Understanding "Sanctuary Cities"

Produced by a group of law professors interested in the intersection of immigration enforcement and criminal law, this article asserts that "sanctuary" jurisdictions are following policies "informed by sound legal principles and considered policy judgments about how local resources should be used." The "Trump administration's reliance on white nationalist themes" and the false characterization of "sanctuary cities" as propagating immigrant crime have also raised concerns about discriminatory intent in the administration of immigration law and have forced local authorities to articulate their rationale for refraining from participating in immigration enforcement. The authors describe the "crosshatched shield" of policies designed to maintain the integrity of local law enforcement, including barring the investigation of civil or criminal immigration violations, limiting compliance with immigration detainers, limiting the disclosure of sensitive information, precluding participation in joint operations with the federal government, and preventing immigration agents from accessing local jails. The article then discusses the rationale for non-cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, including the constitutional separation of powers, lack of federal reimbursement for the cost of immigration enforcement and the need to shepherd local resources wisely, worries over the erosion of trust necessary for positive interaction between the police and local community members, concern that cooperation with detainer requests would lead to violations of the Fourth Amendment, and avoiding practices that might lead to racially-based profiling. As a complement to this article, the authors have created a public online library of all the sanctuary policies cited in the article and reviewed in their research. (The American Immigrant Policy Portal)

Download now or view online