What Are Sanctuary Cities and How Are They Bracing for
Trump’s Immigration Crackdown? (with Lesson Plan)
ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2015/07/10/explainer-what-are-sanctuary-cities/
By Matthew Green and Jessica Tarlton
Teach with the Lowdown
Suggestions for nonfiction analysis, writing/discussion
prompts and multimedia projects. Browse our lesson plan
collection here.
Lesson Plan: Sanctuary Cities (PDF)
Just days after taking office, President Trump signed a
sweeping executive order making good on his key
campaign pledge to crack down on illegal immigration. In
addition to authorizing the construction of a border wall with Mexico and beefing up immigration enforcement, the
order also threatens to cut billions of dollars in federal funds from so-called sanctuary cities.
Sanctuary cities have long been in Trump’s crosshairs. The term refers to the scores of cities and counties across
the United States that limit their cooperation with federal immigration authorities by refusing most requests to detain,
pursue or report undocumented immigrants (those here illegally) who have had contact with local law enforcement.
“Sanctuary jurisdictions across the United States willfully violate Federal law in an attempt to shield aliens from
removal from the United States,” the order states. It warns that those jurisdiction that don’t comply with federal
immigration enforcement efforts will lose federal funding. “These jurisdictions have caused immeasurable harm to
the American people and to the very fabric of our Republic.”
Trump’s order instructs federal immigration authorities to target a broader group of immigrants for deportation. It
calls for the removal of immigrants “who have committed acts that constitute a chargeable criminal offense” or pose
a public safety risk.
In response to Trump’s unexpected victory in November, 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 sanctuary polices, and have continued to stand by those positions in the face of the recent
order.
“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,” Oakland Mayor
Libby Schaaf stated shortly after the election.
San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee reiterated that sentiment on Jan. 26 in his State of the City address: “We are a
sanctuary city now, tomorrow, forever.”
On Jan. 31, San Francisco became the first city to sue Trump over his order to defund sanctuary jurisdictions. The
lawsuit argues that the order is an unconstitutional overreach of the president’s power, in violation of the 10th
Amendment, which it says protects the sovereignty of local jurisdictions.
“President Trump’s executive order tries to turn city and state employees into federal immigration officers. That is
1/6
unconstitutional,” San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said when announcing the suit. “No president can
commandeer the local police force and turn it into the deportation arm of the federal government.”
San Francisco receives nearly $500 million a year in federal funds, which would be at risk if Trump’s order survives
in court.
Although U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) relies on local authorities to help enforce immigration
laws, a 2013 federal appeals court decision concluded that those local agencies are not legally required to detain
undocumented immigrants when requested to do so.
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 million to 12 million undocumented immigrants currently reside in the United States.
So … what are sanctuary cities?
There’s no official legal definition, and what it means varies significantly from place to place. Generally speaking,
local law enforcement in sanctuary cities or counties don’t ask or report the immigration status of people they come
into contact with.
A sanctuary jurisdiction typically refuses requests from federal immigration authorities to detain undocumented
immigrants apprehended for low-level offenses. For example, when someone gets arrested for a DUI, he or she
might spend the night in jail, get processed and then released. If this person is undocumented, though, federal
immigration authorities would be alerted and may ask local officials to hold this person for longer, and possibly
deport them. A city or county with a sanctuary policy would generally deny that request unless legally mandated to
do so.
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 the 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 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 keep local police from inquiring about the immigration status of those arrested, one of the first cities in the country
to do so.
2/6
Note: not all metro areas shown here are necessarily sanctuary cities.
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.
Are sanctuary cities more dangerous?
On the campaign trail, and now as president, Trump has consistently claimed that sanctuary cities “breed crime” and
have resulted in “so many needless deaths,” with the underlying suggestion that undocumented immigrants are
more prone to violent criminal activity.
The language in his recent executive order underscores this:
“Many aliens who illegally enter the United States and those who overstay or otherwise violate the terms of their
visas present a significant threat to national security and public safety.”
Crime statistics, however, suggest otherwise.
A recent analysis of FBI crime data by UC San Diego political science professor Tom Wong found that most counties
considered “sanctuary” jurisdictions have notably lower rates of all types of crime, including homicide, than
comparable non-sanctuary counties. In 2015, large metro sanctuary counties had 654 crimes fewer crimes per
100,000 people than large central metro non-sanctuary counties, the report found. That’s nearly 15 percent less
crime in sanctuary counties.
In smaller counties, the discrepancy was similar. The main exception, the report found, was in medium metro areas
and counties bordering on large metro areas, where crime rates in sanctuary jurisdictions were slightly higher.
3/6
The report, it should be noted, was published by the Center for American Progress, a progressive policy
organization. And it shows correlation, not causation. In other words, there no definitive proof that sanctuary policies
actually cause lower crime rates (it could just be a coincidence).
Another study by the American Immigration Council, a pro-immigrant group, analyzed FBI and census data from
1980 through 2010. It found that among men ages 18 to 49, immigrants (both legal and illegal) were far less likely
than native-born Americans to engage in criminal behavior or to be incarcerated.
Now keep in mind that both of these studies were conducted by left-leaning organizations with progressive agendas.
And even though the conclusions are based squarely on federal statistics, skeptics are likely to counter that the
authors used selective data to produce desired results.
Nevertheless, several national policing associations seem to have embraced these findings. As the Washington Post
recently reported, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, representing the 63 largest urban areas in the nation, stated
in a 2006 report, that “immigration enforcement by local police would likely negatively affect and undermine the level
of trust and cooperation between local police and immigrant communities,” which would “would result in increased
crime against immigrants and in the broader community, create a class of silent victims and eliminate the potential
for assistance from immigrants in solving crimes or preventing future terroristic acts.”
The International Association of Chiefs of Police reiterated this position, writing that “state and local law enforcement
should not be involved in the enforcement of civil immigration laws since such involvement would likely have a
chilling effect on both legal and illegal aliens reporting criminal activity or assisting police in criminal investigations.”
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 (an ordinance, resolution or law enforcement directive) that limits how much local law enforcement officials
can cooperate 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 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.
4/6
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?
Although 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 directive prohibiting 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 LopezSanchez, 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.
Explore: Immigration, Lesson Plans and Educator Guides, immigration, sanctuary cities
45 Comments
Related
Who Are California's Undocumented Immigrants? A Cartoon Explainer
Debate Bingo and Other Essentials for the Third Presidential Debate
Interactive: The Brief Life and Slow Death of Obama's Immigration Reforms
The Big Issues of the 2016 Election: Where Trump and Clinton Stand (with Lesson Plan)
Infographic: How Has Immigration to America Changed in the Last 50 Years?
Is America Still the Land of Opportunity? An Illustrated Explainer
Powered by
5/6
6/6