This summer, presidential candidate Donald Trump laid out his 10-point immigration plan, vowing to create a deportation task force with “zero tolerance for criminal aliens” and to put an end to so-called “sanctuary cities.”
“We will end the sanctuary cities that have caused so many needless deaths,” he said. “No more funds!”
Trump was referring to the scores of cities and counties across the United States that limit their cooperation with federal authorities when asked to detain undocumented immigrants. And he promised, if elected president, to cut their federal funding if they refused to comply.
Since Trump’s election victory last week, mayors and police chiefs in more than 10 major cities, including San Francisco, Oakland, Los Angeles, New York, Chicago and Washington, D.C., reaffirmed their commitment to upholding their sanctuary polices, even in the face of federal threats.
“Oaklanders can rest assured that our government will continue to protect all its residents and defend our progressive values,” wrote Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf, in a letter published Monday in the East Bay Express. “We’ll proudly stand as a sanctuary city – protecting our residents from what we deem unjust federal immigration laws – fight all forms of bigotry and advance our commitment to equity even more passionately.”
The national debate over sanctuary cities resurfaced in 2015 when an undocumented immigrant with a long criminal history allegedly shot and killed a 32-year-old woman on a San Francisco pier.
Advocates of tougher immigration rules were quick to blame the city for its policy of not cooperating with federal immigration agencies to hold and report potentially dangerous undocumented residents.
An estimated 11 to 12 million undocumented immigrants currently reside in the United States.
First things first …
Before we dig in, two important details to keep in mind about the term “sanctuary city”:
1. There’s no official legal definition, and what it means can vary significantly from place to place.
2. It’s become a pretty loaded term, often used derisively by advocates of tougher immigration restrictions.
So … what are sanctuary cities?
Again, the definition can vary widely. Generally, though, the label refers to localities that help shield undocumented residents from deportation by refusing to fully cooperate with detention requests from federal immigration authorities. Most take a “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach with their residents. Local policies range from nonbinding resolutions and police department orders (like in Los Angeles) to enforceable municipal ordinances (like in San Francisco).
How many sanctuary cities are there?
Depends who you ask.
A 2006 Congressional Research Service report listed 32 counties and cities with explicit sanctuary ordinances. A number of cities have adopted similar resolutions since then, including Berkeley, Oakland and East Palo Alto.
In an analysis of data from Immigrant Legal Resource Center, the New York Times tallied 39 cities and 364 counties across the country that in some way limit how much local law enforcement can cooperate with federal detention requests. It’s unclear, however, how much action some of these jurisdictions have taken, other than officially expressing opposition (that may not be legally binding) to what they consider harsh federal or state immigration laws.
And organizations in some municipalities even challenge the label. In 2011, for instance, the Los Angeles Times editorial board denied that Los Angeles was a sanctuary city, even though in 1979 the city had enacted a measure to prevent local police from inquiring about the immigration status of those arrested, one of the first cities in the country to do so.
Four states — California, Rhode Island, Vermont and Connecticut — have also enacted ordinances in recent years that limit compliance with federal immigration officials.
A least nine Oregon counties in 2014 stopped complying with ICE requests to hold undocumented immigrants in jail for the sole purpose of deportation. The change came after a federal judge ruled that one of those counties violated a woman’s Fourth Amendment rights by detaining her without probable cause. Some legal experts say the ruling may spur more local sanctuary policies across the state and possibly nationwide.
Which California cities have “sanctuary” policies?
Note: Although some of these cities may not explicitly identify as “sanctuary cities,” they’ve all adopted some type of policy (ordinance, resolution or law enforcement directive) that prevents local law enforcement officials from fully complying with federal immigration enforcement efforts. This is not necessarily a complete list – it only includes those cities for which official documentation could be found.
What’s the history?
The roots of the modern sanctuary movement date back to the 1980s. U.S. churches, synagogues and other religious institutions began to provide refuge and services to thousands of undocumented immigrants from Guatemala and El Salvador who had fled civil unrest at home but were denied sanctuary in the U.S., largely due to Cold War politics.
The effort became known as the Sanctuary Movement, and as it spread, a number of cities throughout the country joined in solidarity, passing resolutions to overlook the immigration status of residents.
What are the main arguments for and against these policies?
Supporters argue that cities have bigger public safety priorities and too few resources to handle immigration enforcement. Additionally, many local policymakers and law enforcement agencies argue that immigration enforcement is not their responsibility, and that cracking down on undocumented residents would undermine community relations, disrupt services and dissuade those residents from cooperating with crime prevention effort. They also note that none of their protective policies in any way prevent local police from pursuing immigrants suspected of committing crimes.
Trump is among a large number of mostly Republicans opposed to sanctuary policies, arguing that they encourage illegal immigration, undermine federal enforcement efforts and severely compromise public safety, resulting in crimes that could have been avoided through deportation.
What’s unique about San Francisco’s law?
Whereas the majority of sanctuary cities don’t ask residents about their immigration status and refuse to share information with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), San Francisco is among a handful of localities that take things a bit further.
The City and County of Refuge ordinance, adopted in 1989, prohibits the city from using any “funds or resources to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration law or to gather or disseminate information regarding the immigration status” of residents unless explicitly required by federal or state law or court order.
The motion was further emphasized by a 2007 executive directiveprohibiting city employees or agencies from assisting in any ICE investigation, detention or arrest proceeding unless required by federal law. And a section in the city’s administrative code prevents any city law enforcement officer from detaining an individual “on the basis of a civil immigration detainer after that individual becomes eligible for release from custody.”
Similar to other sanctuary cities, exceptions apply to individuals convicted of violent felonies within the past seven years or in custody for another violent felony.
It’s these policies that came under fire following the murder of Kate Steinle. Suspect Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, who had already been convicted of felonies and deported multiple times, was transferred from a federal prison to the custody of the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department for an outstanding warrant dating back to his arrest for marijuana possession in San Francisco two decades ago. In March, the case was dismissed.
The San Francisco Sheriff’s Department released Lopez-Sanchez without complying with ICE’s request to be notified prior to his release.
You need to be a member of NASTYMIXX to add comments!
Join NASTYMIXX