The Trump administration continually blames Sanctuary cities for a wide range of issues. Learn more about what this actually means. Excerpts from the nonpartisan Congressional document follow. Use this link to read (there’s also a “listen” option) the entire policy overview. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF11438 The United States has had sanctuary city policies for over 40 years.
Some state and local jurisdictions have adopted policies that limit their cooperation with federal agencies charged with immigration enforcement. These “sanctuary” policies, which have been controversial for decades, highlight a tension between federal agencies and states and localities (e.g., counties, cities) that limit their cooperation with certain immigration enforcement actions. The Trump Administration’s stated intention for increased immigration enforcement has reignited debates over immigration enforcement approaches within the United States. A key component of that discussion is the level of cooperation between federal immigration enforcement authorities and states and localities, especially state and local law enforcement agencies (LEAs).
Arguments in Favor of Sanctuary Policies
Supporters maintain that states and localities should not use their resources to assist with federal immigration enforcement efforts, particularly on aliens who have relatively minor or no criminal records and whose removal in some cases leads to family separation. They contend that state and local LEA cooperation with ICE confounds the perceived relationship between criminal law enforcement and civil immigration enforcement, inhibiting crime victims and potential witnesses from reporting crimes for fear of possible immigration-related consequences for themselves or family members. Defenders also maintain that constitutional principles of federalism allow states to choose not to participate in federal immigration enforcement activities.
Arguments Against Sanctuary Policies
Critics contend that sanctuary laws and policies impede immigration enforcement and create public safety hazards. They contend that the release of convicted criminal aliens into U.S. communities by state or local LEAs, rather than facilitating their custody transfer to federal immigration authorities, poses a danger to public safety. Critics posit that state and local LEA cooperation with ICE permits ICE agents to take custody of such individuals efficiently in safe, low-risk settings (e.g., jails, prisons). ICE maintains that, absent such cooperation, its agents must use multi-person teams to locate and remove criminal aliens under more hazardous circumstances. Other critics contend that sanctuary jurisdictions encourage aliens to illegally enter or remain in the United States by protecting them from immigration enforcement.
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF11438
Disclaimer:
These documents were prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role.