Despite an increased push to enforce immigration laws at the federal level, some localities still maintain “sanctuary policies,” which bar local police from asking suspects about their immigration status or reporting them to immigration authorities.

Recognizing the adoption of sanctuary policies as a growing impediment to combating the wave of illegal aliens residing in the country, in 1996 Congress barred local ordinances that prohibit employees from providing information on illegal aliens to federal officials.However,Houston, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Diego, and other major cities have sanctuary policies in place.

Sanctuary is a religious term that dates back to biblical times, when places of refuge were set up to protect people fearing retribution for civil and criminal offenses. Most recently, in the context of immigration, some American churches began adopting sanctuary policies in the 1980s for Central Americans who entered the U.S. illegally during revolutionary insurgency in their homelands. The Justice Dept. refused to recognize these sanctuary declarations and successfully prosecuted clerical and lay persons for harboring illegal aliens.

Some cities also adopted similar policies for aliens seeking to evade U.S. immigration laws and specifically prohibited city employees, including police, from cooperating with federal immigration law enforcement authorities.Los Angeles adopted a sanctuary policy in 1979 when the city police commission issued an order barring cooperation between the police and the immigration service. Other cities, including Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle, and New York City adopted similar policies. Municipal councils, including those in Baltimore, Denver, and Detroit, have advised their police departments to ignore federal immigration laws unless there is reasonable cause to suspect other criminal behavior.

The Federal Government Response to Local Sanctuary Policies

Recognizing the adoption of sanctuary policies as a growing impediment to combating the wave of illegal aliens residing in the country, Congress adopted measures in 1996 that barred local ordinances that prohibited employees from providing information on illegal aliens to federal officials.The law says, “Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State or local law, 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 … information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.”[1]

A Continuing Challenge to Federal Immigration Enforcement Policies

New York City, which in 1989 had adopted a non-cooperation policy, sued to overturn the new federal law.The case eventually went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which refused in 2000 to overturn an Appeals Court ruling against the city’s non-cooperation policy.[2]The Appeals Court had found that the city had no right to “passive resistance,” because such claims violate the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.As a result, Mayor Bloomberg reluctantly rescinded the policy in 2003, but, in the face of political protests from supporters of illegal aliens, he reinstated a similar “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for the police. In Washington, D.C. — the other “ground zero” city in the September 11 attacks — police chief Charles Ramsey took pains to reassure the Latino Lawyers Association that the police were not backsliding on a 1984 executive order that prohibits D.C. government employees from getting involved in immigration matters.[3]

In the face of stepped-up federal efforts to better enforce immigration laws in the aftermath of September 11, a number of jurisdictions have reaffirmed and even intensified their non-cooperation policies protecting illegal immigrants. Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, city councils in Seattle and Portland, Maine, adopted non-cooperation policies requiring local police to ignore evidence of an illegal alien’s status, even if that information was revealed in the normal course of their duties.

The Sanctuary Policy Debate

Local jurisdictions that have adopted sanctuary proposals have heeded arguments that fear by illegal aliens of apprehension and deportation will cause them to avoid cooperation with police and other public officials.Sanctuary proponents argue that this fear deters witnesses from reporting crimes, undermines public health campaigns to control the spread of communicable diseases, and forces illegal aliens to live in an underground society that undermines government.

This argument ignores the fact that if illegal aliens were deterred from coming or were removed, the problem of the spread of communicable diseases and some forms of crime could be diminished.And the deterrence of illegal immigration and removal of those already here will be more effective with federal-local coordinated enforcement of the immigration law.

The argument against sanctuary policies is similar to the argument against adopting amnesty for illegal aliens.Accommodating those who violate our immigration law encourages others to follow the same path.A growing illegal alien population lowers wages and work standards at the low end of the job market, adds to overcrowded housing, creates an underground economy that undermines the tax base, and has other negative consequences. Looking the other way does not solve the problem; it only permits it to grow larger.

As a result of the large flow of illegal aliens into sanctuary cities, there are deteriorating conditions in many them and a net flow of American residents out of them.Seeing the outflow of native-born residents, local politicians and real estate interests then argue that the population will decrease if new immigrants — ignoring the difference between legal and illegal residents — are made less welcome.They thereby make themselves dependent on the influx of immigrants, including illegal aliens, to avoid a declining population resulting from the exodus of native-born residents.Studies of 1990 Census data began to show that the flight of established residents from cities with large immigrant populations is not the commonly assumed “white flight” to the suburbs, but rather is more diverse and includes large numbers of blue collar workers who are the most likely to see their jobs taken by illegal immigrants willing to work for lower wages.[4]The 2000 Census showed this problem increasing because older, established immigrant residents were joining the exodus from these localities.[5]

The most compelling argument for ending local sanctuary policies is that they undermine federal anti-terrorism efforts.It is a sad fact of life since September 11, 2001 that we must be more vigilant regarding the activities of foreigners in our midst.The underground society of illegal aliens, with street sales of fake identity documents, creates a nurturing environment for terrorists.With an estimated 9-11 million illegal aliens residing in the U.S. and fewer than 2,000 trained federal immigration agents to carry out interior enforcement responsibilities, it is clear that sanctuary policies seriously hamper efforts to harness local police capabilities in augmenting federal enforcement of immigration laws.

FAIR is involved in working with local activists to inform local officials regarding the counter-productiveness and illegality of non-cooperation policies.E-mail communications on this issue should be directed to attorney@fairus.org.