The Mythology of Sanctuary Cities
Sanctuary jurisdictions, defined as municipalities, counties or states where local government and law enforcement do not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, are often portrayed as violent, dangerous or lawless places. “The Mythologies of Sanctuary Cities” disputes that characterization and aims to debunk nine myths and misconceptions about these areas. Author Kit Johnson finds that sanctuary cities: follow a variety of different legal practices; are not a homogenous grouping; are dispersed across the country but do not exist in every state; are not lawless but rather have strict legal codes that govern the activities of their law enforcement professionals; do not shield criminals from prosecution; do not hide unauthorized immigrants, but rather put their own resources into immigration enforcement. Moreover, American citizens do not suffer adverse consequences from living in sanctuary cities; local and state governments do not have a legal responsibility to enforce federal immigration law; the executive branch cannot withhold federal funding from sanctuary cities; and sanctuary city policies do not present a challenge to the enforcement of U.S. borders. The report argues that sanctuary city policies are legitimate, legal and voter-supported. Understanding the myths used to discredit sanctuary city policies, according to the author, is necessary to move forward in both local and national conversations on immigration policy. (Clare Maxwell for the Immigrant Learning Center’s Public Education Institute)
Johnson, K. (2019). The Mythology of sanctuary cities. Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal, 28. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3445087