By: Mia Xia
Edited By: Iris Lin and Tess Ballis
Undocumented immigrants in America have long faced the fear of displacement. The United States has responded to citizen-hopefuls with deliberate exclusionary rhetoric, showing an unwillingness to support those seeking refuge in a country meant to harbor ideals of equality and acceptance. However, various cities, counties, and states across America have opted to declare themselves “sanctuary cities” in response to the federal-level policies. As sanctuary cities, these locations seek to limit encounters with federal-level immigration agencies, protecting low-priority undocumented immigrants while still cooperating to turn in serious crime offenders.[1] For example, if ICE agents were to enter a city with the intent to search for undocumented immigrants, local municipalities would not have an obligation to comply with or actively aid in federal processes. Rather, they can deny or disallow the agency from pursuing actions like jailing or detaining undocumented immigrants and requiring local officials to join in searching for undocumented immigrants. Many states have chosen to legally challenge the notion of sanctuary cities under pretenses of unconstitutionality. Nevertheless, Miami federal judge Beth Bloom’s blocking of Florida’s sanctuary city ban this September reflects the wider belief in a city’s right to protect undocumented immigrants.[2] This paper analyzes the legality of sanctuary cities under federal law, and how states can ultimately work within the legal confines to admit themselves as a sanctuary city.
In reality, the term ‘sanctuary city’ holds no legal weight, and the federal government has not officially recognized it as such.[3] Cities and states are not allowed to pass legislation that can limit cooperation with federal agencies, as it would be against federal law to do so.[4] This legal constraint appears in US Code Chapter 8, Section 1373: federal law prevents state or local governments from passing policy to prohibit federal agencies from sharing the legal status of an immigrant.[5] Even so, Section 1373 does not necessarily require state and local law to disclose collected information concerning an immigrant’s status and even allows for denial to comply with federal immigration agencies.[6]
Following the supremacy clause of the Tenth Amendment, federal law becomes the supreme law of the land which would allow for this declaration to persist over state jurisdiction. However, under the Tenth Amendment, federal governments are not permitted to “issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.”[7] In Arizona et al v. the United States, the Supreme Court has abided by this interpretation, delegating the duty of immigration enforcement to the federal government, with state and local law enforcement only obligated to carry out enforcement if authorized by federal orders.[8]
Even though sanctuary cities are technically legal, challenges have still arisen. They began in 2012 with the Obama administration contesting Cook County, Illinois’ refusal to cooperate with ICE. These challenges have only continued, as during the early stages of Trump’s presidency, the president began to question the legality of sanctuary cities using executive actions and judicial decisions.[9] Most notoriously, Executive Order 13767 of January 2017 imposed federal law to require state cooperation in the detaining and deportation of undocumented immigrants with threats of cutting federal funding.[10] However, as Section 1373 is the only real federal mandate that can be applied to state and local municipalities, many states and cities took proactive measures to refuse to abide by this executive order. Evanston officials answered by reaffirming their status as a sanctuary city, and even denouncing the denial of federal funds as unconstitutional.[11] California answered by passing their own policy, SB 54, or the California Values Act/the “sanctuary” law, which prevents jail officials from informing ICE when an undocumented immigrant prisoner is released unless warrants are presented.[12] As ICE would violate the Fourth Amendment when imposing unreasonable search and seizure without warrants, California ensured that they remained within the bounds of constitutionality and even used the wording of the Fourth Amendment to further guarantee the protection of undocumented immigrants from federal agencies.[13]
Even after constant legal challenges and threats of cutting federal funding, sanctuary jurisdiction still remains strong in the protection of undocumented immigrants. As of now, seven states have declared themselves sanctuary cities, and 24 states hold counties that also define themselves as such.[14] Contrary to Trump’s rhetoric of sanctuary cities as “hotbeds for crime,” these regions find lower rates of all crimes compared to non-sanctuary counties.[15] This is because a mutual level of trust and accountability between undocumented immigrants and state/local agencies occurs when both parties acknowledge the stakes at hand. If an undocumented immigrant commits a serious crime, there poses a serious risk to their ability to remain in America and likewise, if cities seek to comply with federal immigration officials, undocumented immigrants are less likely to report crime and assist investigations in fear of deportation.[16] In the end, an easier path to citizenship is key to allowing every person to find refuge and pursue economic opportunities in America. For now, however, sanctuary cities are the best answer in protecting a population that the federal government unjustly targets.
Notes:
Dara Lind, Sanctuary Cities, Explained, (Vox, 8 March 2018). https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/8/17091984/sanctuary-cities-city-state-illegal-immigration-sessions.
Ana Ceballos, Miami federal judge blocks Florida from enforcing ban on ‘sanctuary cities,’ (Miami Herald, 21 September 2021) https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/immigration/article254422638.html
Lind, Sanctuary Cities, Explained.
8 U.S. Code § 1373 - Communication between Government Agencies and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, (LII / Legal Information Institute) www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1373.
Sanctuary Policies: An Overview, (American Immigration Council, 21 October 2020). https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/sanctuary-policies-overview.
Sanctuary Policies: An Overview.
Arizona et al. v. United States, (US Supreme Court, October 2011), https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-182b5e1.pdf.
Grace Benton, The Legality of Sanctuary Cities, (Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, 2019), https://www.law.georgetown.edu/immigration-law-journal/in-print/the-legality-of-sanctuary-cities/.
Executive Order 13767, (Federal Register, 25 January 2017), https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/30/2017-02095/border-security-and-immigration-enforcement-improvements.
Mariana Alfaro, Evanston Chicago vow to uphold immigration policies amid U.S. Justice Department threats, (The Daily Northwestern, 29 March 2017), https://dailynorthwestern.com/2017/03/29/city/evanston-chicago-vow-to-uphold-immigration-policies-amid-u-s-justice-department-threats/.
Lind, Sanctuary Cities, Explained.
The Current State of Sanctuary Law, (Southern Poverty Law Center, 8 March 2018), https://www.splcenter.org/20180308/current-state-sanctuary-law.
Sanctuary Cities, (Aspan Law Offices), http://www.apsanlaw.com/law-246.list-of-sanctuary-cities.html.
Christopher Ingrahm, Trump says sanctuary cities are hotbeds of crime. Data say the opposite, (The Washington Post, 27 January 2017), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/01/27/trump-says-sanctuary-cities-are-hotbeds-of-crime-data-say-the-opposite/.
Ingrahm, Trump says sanctuary cities are hotbeds of crime. Data say the opposite.
Ibid.
Bibliography:
“8 U.S. Code § 1373 - Communication between Government Agencies and the Immigration and Naturalization Service.” LII / Legal Information Institute, www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1373. Accessed 6 Nov. 2021.
Alfaro, Mariana. “Evanston Chicago vow to uphold immigration policies amid U.S. Justice Department threats.” The Daily Northwestern, 29 March 2017. https://dailynorthwestern.com/2017/03/29/city/evanston-chicago-vow-to-uphold-immigration-policies-amid-u-s-justice-department-threats/
“Arizona et al. v. United States,” US Supreme Court, October 2011. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-182b5e1.pdf
Benton, Grace. “The Legality of Sanctuary Cities,” Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, 2019. https://www.law.georgetown.edu/immigration-law-journal/in-print/the-legality-of-sanctuary-cities/
Ceballos, Ana. “Miami federal judge blocks Florida from enforcing ban on ‘sanctuary cities.’” Miami Herald, 21 September 2021. https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/immigration/article254422638.html
“Executive Order 13767.” Federal Register, 25 January 2017. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/30/2017-02095/border-security-and-immigration-enforcement-improvements
Ingraham, Christopher. “Trump says sanctuary cities are hotbeds of crime. Data say the opposite.” The Washington Post, 27 January 2017. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/01/27/trump-says-sanctuary-cities-are-hotbeds-of-crime-data-say-the-opposite/
Lind, Dara. “Sanctuary Cities, Explained.” Vox, 8 March 2018. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/8/17091984/sanctuary-cities-city-state-illegal-immigration-sessions
“Sanctuary Cities.” Aspan Law Offices. http://www.apsanlaw.com/law-246.list-of-sanctuary-cities.html
“Sanctuary Policies: An Overview.” American Immigration Council, 21 October 2020. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/sanctuary-policies-overview
“The Current State of Sanctuary Law.” Southern Poverty Law Center, 8 March 2018. https://www.splcenter.org/20180308/current-state-sanctuary-law
