing lawsuits. Arizona. Arizona has banned sanctuary  cities. Following the passage of Arizona SB 1070, a state law, few if any cities in Arizona are "sanctuary cities." A provision of SB 1070 requires local authorities to "contact federal immigration authorities if they develop reasonable suspicion that a person they've detained or arrested is in the country illegally." Arkansas. Arkansas has banned sanctuary cities. California. On October 5, 2017, Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill, SB 54, that makes California a "sanctuary state". It prohibits local and state agencies from cooperating with ICE regarding undocumented individuals who have committed misdemeanors. According to the National Immigration Law Center  in 2016, about a dozen California cities have some formal sanctuary policy, and none of the 58 California counties "complies with detainer requests by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement." Colorado. On May 29, 2019, Governor Jared Polis signed House Bill 1124 immediately prohibiting law enforcement officials in Colorado from holding undocumented immigrants solely on the basis of a request from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Connecticut. In 2013, Connecticut passed a law that gives local law enforcement officers discretion to carry out immigration detainer requests, though only for suspected felons. Florida. Florida has banned sanctuary cities. Georgia. Georgia banned "sanctuary  cities" in 2010, and in 2016 went further by requiring local governments, in order to obtain state funding, to certify that they cooperate with federal immigration officials. Illinois. On August 28, 2017, Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner signed a bill into law that prohibited state and local police from arresting anyone solely due to their immigration status or due to federal detainers. Some fellow Republicans criticized Rauner for his action, claiming the bill made Illinois a sanctuary state. However, the Illinois associations for Sheriffs and Police Chiefs stated that the bill does not prevent cooperation with the federal government or give  sanctuary for undocumented immigrants. Both organizations support the bill. Iowa. Iowa has banned sanctuary cities. Maine. A 2004 executive order prohibited state officials from inquiring about immigration statuses of individuals seeking public assistance, but in 2011, the incoming Maine governor Paul LePage rescinded this, stating “it is the intent of this administration to promote rather than hinder the enforcement of federal immigration law." Massachusetts. Massachusetts has a pro-sanctuary city law. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in July 2017 that a person cannot be held solely due to an ICE detainer. Mississippi. Mississippi has banned sanctuary cities. Missouri . Missouri has banned sanctuary cities. Montana. On April 2, 2021, Governor Greg Gianforte signed a bill that bans Sanctuary cities in the state of Montana into law. Montana became the 13th state to ban sanctuary cities. New York. New York has a pro-sanctuary city law. New Jersey. Among the municipalities which are considered sanctuary cities are Asbury Park, Camden, East Orange, Hoboken, Jersey City, Linden, New Brunswick, Newark, North Bergen, Plainfield, Trenton and Union City. Those with specific executive orders made by mayors or resolution by municipal councils are: North Carolina. North Carolina has banned sanctuary cities. The state  currently restricts any city or municipality from refusing to cooperate with federal immigration and customs enforcement officials. There are therefore no official sanctuary cities in the state. A bill, under consideration as of March 2017, is entitled Citizens Protection Act of 2017 or HB 63. Under the new provisions, the state would be able to deny bail to undocumented immigrants for whom Immigration and Customs Enforcements (ICE) has issued a detainer; allow the state to withhold tax revenues from cities who are not in compliance with the statewide immigration regulations; and encourage tipsters to identify municipalities which violate these laws . Oregon. State law passed in 1987: "Oregon Revised Statute 181.850, which prohibits law enforcement officers at the state, county or municipal level from enforcing federal immigration laws that target people based on their race or ethnic origin, when those individuals are not suspected of any criminal activities. Pennsylvania. There are currently 18 sanctuary jurisdictions in the state of Pennsylvania. Sanctuary jurisdictions exist in Bradford County, Bucks County, Chester County, Clarion County, Delaware County, Erie County, Franklin County, Lebanon County, Lehigh County, Lycoming County, Montgomery County, Montour County, Perry County, Philadelphia County, Pike County, and Westmoreland County. Rhode Island. Rhode Island  has a pro-sanctuary city law. South Carolina. South Carolina has banned sanctuary cities. Tennessee. Tennessee state law bars "local governments or officials from making policies that stop local entities from complying with federal immigration law." In 2017, legislation proposed in the Tennessee General Assembly would go further, withholding funding from local governments deemed insufficiently cooperative with the federal government. Texas. In Texas no city has formally declared "sanctuary" status, but a few do not fully cooperate with federal immigration authorities and have drawn a negative response from the legislature. Bills seeking to deprive state funding from police departments and  municipalities that do not cooperate with federal authorities were introduced into the Texas Legislature several times. On February 1, 2017, Texas Governor Greg Abbott blocked funding to Travis County, Texas due to its recently implemented "de facto" sanctuary city policy. On May 7, 2017, Abbott signed Texas Senate Bill 4 into law, effectively banning sanctuary cities by charging county or city officials who refuse to work with federal officials and by allowing police officers to check the immigration status of those they detain if they choose. In May 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found  that the law does not violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Vermont. Vermont has a pro-sanctuary city law. Washington. Washington enacted a measure in June 2019 in favor of sanctuary cities, similar to California and Oregon laws which are among the strongest statewide mandates in the nation. Canada. Central Canada. Toronto was the first city in Canada to declare itself a sanctuary city, with the Toronto City Council voting 37–3 on February 22, 2013, to adopt a formal policy allowing undocumented migrants to access city services. Hamilton, Ontario declared itself a sanctuary city in February 2014  after the Hamilton City Council voted unanimously to allow undocumented immigrants to access city-funded services such as shelters, housing and food banks. In response to US President Donald Trump's Executive Order 13769, the city council of London, Ontario voted unanimously to declare London a sanctuary city in January 2017 with Montreal doing the same in February 2017 after a unanimous vote. (However Montreal removed its sanctuary city status in 2019). Western Canada. While Vancouver is not a sanctuary city, it adopted an "Access to City Services without Fear" policy for residents that are undocumented or have an uncertain  immigration status in April 2016. The policy does not apply to municipal services operated by individual boards, including services provided by the Vancouver Police Department, Vancouver Public Library, or Vancouver Park Board. , the cities of Calgary, Ottawa, Regina, Saskatoon, and Winnipeg are considering motions to declare themselves sanctuary cities. , Edmonton adopted "Access Without Fear" policy for undocumented and vulnerable residents. United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom, sanctuary cities provide services – such as housing, education, and cultural integration – to asylum seekers (i.e. persons fleeing one country and seeking protection in another). The movement began in Sheffield in the north of England  in 2005. It was motivated by a national policy adopted in 1999 to disperse asylum seekers to different towns and cities in the UK. Sheffield. In 2009, the city council of Sheffield, UK drew up a manifesto outlining key areas of concern and 100 supporting organizations signed on. A city's status as a place of sanctuary is not necessarily a formal governmental designation. The organization City of Sanctuary encourages local grassroots groups throughout the UK and Ireland to build a culture of hospitality towards asylum seekers. Glasgow. Glasgow is a noted sanctuary city in Scotland. In 2000 the city  council accepted their first asylum seekers relocated by the Home Office. The Home Office provided funding to support asylum seekers but would also forcibly deport them ("removal seizures") if it was determined they could not stay in the UK. As of 2010 Glasgow had accepted 22,000 asylum seekers from 75 different nations. In 2007, local residents upset by the human impact of removal seizures, organized watches to warn asylum seekers when Home Office vans were in the neighborhood. They also organized protests and vigils which led to the ending of the removal seizures.