RELIABLE.
NONPARTISAN.
EMPOWERING.
NONPARTISAN.
EMPOWERING.
Sanctuary Cities: Top 3 Pros and Cons
| Monday, June 15, 2020 | Author: ProCon.org | MORE HEADLINES | |
While there is no official legal definition of "sanctuary city," the term generally refers to towns, cities, or counties that decline to cooperate completely with federal detention requests related to undocumented immigrants, often with a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. [2] Some argue that sanctuary cities such as San Francisco, New York, and Chicago should not receive federal funding because they are not enforcing federal immigration laws. Others say that sanctuary city policies protect both citizens and undocumented immigrants.
|
|
Should Sanctuary Cities Receive Federal Funding? |
| Pro 1 Sanctuary cities encourage better relationships between undocumented immigrants and law enforcement. Josh Harkinson of Mother Jones says undocumented immigrant cooperation with police is statistically proven to make sanctuary cities safer. [15] Murder rates in San Francisco, one of the oldest sanctuary cities, were at their lowest in 2014 (with 45 murders) since the 1989 "City of Refuge” ordinance was enacted. [15] San Francisco’s murder rate is lower than comparable non-sanctuary cities, with 5.75 murders per 100,000 residents in 2013 compared to 11.39 in Dallas and 15.17 in Indianapolis. [15] 70% of undocumented immigrants are less likely to report being the victim of a crime, and 45% of Latinos are less likely report crimes or voluntarily offer information about a crime for fear police officers would about their immigration status. [15] [16] The fear of being asked about immigration status also makes people less likely to cooperate with investigations. [19] |
Con 1 |
|
Pro 2 Sanctuary policies are legal and protected by the Tenth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution provides for the separation of federal and state powers. According to the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, the Amendment prevents the "federal government from coercing state or local governments to use their resources to enforce a federal regulatory program, like immigration," and, thus, Congress cannot compel state or local governments to collect immigration status information in order to share it with the federal government. [4][7] Because the data are never collected due to "don’t ask, don’t tell" policies, the local and state governments are not in violation of federal law. [4] |
Con 2 Sanctuary policies defy federal laws to which state and local governments are bound. 8 U.S. Code § 1373 states that "a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual." [5] The Department of Justice requires that most recipients of federal grant money certify their compliance with all federal laws. [4][6] Sanctuary cities, by not asking about, recording, and submitting to the federal government the immigration statuses of residents, are violating federal law and the rules for getting federal grant money. |
|
Pro 3 Sanctuary cities protect undocumented immigrants against federal immigration laws. Many people believe that the federal immigration deportation policies are unjust because they target undocumented immigrants indiscriminately, deport people who have lived in the United States since childhood, deport people who have committed no crimes, separate families, and cause people to live in constant fear of deportation and its devastating consequences. Libby Schaaf, Mayor of Oakland, CA, said, "I like to compare this to conscientious objector status. We are not going to use our resources to enforce what we believe are unjust immigration laws." [11] |
|
Trump Administration Policy on Sanctuary Jurisdictions On Feb. 26, 2020, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Department of Justice (DOJ) could withhold funding from sanctuary jurisdictions. The ruling followed three other federal appeals court rulings stating that the Trump administration could not withhold federal funds from sanctuary jurisdictions. President Trump tweeted on Mar. 5, 2020, "As per Federal Court, ruling, the Federal Government will be withholding funds from Sanctuary Cities. They should change their status and go non-Sanctuary. Do not protect criminals!" [22] In an Apr. 29, 2020 press conference, Trump stated that he didn't think states and cities with sanctuary policies should receive federal aid for COVID-19 (coronavirus): "[W]e shouldn't have to pay anything anyway because all they do is make it very hard for law enforcement... I don’t see helping cities and states if they’re going to be sanctuary. Because all sanctuary means to me is it’s protecting a lot of criminals." [27] On Apr. 30, 2020, a 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the Trump administration's policy of withholding federal grants for law enforcement from cities with sanctuary policies. Since it stands in contradiction with a different appeals court, this ruling may lead to the issue being brought to the Supreme Court. [28] On June 15, 2020, the US Supreme Court declined to hear the Trump administration's appeal challenging California's sanctuary policy. The refusal leaves in place a 9th Circuit Ruling that upheld the state's policy. |
 |
|
New York City, a sanctuary city Source: Ivan2010, "Manhattan, New York City," Wikipedia.org, Aug. 14, 2015 |
|
Discussion Questions - Things to Think About |
|
|
READER FAVORITES
 TRANSLATE into 100+ Languages and Dialects |
